DHECC - Lionel Sutton interview part 4 - hiding behind the robe

In this final segment of the Lionel Sutton interview, we will focus on the influence of the PSC on the Claims Office, why Judge Barbier seems intent on quashing any attempt by those accused by Louis Freeh the opportunity to defend themselves, and why both Freeh and Barbier may be protecting the PSC firm that filed the fraudulent seafood claims.

This first byte is about the influence the PSC had at the Claims Office while Sutton was there. Lionel notes that he was not involved in any policy creation and he also expounds on why the claims expedited by the PSC are such a big issue now:

Lionel Sutton - 18 - PSC Influence and policy.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Here is a very specific example of a PSC attorney using their position and influence to benefit their own personal claims:

Lionel Sutton - 17 - Joe Rice access from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Interesting that Rice would say, "I'm putting on my private attorney hat now, not my PSC hat."  The point is that the only reason he had access to the Claims Office employees and even a top level Pricewaterhousecoopers (PWC) accountant is because he was a PSC member.  Juneau would not have sent the three of them to just any plaintiff attorney's office to discuss and even negotiate the nature of how their claims were going to be processed.

These next two bytes, Sutton discusses how he, Reitano and Andry Lerner have been denied any reasonable level of due process in order to defend themselves against Freeh's charges:

Lionel Sutton - 13 - Not allowed due process.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Here, Lionel elaborates a little further on why Barbier is so determined to bury the issue and deny them discovery:

Lionel Sutton - 12 - Why Barbier is ignoring and blocking.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

How could both the Judge and Freeh simply ignore the issues that have been brought up already on this blog and by Lionel Sutton?  Let's run down the biggest:

• Patrick Juneau expedited a claim for a friend. 

• The PSC expedited, at minimum, 409 claims, many of them their own.  One PSC member, Calvin Fayard, may have expedited his cousin and business partner's claim.

•  A PSC firm filed fraudulent seafood claims.

•  Members of the Appeals Panel, themselves, had claims with the DHECC.

• Some PSC members had direct access and influence to accountants that were processing their personal claims.

How can Louis Freeh, and the Judge for that matter, not address any of these issues?

Louis Freeh is addressing other issues, though.  He is still going after Andry Lerner claims.  It appears Freeh has a vendetta against these guys as well as Christine Mancuso who contradicted his "interpretation" of her investigation interview regarding Reitano's alleged attempt to negotiate the Thonn claim.

In fact, I'm beginning to question the impetus for bringing Freeh on board to begin with as well as his laser-like focus on the Andry Lerner firm.  Does Andry Lerner have any enemies in positions of power on this settlement?  Who introduced Freeh into the fray to begin with?

Lionel stated that if he and Reitano were allowed to conduct discovery, they would uncover much worse issues with Pat Juneau and the PSC than anything of which Freeh has accused them.  It would appear Judge Barbier is doing his best to make sure those issues don't surface.

Is that justice?  Or is it the same old song and dance this state is famous for?  We know our politicians are corrupt but when our judiciary falls into step with them, who do you turn to?

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 - Lionel Sutton Interview Part 2 - how the "go-to guy" became the fall guy

In this segment of posts on the Lionel Sutton interview, I want to back up and examine the history of how Sutton and his wife, Christine Reitano, came to work at the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center, what their roles were and I want to let Lionel draw a picture for AZ readers as to the general operations and M.O. at the Claims Office in respect to his own job.

This will be a lengthy post but I think it’s important to lay the foundation for upcoming posts.

Remember, Sutton held no stipulations on what I could ask him.  He was an open book and answered all my questions….on camera….and that shit ain’t easy.   

Freeh, Juneau and some of the PSC members have conducted multiple interviews with MSM entities but none of these journalistic resources have asked questions about the issues I've brought up on AZ.  Claims Administrator, Patrick Juneau, has repeatedly ignored my requests for an interview.  

Doing what this blog (and I suppose any blog worth its salt) does best, I’d like to give the voiceless...the pariah...Lionel Sutton...the stage.  I'd like to allow Mr. Sutton the opportunity to explain his side of the story and his current plight.  You, AZ reader, can draw your own conclusions.

  

One may consider this interview series a biased effort but keep in mind, I have extended multiple invitations to Mr. Juneau for interviews and received no response.  I still extend the invitation to interview anyone involved in this story: Pat Juneau, Louis Freeh, Carl J. Barbier, Sally Shushan, and any PSC firm….in fact I beg them to speak with me on the record.  I've even begged them through FOIA requests. 

How He Got The Job

This first byte is basically background on Lionel Sutton’s relationship with Pat Juneau previous to his employment at the Claims Office and how both he and his wife, Christine Reitano, came to work at the Claims Office:

Lionel Sutton interveiw 1 - How did Lionel and Christine get the job from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

This byte establishes a couple of interesting factoids.  

Reitano was a full-time employee where Sutton was simply a part-time contractor.  This is why she has filed the "breach of contract" lawsuit against the office and Sutton doesn’t have that option.  But Sutton’s situation works both ways, he also never signed the same confidentiality agreements Reitano did to gain employment at the Claims Office….therefore, he can speak freely.

Another really interesting revelation in this byte is the history between Sutton and Juneau…it certainly wasn’t a casual relationship.  According to Lionel, they had known each other for years and even had business relationships previous to Sutton’s tenure at the Claims Office.  

This story doesn’t seem to gel with Pat Juneau’s deposition in Louis Freeh’s investigation:

Freeh (interviewer for Freeh Group):  Are you the individual who hired Mr. Sutton?

Juneau:  I guess you could say -- yeah, I think so.

Freeh (interviewer for Freeh Group): Did anyone recommend that you hire him, if you recall?

Juneau:  No. I don't think -- I mean, I don't remember anybody

this is what I remember. I remember he sought the employment.

Obviously, his wife, she had been there since the

inception. I knew Sutton before. He was from New Iberia,

Louisiana. He had worked for me for a short period of time, I

don't know, maybe a year -- I don't know how many years ago,

15 years ago or something like that -- in Lafayette, Louisiana.

I hadn't seen that guy. I had no contact with him

subsequent to that.

I hired his wife. Then he came and said he would

like to work. I considered that. I said, "Well, give me your

resume.”

Juneau clearly had contact with Lionel Sutton within that 15-year time frame.  Sutton stated that he was the one who asked Juneau to hire Reitano….they were absolutely in contact with each other.

His whole response there is rather aloof but that seems to be Pat Juneau’s general strategy…plausible deniability.  He played that card with the 409 expedited claims by suggesting they were part of a “sampling process” but I still haven’t been able to find any record of this sampling process in the court record.  More importantly, we still haven’t received a plausible excuse for expediting the Corps Constructors claim which occurred well after the fairness hearing and Corps Constructors couldn’t possibly have been part of a “sampling process”.

We also don't have any idea what knowledge Federal Judge Carl J. Barbier had of the 409 expedited claims or of Barbier's alleged "sampling process".   The Judge has been conveniently silent on that one. 

The Job Description

In this next byte, Sutton explains how his duties immediately shifted at the Claims Office, once he started working for Juneau.  He describes how he inadvertently became the “go-to” guy at the office and started fielding claimants’ and claims attorneys’ questions:

2 Lionel Sutton - 3 - What Lionel was doing at the DHECC.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

This is an interesting byte to me because it provides a snapshot into the operations and hierarchy of the office.  It’s pretty clear Juneau surrounded himself with “filters”, Sutton being one of the most important.  

I’m not criticizing Juneau here, I’m just noting that it appears he has a very hands-off approach to management.  That could explain how he may have allowed Kirk Fisher and David Odom to subcontract their own business, Alpha Consulting, to the Claims Office…perhaps he really didn’t know what was going on.  Once again…plausible deniability.

The Hammer Drops

In the next byte, I ask Lionel about the charges brought against him by Louis Freeh and how he first discovered he was being investigated:

2 Lionel Sutton - 4 - How Lionel found out he was being investigated.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

So, keep in mind that Sutton has repeatedly stated that he informed Juneau of his involvement with the Thonn claim before he ever took his part-time position at the Claims Office.  He does admit to asking for the referral fee on this claim which he passed off to Andry-Lerner before he took the job at the DHECC but he denies ever having tried to expedite and/or manipulate the claim once he started working at the office, an allegation of which Freeh accused him. 

In this byte he also points out that checking on claims was his job….he was continually being asked to check on the status of claims by the Claims Administrator, Pat Juneau, himself.  

I’m not playing defense attorney, I’m simply reiterating Sutton’s assertions here in case you’re too lazy to watch the video.  

The other allegations Freeh brought up against Sutton were his business dealings with Glen Lerner and that he, Sutton, had claims pending in the Claims Office.  Lionel addresses that matter in this byte:

2 Lionel Sutton - 6 - Romeo Papa and Lerner Biz deals.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

According to Lionel, there seemed to be no clear mandate regarding a conflict of interest with him being in business with Lerner or having a business claim filed in the DHECC while he was working within the Claims Office.  

The guidelines apparently weren’t even understood by Pat Juneau, himself, per the story Lionel Sutton told about Juneau’s son having a claim and Magistrate Shushan ordering Juneau to have his son withdraw the claim.  I don't honestly see what the problem was with Juneau's son having a claim in the system as long as Juneau wasn't manipulating it in any way but he had him withdraw it so there's no issue there.

But hang on...

Admittedly, the above explanation by Sutton may seem excusatory but I want you to listen to this next byte:

Lionel Sutton - 7 - Appeals Panelists.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Members of the appeals panel had claims themselves?  (Did they have seafood claims?  I’ll explain why that matters later.)

Freeh: Ambiguity = "Crime"?  Or Freeh: "Prosecution" = $$$$?  Both.
  

Alright...let’s wrap this post up.

After working on this story for over a year, having talked to multiple sources and hearing this firsthand account by Lionel Sutton….I want to propose a basic thesis…actually a theory, if you will:

I don’t think anyone really knew what the ethical parameters of this settlement were because I don’t think the guy in charge, Pat Juneau, defined the parameters clearly from the onset of the settlement.  I don’t think he defined them because I don’t think he had a clear idea of what they should be to begin with.  

Or perhaps he did and he just didn’t do his job.

For a guy that is reportedly making 300k a month on this settlement and over 7 million to date (not substantiated…yet...but working on it)…..that’s inexcusable.  

Compound that with the fact that he’s reportedly billing this MDL settlement 40 hours a week while simultaneously serving as the Claims Administrator for two other MDL settlements….

….well….Houston...and London…we have a problem.   

Juneau's MO aside, what happened with the Freeh investigation is more important. 

Sutton, Reitano and Andry Lerner were offered up to BP and subsequently to the international MSM volcano gods by super-duper, glorified-gumshoe, Louis Freeh.  They were thrown into the mouth of the volcano and the lava did flow. 

(Keep in mind, that’s all Freeh really is…a private investigator hired by the Federal Court.  The guy has no ability to make criminal charges and if he or his minions have threatened people with that power then Freeh himself, and his employees, need to be investigated.)  

In his report, Freeh went so far as to suggest criminal charges should be brought up against Sutton, Reitano and Andry Lerner.  His job was supposed to root out all instances of corruption within the DHECC.  He's released two reports and ignored one of the main items he mentioned in his first report, the page 60 firm who falsified claims. 

Surprisingly, this guy’s company is now, possibly, the largest contractor in the settlement.

Try to wrap your head around this....Freeh “prosecuted” himself into an ever-expanding multimillion-dollar contract within this settlement.  And when he got in, everything started to change, including the actual terms of the settlement, itself, and the scrutiny of how claims are interpreted.   All to BP’s delight.

Also understand that no criminal charges have EVER been brought against the people he originally named in his first report.  None.  Nada.  Nothing.

When you read stories about BP's defeat in the appellate court...ignore the word "defeat".  BP has exactly what they want, the Freeh Group running the Claims Office.  

I”m going to break off here.  Next up we’re going to take a closer look at Louis Freeh’s “investigation”.  That will lead us into the Page 60 firm….yowza...

It’s good stuff, stay tuned.     

DHECC - Lionel Sutton Interview Part 1 - Corps Constructors

In the course of writing about the issues at the DHECC, I've come to the conclusion that mainstream media resources in this City and even national ones simply don't want to address the totality of this story.  Instead, they are satisfied with simply making a cursory glance and only choosing one side, BP, or the other, Pat Juneau, the PSC and the claimant attorneys.

The problem is, this story isn't a dichotomy.  There is a third party, the most important party, the people of the Gulf Coast who have been devastated by the BP oil spill and will continue to suffer for decades.  The reality is both BP and the "good ol' boys" running the show aren't nearly as divided with each other as the two entities are against the people to whom they are supposed be providing relief.  That complexity seems to be too difficult for MSM outlets like 60 Minutes, The New York Times, The LA Times, WWL-TV and a host of others to wrap their heads around.

Admittedly, I've struggled to tell the story myself but I am just one person with few resources.  The nature of blogging isn't exactly conducive to simplifying complex stories and what I'm doing here on AZ is really more of a running journal while I garner new information and sources as the story unfolds.

With that in mind, I've decided to begin compiling this story into a larger one (documentary, book, maybe both) about the nature of the oil and gas industry, the justice system, the state government - its regulatory entities and how they all intersect in the state of Louisiana.  Essentially it's a story about how this unholy union is destroying our state's environment, health and culture.

Last month I reached out to former DHECC employee Lionel Sutton after he began commenting on the blog.  While working at the Claims Office, Sutton, along with his wife Christine Reitano, were accused of various ethical breaches by court-appointed Special Master Louis J. Freeh.  In his first report, Freeh even went so far as to accuse Sutton of criminal activity and suggested that he should be prosecuted for the alleged crimes he committed while serving at the office.  Reitano was subsequently terminated by Claims Administrator Pat Juneau and she has filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the Claims Office and BP.

To my surprise, Sutton not only agreed to the interview, he held no stipulations on the questions I may ask.

Last week I conducted the video interview which ran over two hours.  Aside from the larger story, my immediate goal with the material and AZ is to address the items in the interview individually over multiple posts as there is just simply too much to tackle in a "one and done" effort.

"...he's waited long enough.."

I want to kick off with an item that was of great importance to me in respect to an allegation Sutton had made in a court filing about having been asked by Pat Juneau to expedite a claim for one of Juneau's friends.  Here is the clip regarding that allegation:

DHECC - Lionel Sutton Interview Series - Corps Constructors 1 from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Corps Constructors is a Baton Rouge based construction company owned by John Ryan Nader.

According to Sutton, Pat Juneau was checking on the status of the claim and asked him to have it expedited because Juneau was friends with John Ryan's father, Sam Nader.  Sam Nader is the Assitant Athletics Director for LSU's football program.

While I'm not suggesting a quid pro quo, it is interesting to note that Pat Juneau's grandson, Jonathan Juneau, was recruited as a freshman walk-on to LSU's football team in 2012.

What I will suggest is that if this allegation by Sutton is true, the Claims Administrator, Pat Juneau, had a claim expedited for a friend and hence violated the terms of the settlement which states that all claims must be processed in the order they are received.

When I originally revealed that some of the Plaintiff Steering Committee members had 409 claims expedited, most of them their own, in the Fall of 2012, Mr. Juneau stated that these claims were expedited as part of a "sampling program" incorporated in preparation for the fairness hearing that occurred in November of 2012.  After repeated requests to the Office and the Court, I have found no minutes entry or any legal record mentioning the alleged sampling program.

Regardless, the Corps Constructors claim could not have been expedited as part of the alleged sampling program because it happened well after the fairness hearing took place.

I contacted the Claims Office per email last week and requested an interview with Mr. Juneau to present him with this issue and numerous others that I will address in forthcoming posts but I received no response.  Mr. Juneau recently appeared on 60 Minutes, WWL-TV and granted an interview with the New York Times but none of those entities queried him on the expedited claims issue so I was hoping to get his explanation to this Corps Constructors matter and other matters before I started posting.

If he won't respond to me, I'm hoping that at least one MSM entity will confront him on this issue.

It's important to note that Lionel Sutton did not know if the Corps Constructors claim had actually been paid out.  He just acknowledged having contacted Brown and Greer and asking them to move the claim ahead of all the others in queue.  I would like to ask Mr. Juneau if the claim was, in fact, paid ahead of other claimants.

I would particularly like to know why Mr. Juneau thinks his friend's son, a construction company in Baton Rouge, had "waited long enough" back in 2012 while many fisherman and businesses right on the Coast have waited years, still haven't been paid, and must now meet a whole different set of standards than Mr. Nader.

Coming Attractions

In the next segment I will address how Lionel Sutton was hired at the Claims Office and his response to the charges levied against him by Louis Freeh.  Later on, the interview segments will also address the fraudulent claims filed by the "page 60" PSC firm, the recent 495 "matching" policy passed by Judge Barbier which creates a whole new set of standards for claimants, and take a closer look at Louis Freeh's investigation material.

Stay tuned.

CORRECTION:  In the original post I mis-stated the date of the fairness hearing and the 409 expedited claims as being in 2010.  It was 2012 and I have corrected that.        

DHECC - for 3 mill a month you'd think The Freeh Group could buy a calculator

Alright, my AZ power rangers have tabulated the numbers and it's not pretty.

Freeh is claiming that Thonn got $357,002.35 including the accounting reimbursement.  So according to Freeh that number was deposited in the Andry Lerner trust account.  Here's (what we think) is the breakdown:

Total Award - $357,002.35

Of that Andry Lerner would have taken a 20% fee - $71,400.40

The Coastal Claims Group would have received -  $20,182.00

That would put Thonn's net @ - $265,419.95

So the total fee for Andry Lerner (50/50 split with Sutton) would be -  $35,700.20

The total referral fee for Lionel Sutton would be -  $35,700.20

Ok...now in Freeh's motion here is what he is seeking from each of the four entities:

Thonn:  $357,002.35
Coastal Claims Group:  $20,182.00
Lionel Sutton:  $35,700.20
Andry Lerner:  $35,700.20 (not 100% sure about that number)

That would put the total amount Freeh is trying to claw back at:  $448,584.75

IF...if...these numbers are correct, Freeh is trying to pull back about $91,000 more than BP actually paid out on the claim.

WTF?  That's the first claim he's clawed back and he overshot the amount by $91,000?  If this is right you have to ask whether or not the guy even understands the breakdown on individual claims and how the referrals are paid.  It actually makes me wonder if these clawbacks aren't being orchestrated under a commission basis...that's just me speculating but if he's overshot the claw back by 91k right out of the gate, this a pretty big deal.

The only thing I can think of is that the claim BP paid was actually $448k and perhaps Andry Lerner took out an extra $91k on the commission which would put their total commission amount at $126,700.20.  That's about 35 1/2 % commission if that's what happened.  I don't think that's legal and I can't imagine Andry Lerner would be that stupid unless the client agreed to it.

I'm not sure what's going on here but I hope some folks smarter than I can chirp in on the comment section.  

DHECC: Strip Clubs and Football Games

By now, I'm sure most AZ readers have seen the news about David Odom and Kirk Fisher's departure from the Claims Office.  It's interesting timing, I was about to make a post on these guys as soon as I got back from Christmas break (I'm currently in D.C. with family).

Over a month ago, I put in a request for an interview with David Odom because I had some questions I wanted to ask him about other potential improprieties I had been made aware of than what were cited by BP yesterday.  In specific, I wanted to ask Odom and Fisher if either one of them or both of them accepted any form of financial gift from any of the court vendors in the DHECC claims process.

Particularly, I wanted to ask them if they had acted on an invitation by the Garden City Group to attend the 2012 Saint/Giants football game in the company's skybox at Giants Stadium in New York.  I'm away from my computer at home so I can't extract the page at the moment (I don't think I posted it in the former post because I wanted to hold it until I could write about it further), but if you will look at Christine Reitano's latest legal filing the last exhibit is the actual invitation sent by the Garden City Group to the brass in the Claims Office.

According to Reitano, this matter was discussed internally at the office and it was decided that accepting financial gifts from vendors was unethical and no employee in the office should act on this invitation...Juneau himself was involved in this decision.  Yet Odom, not sure about Fisher, did travel to New York to see the game.  I wanted to ask Mr. Odom if he had accepted the invitation by the Garden City Group and did he accept any other financial gifts, dinner, hotel, etc. by the court vendor.

This issue may not seem all that important but I believe it is because it not only shows that there was some sense of ethical protocol within the office, it also reveals some of the politics taking place with court vendors and those in powerful positions within the Claims Office.  These political issues that were/are going on in the office are going to call into question why and how Sutton, Reitano and the Andry Law Firm were originally targeted by the Freeh report while other power brokers in the office, including at least one PSC firm, were protected or even overlooked.

What has happened so far to Reitano, in specific, is beyond reproach and I believe it to be an attempt to obstruct justice by Federal Judge Carl Barbier.  As her husband, Lionel Sutton, pointed out in the comment section of the previous post:

"...Ask yourself how a simple state law contract claim filed in CDC can not only be removed to Federal Court but be "mistakenly" removed directly to the black hole of a MDL about an oil spill that occurred 3 years earlier.  Only to be followed by a Court Order that no motions objecting to the "mistake" can be filed until the Court decides to allow it."

You should read his entire comment and AZ contributor Kevin's comments as well.  I appreciate Sutton's willingness to engage the conversation even though I am just "a blog".  :)

When Reitano's case was removed and subsequently stayed by Judge Barbier (effectively burying it and keeping her from being deposed by BP), I called the Clerk of Court's office for the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana and asked them not only how Reitano's claim could be removed from CDC but how it ended up in Barbier's division when it should have been randomly assigned to a division.  The person on the other end of the phone, who became incredibly agitated with me, claimed that the court was under a mandate from the MDL national panel to consolidate anything having to do with the BP spill under MDL status and hence under Barbier's jurisdiction.

I'd be curious to see if every other case that may have been filed regarding the BP spill has been redirected to Barbier as well, whether the case be in Orleans CDC, or any other Gulf Coast state's civil court system.  That would be an interesting litmus test to the Clerk of Court's claim.  I did record that answer, by the way.  

Also...go back and read this post I made regarding Varney's editorial on Patrick Juneau....I think you may be able to surmise where/who this article he wrote was sourced from.

Oh...one more thing....why didn't any MSM resource talk about David Duval's departure?  Why is that?

More on these matters to come...until then...Merry Xmas and get plenty of Ho Ho!   

DHECC : Almost a smoking gun...perhaps a mushroom cloud

Last night I spent a lot of time going through the recent filings by Christine Reitano, Lionel Sutton and the Andry Law Firm, I wanted to make sure I read between the lines, detected any nuance, etc.

There is so much to point out that I'm going to break it up over multiple posts but I want to start with what I think is a bomb that Sutton dropped on page six of his filing:

Sutton Dec. 18 filing

....read this:

Perhaps more significant, while discussing the Thonn claim, Freeh noted that he discovered a second law firm that submitted at least four claims with tax returns more favorable than trip tickets.  (The very same issue that he uses with regard to the Thonn claim to accuss Sutton, Andry and Lerner of corruption and the recommendation that each be prevented from representing claimants).  In those four claims, Freeh found that the tax returns resulted in pay outs of as much as 114% greater.  Unbelievably, Freeh did not identify the second law firm or the claimants, made no allegations of corrruption and made no recommendation that the second law firm be prevented from representing claimants.  If the second law firm improperly manipulated data to the benefit of their private clients and to the detriment of their class clients, the possibility that the law firm is a member of the Plaintiff's Steering Committee, mandates disclosure, not cover up.

Emphasis theirs

Whoop....there it is!  Whoop...there it is!

It's pretty clear Sutton knows who the page 60 firm is and he's all but telling us as much in this filing. I think he also rightfully points out that what he's being accused of is pale in comparison to what the page 60 firm may have done, especially if it's a PSC firm.

Sutton even goes so far as to use the term "cover up" to point out that Freeh had no qualms naming himself, Reitano and the Andry Firm as well as the claim, Thonn, in his accusations of misconduct. But for some reason Freeh did not identify the page 60 firm or the claims this firm allegedly manipulated.

This is huge....huge....I've said from the beginning that if a PSC firm had manipulated the claims process in any way.... selling access to the "formula", expediting their personal claims ahead of the other class claimants, or manipulating the actual claims to game the system they themselves created...Humpty Dumpty is going to come crashing down and all the King's men won't be able to put him back together again.

According to Sutton's filing it appears this is exactly what happened.

I've been digging a lot on this issue and I think I have pretty good idea of what the fraudulent "manipulation" of the claims process by the unnamed firm may have been.  It involves seafood claims, particularly shrimp, and Sutton even mentions this in the paragraph above.

It involves the process by which shrimper's assessed their losses.  There are basically two ways to assess this, tax returns and "trip tickets".  The trip tickets are basically a written record of how many pounds of shrimp a fisherman brings in to market on each fishing expedition.

According to the formula for the settlement, there are "multipliers" assigned to each settlement amount pending the pounds in shrimp each shrimper produced in the years previous to the spill.  So let's say there is a 1.5 multiplier on 49,999 lbs. of shrimp produced in a year but for 50,000 lbs. of shrimp produced in a year you get a 2.5 multiplier.  Obviously, the difference in the payout is substantial.

Now imagine a husband and wife shrimp team, or even partners in a shrimp boat enterprise, using multiple boats to fish.  Let's say the husband produced 45,000 lbs. in 2009 and the wife produced 35,000 lbs.  If the law firm shifts 5000 lbs. in shrimp tickets to the husband, the husband gets bumped up to the 2.5 multiplier while the wife still gets her 1.5 multiplier.

The numbers I'm using above are hypothetical and I'm still not sure exactly how the multipliers work in respect to pounds of shrimp.  There is also another qualifier...boat size:



Still, you can see how the system is set up to be gamed if you know the ins and outs.

Another major issue to consider is that the seafood claims are a capped fund so after all the claims are paid out, any excess funds are paid out pro rata.  That means if some of the claimants were gaming the system, per their law firms, and getting more than they deserved they were doing so at the expense of the other fisherman in the settlement.  It's not like it was a harmless scam that only affected BP's coffers.

That issue takes on even more gravitas if the law firm manipulating the claims is a PSC firm because not only did the Plantiff Steering Committee create the claims process from the beginning, they have a fiduciary duty to represent all of the claimants in the MDL (multi-district litigation) case, not just their private claimants.  Therefore, they have robbed their MDL-assigned clients in order to pay their favored, private clients, hence themselves, more money.

Aside from criminal charges and potential disbarment, both BP and the class claimants may have a massive malpractice suit against this PSC firm...if indeed it is a PSC firm that submitted the fraudulent claims.

Why would Freeh not name this firm?  Is Barbier, perhaps, protecting the firm?

What's interesting is that, with this week's legal filings, there seems to be a sudden change in the court's stonewalling towards those accused in the Freeh report.  Magistrate judge Shushan released these responses to this week's filings today:

Order re Andry Motion to Compel  

Paw Affidavit

It appears the court is now willing to provide the accused with at least some of the evidence acquired by Freeh that led to the accusations in the report.  What's even more intriguing to me is the testimony and evidence the court doesn't seem to want to reveal...I'll get to that in the next post.