Showing posts with label Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center. Show all posts

Thursday, November 14, 2013

DHECC - Are Juneau's days numbered?

So much to talk about with the DHECC...where to begin?

Let's start with this James Varney editorial that came out weekend before last.

A trial lawyer web entangles the BP settlement:  James Varney

This whole editorial appears to be a plant that was given to Varney in order to set up an ensuing effort to remove Pat Juneau from the Claims Office.  I wouldn't mind it that much but Varney seems to have only a half-ass idea of what he's writing about.  Juneau is not a trail attorney, he's a defense attorney.

Also this pargraph:
In addition, the things Freeh did outline - Sutton's failure to disclose a financial interest he and his wife, Christine Reitano (herself a lawyer on Juneau's staff prior to being dismissed), had with a filing claimant and other shenanigans by trial lawyers - served to cast a dubious light on the proceedings thus far.
This has been refuted by both Sutton and Reitano...they both claim the Thonn claim was disclosed to Juneau.  Varney stated they didn't disclose the claim as fact, not an allegation.

 I'm also curious what Varney means by "other shenanigans by trial lawyers".  What the fuck does that mean?

The sentence implies that Reitano had something to do with "other shenanigans by trial lawyers".  I have read the Freeh report, the Andry filings and Reitano's breach of contract suit and I don't have any idea what he's talking about unless he's referring to the unnamed law firm on Page 60 of the report.

I want to pause make an observation about the TP before I continue.  Why is the first report of this story in the Time-Picayune coming from an editorialist?  This column is an obvious plant that wreaks of an agenda.

I have pretty good idea who Varney got the information from and why it was published ahead of the second Freeh report's release but why aren't these issues actually being "reported" by the TP?  They're letting Varney break (incorrectly I might add) one of the biggest stories in the region?  Why isn't an actual reporter being assigned to this story?

The Freeh report should be coming out any day and judging from Varney's proxy-mouthpiece-editorial it's rather apparent it will most likely target Juneau.

Aside from Varney's article, an even bigger indicator that Juneau is in hot water occurred on October 30th when Judge Barbier appointed Court-Designated Neutrals over the Business Economic Loss (BEL) Program.  It's clearly a smack-down by Barbier and I believe a sign of darker days to come for Juneau.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Juneau's resignation tendered any day now.

Speaking of resignations, I think it would also be prudent to look at the resignation of Appeals Coordinator and son of Federal Judge Stanwood Duval, Jr., David Duval, that occurred on October 7, 2013 and was first reported here on AZ.  Instead of running down all of the possibilities as to why Duval resigned, I'll refer you to the thread of questions posed by AZ commenter, Kevin, in this Comment Bump.  But mainly, I want to point out a comment in that comment bump:
Kevin said....
More questions Mr. Andry might have for Mr. Duval:
 
Is an entity know as "Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc." named as a plaintiff in the class action case that produced the class action settlement 
Is Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc. a "Class Representative" for the class action settlement being administered by the DHECC and CAO? 
Is any member of your family's law practice a director of Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc.?
Big frikkin' deal here, folks...believe me when I tell you...this is a big deal.  I am hoping we will find out more when Freeh releases the next report.

Here's another big deal from a Kevin comment:
Kevin said... 
On the subject of CPA's in the CAO, can any AZ reader shed some light on Danny Clavier's activities at the CAO? 
He was the former head of the Class Action Consulting section of Bourgeois Bennet ( where David Duval's aunt is a principal) and came out of "retirement" for a position with the CAO.  
I think we're about to find out more on this issue by the end of the week as well.

I believe the heads of Juneau, Duval and Clavier will most likely roll as a consequence of the next Freeh report.  Well, Duval's already has if he was indeed forced to resign as a result of the Freeh investigation.

But what I'm most curious about is if Freeh will finally name the mysterious law firm on page 60 of his original report that "may have had claims overpaid by up to 114%.  As I pointed out in the post linked above, the most likely suspect as to who this law firm is would be one of the Plaintiff Steering Committee firms.  I draw this conclusion because a PSC firm would have the most intimate knowledge of the claims process, how the CAO works and it also goes a long way to explaining why Freeh (and possibly Barbier) protected the firm's identity in the first report.

It begs the question, "How could a PSC firm have manipulated the claims process to get such massive overpayments?"  I suspect they could accomplish this by manipulating their knowledge of how the parameters were set for individual classifications and payouts.  After all, they are the ones that set the parameters and classifications to begin with.

I'm going to draw out a hypothetical scenario in a subsequent post on how the process may have been manipulated with claims filed by shrimpers but for now I want to stay focused on Barbier and the validity and implications of the Freeh investigation.

On November 7, Both BP and Patrick Juneau filed motions in federal court to have Christine Reitano's breech of contract lawsuit against the DHECC and BP removed from the state court.  The case was automatically assigned to Barbier and filed under MDL (multi-district litigation) status.  I thought the protocol for both filings should have been randomly assigned to judges but I called the Clerk of Court's office and they told me that they are under a mandate from the national MDL judicial panel to assign anything having to do with BP to Barbier.

This is a big issue because it will most likely bury the lawsuit for years and put a lid on any discovery that may have occurred in the case.

Barbier has also denied discovery to the three parties Freeh accused in his first report, Reitano, Sutton and the Andry Lerner law firm.  This has created a scenario where the court appointed special investigator has levied allegations against these three parties, even suggesting that the state and/or federal bar as well as the Dept. of Justice investigate the matter, however, the accused have no access to the evidence Freeh based the allegations on.  They have no avenue of recourse at all.

Apparently this isn't the first time this scenario has occurred with a Freeh investigation but in the Penn State Sandusky matter the tables were turned on Freeh:

Louis Freeh Fires Back at Graham Spanier for Lawsuit
“Spanier has not articulated — and cannot articulate — a single reason why he will be prejudiced if he is compelled merely to file a complaint backing his accusation,” the filing continued. “If Spanier does not file a complaint, [Freeh] will remain stuck in the untenable position of having Spanier’s broad accusation clouding their reputations without being able to defend themselves.”
The comment section is worth a 5 to 10 minute glance on that story.

This next Freeh report is going to be revealing not only by what he discloses but more importantly by what he may omit...namely the identity of the page 60 law firm.  It's going to reveal if this investigation is fo' true or if it is simply a PR witch hunt that was designed to offer up a few souls to the BP altar as an attempt at pacification.

I would also note that I requested an interview with David Odom, the CEO of the DHECC but I received no response.  I have some questions I'd like to ask him about his relationship with one of the court appointed vendors.  

Monday, October 28, 2013

Will Barbier do the right thing?

In the last post, I brought up the interesting point that in his report on the DHECC, Louis Freeh suggested an unnamed law firm may have had claims overpaid by up to 114%.  I questioned the fact that Freeh had no qualms about naming Lionel Sutton, Christine Reitano (Sutton's wife) and the Andry Lerner law firm in his report but for some unknown reason he didn't release the name of the law firm on page 60.

This is a pretty big deal because he's effectively destroyed Sutton and Reitano's reputation by listing them both in the report.  Reitano has denied any wrongdoing and is now suing both Patrick Juneau and BP for defamation.  Why would Freeh name Sutton, Reitano and Andry Lerner but protect the identity of this firm?

I've been doing a lot of speculating with my legal-eagle readers and friends about why this firm went unnamed.  Here are some of our theories, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive:

- Freeh is continuing the investigation into the misconduct of the unnamed firm and was not ready to release their name at the time he published the report.

- The claim may be unsubstantiated and found to have been false upon further examination.

- The law firm may, in fact, be a PSC (Plaintiff Steering Committee) firm that used their position to manipulate the claims process to their advantage and get the increase in payments.  This may simply be such a huge can of worms that Judge Barbier had Freeh back off the firm in order to preserve the integrity of the Claims Office.

- Freeh may not be as autonomous as he pretends and the law firm had enough stroke with him and/or Judge Barbier to keep themselves out of the frying pan.

- Barbier may have given the law firm the opportunity to pay back the overpayments in order to not be exposed and mar the Claims Office.

Here's what I think...I think it's most likely a combination of the last three theories.  The first question is what law firm would have enough stroke within the DHECC to manipulate the claims to get a 114% overpayment.  I think that it almost has to be, without a doubt, a PSC firm.  I also think that it would almost have to be a local, Louisiana-based firm.  That narrows the possibilities down to what?  About 9 of the 12 original firms?  There's Calvin Fayard, Steve Herman, Jim Roy, Motley Rice, Micheal C. Palmintier, Paul M. Sterbcow, Matthew E. Lundy, Duke Williams,  and Phillip Cossich.  You can check out this post I made for a graphic map of the PSC.

I honestly don't know, 100%, who the firm is but I have about a 90% hunch of who it might be.  If I'm right it would also explain why local media outlets, especially the Times-Picayune, are virtually ignoring this story and the past two legal filings by Andry Lerner and Reitano.  In fact, they aren't even reporting on the matter, themselves, they're just reposting AP reports.  Nola.com posted the Reitano AP report, left it up for about two hours and immediately pushed it to archives.  Why is the AP the only entity reporting what may be the biggest story in the city at the moment?  Maybe The Advocate and Nola.com are working on it but I suspect the story is purposely being muted because of who the unnamed firm may be.

NOTE:  The AP story said Reitano's suit was a defamation suit...it's not.  Her suit is actually for breach of contract.  

For the moment, let's assume Freeh's unnamed firm is a PSC firm.

Please note that I have continually addressed issues that have been reported to me with some of the PSC firms, particularly those who were also placed on the Wisner settlement with BP for the City of New Orleans.  If you haven't seen the issues I have brought up, here are some links you should read now:

American Zombie: The Wisner Fund - Battle for the Bayou - Part 2

American Zombie: Thieves in The Temple

American Zombie: A little help

American Zombie: "Complaints"

American Zombie: Item # 2

American Zombie: Sounds of the Jungle

Aside from the clear collusion between Steve Herman and BP lawyers regarding the Wisner property I laid out in email chains in the first link, Wisner Part 2, I have been researching two overarching claims of wrongdoing by some of the PSC firms:

1.  Some of the PSC law firms used their clout to push their own private claims ahead of other claims being processed in the DHECC.

2.  At least one of the PSC law firms sold the "formula" to the claims process before the DHECC office even opened in order to give an advantage to law firms who wanted to get their claims processed first.

On item number two, I have been very close to getting a source to go on the record about being approached to purchase this "formula" but ultimately they decided not to.  I'm still working on that item though, so don't give up on me just yet.  I have no doubt this allegation is true.

The thing is, if any of these claims are proven against a PSC firm, including the 114% overpayment alleged by Freeh, this could lead to catastrophic legal implications.

The reason this is such a big deal, and the reason I've been pounding the drum about it for so long, is that these PSC lawyers were appointed to represent the claimants in the DHECC and the people of the Gulf who were affected by the BP spill...people who are still suffering from the BP spill.  Many of these people have filed claims and still not been paid.  Some have been waiting a year or more.

As we all know, BP is trying to shut the DHECC down and kill the settlement completely.  If that were to happen, all the folks with claims left queued in the Claims Office are most likely shit outta luck.  If a PSC firm got their clients paid first, and overpaid, they are directly responsible for dissing the claimants who may not get paid.  I'm not even sure what happens at that point.  Could the remaining claimants file a class action malpractice suit against one or more of the PSC firms?  Not sure if that's legally possible but it seems as if it should be.

I suspect there is a massive suppression campaign taking place right now to try and squash this genie back in the bottle.  I hope that doesn't happen.  Not only would that not be fair to the people actually named in the Freeh report, Reitano, Sutton and Andry Lerner, it wouldn't be fair to the hard working people of the Gulf Coast who were devastated by BP's greed and incompetence.

The one person who must know the answers to these questions is Federal Judge Carl Barbier.  Let's hope he does the right thing.  We've seen too many rich, wealthy, fat cats get away with crimes in this city in the past couple years...crimes that have a direct impact on our society.  I hope that pattern doesn't continue here.  

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Freeh is challenged again

One week after the Andry Lerner law firm filed a memo in federal court refuting Louis Freeh's accusations of misconduct in respect to the BP settlement, another attorney accused of misconduct, a former high level employee of the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center (DHECC), has filed suit for breach of contract against BP, Orleans Parish and Patrick Juneau, the DHECC administrator.

Christine Reitano is the wife of Lionel Sutton, another lawyer who was also working for the DHECC.  Both Reitano and Sutton were called out in Louis Freeh's report for misconduct and potential illicit activity along with the Andry Lerner law firm.  Sutton resigned from the DHECC in the wake of the allegations, Reitano did not resign but was then fired by Juneau.

 Reitano was accused by Freeh of accepting a commission for a referral on a claim, the "Thonn Claim", that she referred to the Andry Lerner law firm, after she had accepted a position to work in the Claims Center for Patrick Juneau.

In this filing, Reitano states that she never received any commission for the referral and the evidence on which Freeh based his allegation, a deposition by Andry Lerner attorney, Christina Mancuso, was misinterpreted by Freeh.

Reitano claims that she disclosed her involvement with the claimant, Thonn, before she accepted the position with the DHECC and that Juneau was made aware of the existing relationship.  When Reitano took the job at the Claims Center, the Thonn claim was made known to Juneau but did not appear to be an issue.

The Freeh report also notes that the Thonn claim was examined internally by the DHECC in January of 2013, well before Freeh was brought on board to conduct his investigation.  Apparently, the matter was not acted upon at that time.

Freeh also claimed that Reitano used her position in the office to try and procure a job for her husband, Lionel Sutton, with the Garden City Group, a court vendor of the DHECC.  Reitano maintains that the matter was discussed but was never acted upon after it was vetted with the Claims Center and deemed unethical.  Reitano states that Juneau was made aware of this issue as well.

Here is the petition.  I also have the exhibits but I need to re-compress them before I upload them.

Read through the petition....I will comment later.  This is an interesting turn of events that may have opened up a can of worms in that she has filed against BP, not just Juneau.  If this goes into discovery and she is deposed on record....there could be some sphincterific panic among some of the members of the DHECC office and the PSC (Plaintiff Steering Committee) crew.

Remember that Freeh suggested potential misconduct by another law firm on page 60 of his report. He states that this firm may have had claims overpaid by up to 114%.  What's interesting is that this law firm's identity was not disclosed in the report but Sutton, Reitano and Andry Lerner were.  Why wasn't this second firm named?

We'll take a closer look in the next post.


Saturday, October 19, 2013

DHECC - Comment Bump, October 19, 2013

Kevin has left a new comment on your post "DHECC - Freeh's interests may not be so free": 

Just a few personal thoughts on what kind of questions Mr. Andry might want to ask the witnesses, assuming he is granted access to them:

Did David Duval resign for any reasons connected to the information appearing in the Freeh report?

Is he prevented from assisting anyone in bringing BP claims?

Is he working for the family firm in Houma?

How many BP claims has the family firm brought for others?

Did he work or help or have lunch with anyone on any of those?

Did he have any involvement in any BP claims where the CPA firm Bourgeois Bennett was also involved (his aunt is a principal in that firm)?

Same question for Duval Shearer CPA?

Is David Duval involved with the Crescent City Group?

Who hired Kirk Fisher and why?

Who hired David Odom and why?

Who hired all the other MBAs from the Class of 2012?

Did the MBAs have preferential knowledge of or access to these claims center jobs?

Were there any other applicants for these claims center jobs now held by the MBAs?

Were any other people interviewed for these jobs?

Do the MBAs work for the Crescent City Group?

What kind of work is done by the MBAs and does it take someone with an MBA to do it?

Is Michael Olinde the treasurer of Crescent City Group?

Did Kirk Fisher know Michael Olinde before 2010? 

Did David Odom know Michael Olinde before 2010? Did they graduate from high school together? Before 2010, did they invest any money together?

Last question (for now): What is it y’all say I did wrong, again?


I’m wondering if Pat Juneau is one of the “other persons” to whom Mr. Andry wants access. He does list Pat’s son, Michael.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

The DHECC - Examining the "Claims" - Part 1

Alrighty...I'm trying something new here on AZ.  I've oft been criticized for my writing mostly because it's too "complicated" to understand especially when I'm writing about complex issues. With that in mind, I've decided to branch out and try some Voice Over (VO) narration, nothing fancy, to explain the following series of posts I'm going to make regarding the DHECC and the potential for fraud taking place within the claims process and the possible manipulation of the process by the PSC lawyers.  It is pretty complicated stuff but I hope to make it less complicated with this VO.

I am enclosing links below, as well an open letter I have sent to Federal Judge, Carl J. Barbier.  Let me know what you think and I do have a rough draft of the V.O. if anyone wants me to publish text.  

Thanks.


Here is the letter I sent to Judge Barbier requesting the claims data be redacted of any personal claimant information and made public: