DHECC - Lionel Sutton Interview Part 3 - recipe for a zombie

In the third installment of the Lionel Sutton interview series, I’m going to focus on the investigation conducted by Special Master Louis Freeh which led to Sutton, his wife Christine Reitano, and the Andry Lerner Law Firm being accused of various criminal activity.   Specifically, we will examine how, in Reitano’s case, these allegations led to termination from the Claims Office.

Fraud    ...       

Before we get into the nuances of the "Freeh Style" investigation techniques, I want to show you a particular sound byte regarding fraudulent seafood claims.

Folks have criticized me for “burying the lead” in past posts, and I think they have a damn good point so let’s kick this post off with a bang:

Lionel Sutton - 15 - Page 60 - 2.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

A disclaimer:  Lionel qualified this statement by saying he was not absolutely sure that this particular instance of fraud is what Louis Freeh was referring to on page 60 of his first report.  The only person who knows that, for sure, is Louis Freeh.  Unfortunately, it appears Freeh lost the scent and we may never know what firm he was talking about.  

Good news is it doesn’t matter.  Fraud has been alleged....now we all know.

Let me restate this revelation ….A plaintiff steering committee firm filed FRAUDULENT seafood claims....multiple.  After it was discovered by employees in the Claims Office it was brought to the attention of the Claims Administrator, Pat Juneau. 

According to Sutton, Pat simply told the firm not to do it again...a mere slap on the hand.  

This epiphany begs the question, "Were the fraudulent claims paid out even after it was brought to the attention of the Claims Administrator?" 

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing that unless Juneau addresses the matter, publicly.  

Chew on this whole thing for a second....then let's take a look at the issues Freeh's first report addressed.

Lying liars who lie?

I think it's preposterous to assume Louis Freeh isn't aware of this PSC firm's fraudulent seafood claims.  And I can’t imagine Judge Barbier doesn’t know about it considering Sutton wrote it down in a memo of opposition his attorney filed with the Court. 

Understand this.....these falsified claims by the PSC firm are ILLEGAL.  

Please consider the gravitas here….a PSC firm used their knowledge of the claims process to manipulate and file false seafood claims.  This wasn't a simple scam to milk BP, it is detrimental to the other class seafood claimants.

Lionel explains why in this byte:  

Lionel Sutton - 14 - Page 60 - 1.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

If this allegation is true.....Juneau is absolutely complicit in a cover up.  Freeh is complicit if he doesn’t act against the firm.  Judge Barbier is complicit if he doesn’t demand that Louis Freeh make the allegations public and suggest criminal charges be brought against the firm in the same way Freeh did to Sutton and Reitano.

A disclaimer...

I know who the alleged firm is…at least the one Sutton is referring to in these sound bytes.  But that doesn't mean it's the same firm Freeh was referring to on page 60. 

I also know how the seafood claims were manipulated, in fact I expounded on it in this post.

I plan on revealing who this PSC firm is soon but I want to validate the story through one more source (the 4th) and I want to give the firm an opportunity to respond to the allegations.  I also have a standing request to interview Pat Juneau that has yet to be acknowledged.

Justice isn't Freeh

The real question mark that arises from this revelation is why would Freeh be protecting the PSC firm?  Why would Judge Barbier allow it?  Most importantly, was Louis Freeh really brought into the picture to actually conduct an unbiased investigation? 

Finally…has Freeh even come close to conducting an unbiased investigation?

The litmus test for those questions lies with Freeh’s charges against Christine Reitano more so than Lionel Sutton.  Sutton explains the allegations Freeh brought against Reitano in this byte, also, he talks about the evidence Freeh accrued to make the charges:

Lionel Sutton - -8 -Chrisitne and Mancuso.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

To recap here, Freeh claimed Reitano knew her husband,  Lionel Sutton, was getting the referral fee on the Thonn claim and she then lied to his investigators about it under oath.  

Lionel states in this byte that Christine absolutely did not know about the referral fee because he never told her.

I know it's difficult to digest but if there's one thing I've learned from writing this blog, never assume a wife knows what a husband is doing...and vice-versa.  I can quote you  three husband/wife scenarios I've written about on this blog where this fact holds true....Bennett, Ellis, St. Pierre...Meffert.  OK, that's four....number five is forever grateful I stopped at four.  

                                                                               

Freeh also stated that Reitano was using her position at the Claims Office to negotiate a larger referral fee for Sutton with the Andry Lerner firm.  His basis for this statement was a phone conversation Reitano had with Andry Lerner attorney,  Christine Mancuso. 

Reitano vehemently denied this allegation after Freeh released his report.  In fact, even Mancuso denied the allegation Freeh made against Reitano.  

Here Sutton discusses how Freeh obtained the evidence to levy his allegations:

Lionel Sutton - 9 - Freeh no deposition, acct false accusation.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

No actual affidavits or depositions were taken by the Freeh group in their investigation with the exception of Pat Juneau, Lionel Sutton and Christine Reitano.  Instead, the investigators "interpreted" the witnesses’ testimony.  

Now,  two of these witnesses have come forward to contradict the allegations made in the Freeh report.

Purgatory 

What’s more, Judge Barbier has denied the accused parties' request for discovery, including their ability to take their own depositions with the key witnesses:

Lionel Sutton - 11 - Not allowed discovery.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Not only has the Court denied the accused the right to discovery and due process, Barbier had Christine Reitano’s "breach of contract" lawsuit against the Claims Office (and BP) removed from civil court and into his own court.

There, it lies in limbo:

Lionel Sutton - 16 - Reitano issues and MDL.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Why would Barbier deny Reitano her civil rights and bury this case?  I humbly ask, "Does that constitute obstruction of justice?" 

They are being denied the right to face their accuser and question witnesses in order to argue their innocence.  How is that legal?  

A zombie?

In the next segment, I'll address impetus. Most notably why both Freeh and Judge Barbier seem intent on protecting the PSC firm that filed the fraudulent claims .  Also, why the Judge is denying Andry Lerner, Sutton…and most importantly, Reitano…due process.  

--> hounds kuzimu uchaguzi wako

DHECC - A BP motion that slipped under the radar

I am falling way behind on posts because my real world jobs and responsibilities are taking precedence but there is a lot going on in the BP claims world.

By now most people have seen the motion for recusal by Kurt Mix's attorneys to remove Judge Duval from his case.  Judge Duval had filed a an economic loss claim against BP without disclosing it to the court.  This only adds to Judge Duval's woes as the latest Freeh report seems to be targeting his son David's actions within the claims office and also calls into question how David was hired at the office in the first place.  I have reason to believe Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan may have also played a role in influencing Claims Office Administrator Patrick Juneau to hire David Duval.

It's not clear if David Duval used his position at the claims office to benefit claims filed by his family's law firm but lots of rumors are swirling.

While all of this is unfolding, Freeh's autonomy and integrity are also being called into question by the Andry law firm, Christine Reitano and Lionel Sutton...the accused parties in Freeh's first report. Wednesday Andry filed a motion to have Freeh removed as Special Master with both Sutton and Reitano joining that motion today.  As I write this, I believe Judge Barbier has denied that request but I haven't seen the official denial.

BP also filed a letter to Barbier requesting much of the evidence used to levy the allegations against Andry Lerner, Reitano, and Sutton.

These are all significant issues but there is one issue I want to focus on in this post that passed completely below the radar.  One week ago today, on Jan. 17th, BP filed a Motion for Leave to Class Counsel's Comments on the Special Master's Report.  What I want to point out in this report is item number 3:

Class Counsel note that Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5(e) does not specify the time when the client’s written consent to a fee-sharing arrangement must be obtained. See Cmts.   3. Yet a practice of obtaining client consent to a shared representation “at different times” after the commencement of the representation would defeat the purpose of Rule 1.5(e) and thus should be strongly discouraged. The obvious aim of Rule 1.5(e) is to protect the client’s right to select counsel of his choosing before legal services are provided. The practice of obtaining consent to shared representation at later or different times lends itself to abuse, as the client may not know who is handling his case until well after services have already been provided. In In re Fewell, cited by Class Counsel (Cmts.   3 n.11), the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board stated that “[o]bviously, it is prudent for such writings to occur at the commencement of the representation.” No. 12-DB-048 (La. Discip. Bd. Aug. 7, 2013) at 8, available at http://www.ladb.org/new/DR/handler.document.aspx?DocID=8027. The Disciplinary Board further found that the client had been informed in advance of all lawyers who would represent him and consented to the shared representation. Written consent to the representation by all lawyers in a fee-sharing agreement should be obtained at the outset of the representation and before legal services are provided. Class Counsel further suggest that express client consent to the share of the fee that each lawyer will receive in a fee-sharing agreement may not be required. See Cmts. ¶ 3 n.11. Louisiana Rule 1.5(e)(1), however, provides that fee division is permissible only if “the client agrees in writing to the representation by all of the lawyers involved, and is advised in writing as to the share of the fee that each lawyer will receive.” Since the choice of lawyers at all times Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 12180-2 Filed 01/17/14 Page 3 of 10

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly but I think it may confirm an issue I've been working on for the past couple of weeks regarding one specific PSC firm, Herman, Herman & Katz.

I've been informed that Herman, Herman & Katz created "fee-sharing" agreements with multiple law firms across the Gulf Coast at the onset of the DHECC.  Allegedly, they created an arrangement where the partnered law firms would submit their client's claim information to Herman, Herman & Katz who would then file the partnered firm's claims for them, under the partnered firm's name.  I'm not sure what the advantage to the partnered firms would be other than to possibly have their claims expedited by Herman, Herman & Katz within the claims office or to perhaps ensure their claims were not rejected.

I've spoken with a couple of attorneys regarding this issue and I'm still not sure if it is illegal but as BP suggests it is highly unethical.  The partnerships could create a scenario where the partnered firms' clients may not know they are being represented by Herman, Herman & Katz and more importantly it creates a scenario where the claims office, itself, may not know Herman, Herman & Katz was involved in the submittal of the claims.

This may not seem like a huge deal at first glance but the complications that arise with the overall evolution of the DHECC claims process can get pretty hairy.

For example, remember that the seafood claims are a capped fund so any money left over in that fund will be distributed pro rata to the claimants who received claims.  Depending on the extent to which a single firm, especially a PSC firm, has partnered with other law firms around the Gulf they may have a significant, if not a majority, interest in the seafood claims submitted unbeknownst to the claims office.  As you can imagine, if this PSC firm held any influence over which seafood claims were approved or denied, they could potentially be manipulating the claims process to their advantage by ensuring their firm's claims and their partnered firms' claims were approved while other claims were denied.  When all the claims are processed they could reap a substantial benefit with the pro rata payout without the claims office even knowing the PSC firm had partnered with the other firms.

There is even the potential for collusion among the PSC firms to ensure the above scenario unfolds.

This also ties back in to my original FOIA request to the DHECC where I asked for a list of the claims filed in the first four weeks of the claims office opening.  If you recall I had received reports that the PSC firms' claims had been pushed ahead of other claims and also that at least one PSC firm may have sold access to the "formula" of the claims process before the office opened.  The possibility that a PSC firm may have sold access to partnerships on top of the shared percentages upon payout also exists.

I've also been informed that the latest Freeh report was in fact a "preliminary" report to an upcoming more comprehensive report.  I still don't know if Freeh is going to reveal the identity of the page 60 law firm...a PSC firm....but it doesn't seem likely.     

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.  

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.

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.

DHECC - Freeh's interests may not be so free

As most of you know, in July of this year, 2013, Judge Carl Barbier appointed former FBI Director, Louis Freeh, to conduct an investigation into possible misconduct by lawyers within the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center (DHECC).  This investigation was spurred from accusations of misconduct against Claims Center attorney, Lionel Sutton.  Sutton has denied the allegations and has yet to be officially charged with any wrongdoing.

Freeh conducted his investigation and submitted his report to Barbier's court on September 6, 2013.

In the report, Freeh claims Sutton may have committed wire fraud and money laundering by accepting payments from the Andry Lerner law firm in order to expedite one or more of their client's claims through the Claims Center.   According to Freeh, the payoff for Sutton was conducted "using circuitous and convoluted interstate wire transfers".

Freeh has also called into question Sutton's fiduciary duties as an attorney and his fiduciary duty to the DHECC, then suggested an investigation should be launched by the Louisiana Bar Association resulting in possible disbarment.

 The Freeh report provided some pretty nifty diagrams to show the connections between Sutton and Andry Lerner in order to try and sort out the "convoluted and circuitous" plot.  In his conclusion, on page 81, Freeh states:

Instead, Mr. Sutton concealed his improper financial relationships and interests, hid the receipt of his payments by having them passed to a defunct corporate bank account, misrepresented the payments when asked about them by a court official, and misrepresented his actions before the Special Master. 

"....concealed his improper financial relationships and interests...", I want to pick that up and go in another direction.  The exact opposite direction...back towards Freeh.

I didn't have the time to make nifty diagrams but I will try to break this down as simply as I can.

- Louis Freeh is the Chairman of his firm, The Freeh Group.

- The Freeh Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of the law firm, Pepper Hamilton, LLP.

- Louis Freeh is also a partner and chair of the Executive Committee of Pepper Hamilton, LLP.

- Another attorney named Greg Paw is a senior partner at Pepper Hamilton, LLP.

- Freeh, Greg Paw (paw@freehgroup)/Pepper Hamilton have had numerous business dealings with the law firm Kirkland & Ellis.

- Kirkland & Ellis is currently representing BP in the Deepwater Horizon Settlement process.  In fact, Kirkland & Ellis has referred clients to Pepper Hamilton in the past...and possibly the present.

Where do you think I'm going next?  Take a break for a second...look back over that chain of factoids.  

Ok....

- Greg Paw and the Freeh Group are currently deeply entrenched in the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center.  Paw's reported title is "Special Master's Attorney", the Special Master being Freeh.

I think the Marquis De Sade set up this titling hierarchy in case you're wondering.

Despite his title, the question really is, "What is he doing there?"

Reportedly, Judge Barbier has given Freeh, and his business partner Paw, total domain over the ability to not only deny claims but "claw back" claims that have already technically passed through the claims process.  Let's call Freeh a claw-back Czar....kind of a big deal, huh?

In fact, other employees of the Freeh Group are now being brought into the DHECC.

I have been informed from my sources that many of the claims are getting bottlenecked and re-queued at the quality control level, the last step in the process.  For a run-down of the process and the court vendors involved, refer to this video I made a couple of months ago:

American Zombie - The DHECC claims process from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

I've also been told that claim approvals have ground to a halt with Freeh's entry into the Claims Center.

The Andry Lerner Law Firm has filed a memo in Barbier's court to get info for a possible motion for recusal of Special Master Freeh .  Their motivation is obvious, to invalidate Freeh's report, but in the memo they lay out some of the connections I mentioned above and Freeh's apparent conflict of interest.  There is also a series of questions to the Judge regarding the entanglement of Pepper Hamilton with Kirkland & Ellis.

I think these are questions we all need to examine:

1.  How many Kirkland and Ellis lawyers are working with Freeh Group or Pepper Hamilton lawyers currently?  What is the extent of the financial relationships between the two firms?  For example, are the referrals from Kirkland & Ellis dependent on cooperative endeavors, or fees shared, and is there an ongoing back and forth relationship, Pepper to Kirkland, Kirkland to Pepper, or Freeh to either one?

2.  What are the ecomomic consequences to the Freeh Group of past and current associations with Kirkland & Ellis?

3.  What are the economic consequences to the Pepper Hamilton Group of past and current associations with Kirkland & Ellis?  What is the actual status of the ongoing cases?  Did these precede this appointment?  What fees have been paid since this appointment?  What fees are anticipated in the future in relationship to those cases while this appointment continues?

4.  All of the pre-Special Master contacts between the Freeh Group, Pepper Hamilton attroneys and Kirkland Ellis attorneys.  The amounts of money received to date and anticipated to be received in the future by The Freeh Group or Pepper Hamilton as a result of this appointment, which ultimately must be approved and paid by BP.

5.  What are the lines of authority, vis-a-vis, the co-defendant clients in relationship to the cooperation with BP versus Pepper, or in conjunction with Pepper on these litigation and counseling matters?

6.  Are there currently under consideration future relationships between Kirkland & Ellis and Pepper, or Kirkland & Ellis and Freeh?

And the following paragraph lays out the real problem with the conflict and how it may be affecting the amount of claims being paid:

The Freeh Group has succeeded in putting an embargo on legitimate claims with erroneous assumptions.  Simultaneously it is benefitting internally through its billing, and externally through its advertising , from its own findings.  It requires no imagination to understand the value to BP and by extension its law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, of the criticisms made by Freeh.  A simple look at the ad attached to this motion run by BP immediately after release of the Freeh Report satisfies the benefit (Exhibit 2)  A review of Exhibit 1 shows Freeh advertising his work that helps BP, and Exhibit 2 shows BP advertising the work of Freeh.  At the same time, Jon Andry's clients and referral attorneys are being denied claims already approved twice by the Claims Office.

Read the whole memo and this motion filed to determine the request for Freeh's recusal as it states a specific case where Pepper Hamilton and Kirkland & Ellis are litigating together as co-counsel, the Avandia National class action.

Now...I'm pointing all this out not to argue Andry Lerner's case.  I'm pointing it out because this may represent a clear collusion between BP, the folks running the ship at the DHECC and possibly with the Plantiff Steering Committee (PSC) lawyers.  Possibly worse than that.

Here are some questions I have:

1.  PSC lawyers - were they aware of the Freeh/Pepper Hamilton conflicts with Kirkland & Ellis before Freeh was named as Special Master?  If so did they waive the possible conflict of interest?  They have a fiduciary duty to the claimants along the Gulf Coast who file claims with the DHECC, why are they not bringing up these issues instead of Andry Lerner?  Are we to believe Herman, Roy, Fayard....top national attorneys.....see no conflict of interest with the relationship between Freeh/Pepper Hamilton and Kirkland & Ellis?  Why have they allowed Freeh (and peeps) to be inserted into the DHECC as a "Clawback Czar"?

Freeh claimed he disclosed the relationship between Pepper Hamilton and Kirkland & Ellis before he was hired but I'm having a hard time understanding how this conflict of interest was waived by the PSC, if that's what happened.

2.  Judge Barbier - was he aware of the Freeh/Pepper Hamilton conflicts with Kirkland & Ellis before Freeh was named as Special Master?  Freeh said he disclosed it so I assume he was.  How could he have waived this conflict?  More importantly, how can he justify allowing it to go on?

These issues are huge.  Why would the PSC and Judge Barbier sit idly by and allow this to occur?   They may all have breached their fiduciary duty, every damn one of them.  There may need to be a separate investigation into how Freeh was chosen to conduct the original investigation.  Wouldn't that be something?

As I've stated before, I have reason to believe that at least some of the PSC attorneys used their power and influence to manipulate the Claims Center to get their private claimants paid before everyone else's...exactly what Sutton has been accused of by Freeh.

I filed a FOIA request with the DHECC, back in March, to try and obtain a list of the claims that were paid out in the first four weeks of the Claims Center opening.  I was denied based on the premise that the Claims Center is not a public agency:



I was also informed that some of the information in the claims is private, such as Social Security #s, so I drafted a letter to Judge Barbier asking him to redact any private information in the claims and make them public in order to ensure transparency and resolve the allegations.

Not surprisingly, I didn't receive a reply.  I get that I'm a lowly blogger and probably don't warrant a Federal Judge's attention but I think the people of the Gulf Coast do warrant his attention and deserve some answers to these allegations....especially now that these issues have been exposed with Freeh, Pepper Hamilton and Kirkland & Ellis.  I don't see how it can be ignored...not now.

It's worth noting that there was a clear collusion between BP attorneys and PSC lawyer, Steve Herman, in respect to the Wisner case.  But it seems no one is too worried about that, either.

Barbier and Juneau keep trumpeting that the DHECC and the claims process is transparent.  That's ironic considering we don't even know who's working in the office, what their roles are, their salaries, how those salaries are being paid, etc.

One interesting development I did confirm with the Claims Center was that Appeals Coordinator, David Duval, son of Federal Judge Stanwood Duval, Jr., abruptly resigned two weeks ago on October 7, 2013.  I don't know what prompted his resignation but it's curious.

Stay tuned...more to come.