DHECC - Louis Freeh: Trojan stalking horse

...yes I'm mixing metaphors, deal with it

An interesting document landed on my desk recently and I wanted to share it with AZ readers.

Memo to Louis Freeh and Pat Juneau from Plaintiff Steering Committee regarding policy on fraudulent claims

There is so much right and wrong with this letter, I don't know where to begin.

Let's start with what's right about it.  The PSC is correct in that BP did agree to the current terms of the settlement and originally showed little concern for the potential of numerous fraudulent claims being filed under the agreed upon parameters.  They are correct that recently the number of claims being paid has dwindled to a miserable number due to the overly zealous scrutiny of the Freeh group attempting to justify and expand their multi-gazillion dollar contract with the Claims Office.  They are also correct in fighting for the claimants to get their claims paid in a reasonable time frame.

What's wrong about it?

- They suggest that when fraud is alleged or suspected the claimant be notified and given a chance to (a) withdraw the Claim, (b) do nothing, or (c) attempt to respond with an explanation, clarification and/or additional documentation.

Was Casey Thonn given this option?  Obviously the more powerful Page 60 (of Louis Freeh's first report), PSC law firm was given the option considering we've seen nothing come of that.  Recently Louis Freeh filed a memo claiming shrimper Jason Zirlott of Alabama filed a fraudulent seafood claim but only mentioned Zirlott's law firm in an attachment.  Why was the law firm that filed the claim for Zirlott not run up the flag pole by Louis Freeh like the AndryLerner firm was with the Thonn claim?

Even more so than a claimant, if a law firm has knowingly filed a fraudulent claim they should be censured in some way, not simply ignored or covered up like the Page 60 PSC firm has been.  The public deserves to know who is gaming the system especially considering at least one of the firms gaming it was a PSC firm entrusted to represent the entire class.  I suspect it's the same firm that drafted this letter.

- The memo suggests that Louis Freeh was brought into the settlement to "enforce a broad array of local, state or federal statutes, ordinances, requirements or regulations."  It follows with "The purpose is not to 'catch' people, but to validate legitimate settlement program claims."

Uhhh...no.  Freeh was brought in to investigate corruption and potential issues of fraud...that's exactly why he, a former director of the FBI, was chosen.  Of course once he got his foot in the door he kicked it down, redefining and greatly expanding his role in the DHECC.  Freeh has now filled the office with his own employees whose sole goal seems to be to grind the settlement to a screeching halt and minimize BP's financial burden. The trojan horse is empty and the Freeh battalion has now conquered Troy.

It's also my personal opinion that Freeh was introduced to the Court by a member of the PSC and this specific attorney handed him the evidence he used to "prosecute" the Thonn claim.  I believe this was done for two reasons, one is that it was a personal vendetta by this specific attorney for past dealings with the Andrys and secondly I believe Thonn, AndryLerner, Lionel Sutton and Christine Reitano were offered up to BP as a red herring to pacify BP's cries of fraud at the time.

It's rather karmic that the PSC, who have continually whined about BP's "buyer's remorse", now appear to have buyer's remorse with their chosen stalking horse, Louis Freeh.  I suspect Judge Barbier also shares that sentiment.  But I'm sure they're not too upset considering they already got their own claims paid.

    

DHECC - for better or worse

From the beginning of my reporting on the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center and the Plaintiff Steering Committee (PSC) that was chosen to represent the entire class of claimants for their economic losses caused by the BP oil spill, I've alleged that the PSC expedited their own personal clients' claims ahead of everyone else in the class.  This was a clear violation of the terms of the settlement.

At first the allegation was denied.  Then I provided proof that they had expedited at least 409 claims, most of them their own, ahead of the other claimants with the full knowledge and consent of Claims Administrator Patrick Juneau.  The response then shifted from denial to "those claims were part of sampling program", as if that somehow justified the action.  The PSC and MSM's favorite go-to pundit on the settlement cried "It's much ado about nothing" while failing to disclose his own conflicts of interest.

The argument was also made that it didn't really matter if the PSC got their own clients paid first because everyone was going to get paid eventually anyway.

Then Act 495, a policy which requires claimants to match revenues to expenses, was passed and completely changed the terms of the settlement.  AZ commenter IN-HALE has been documenting the butchering effects of this act here on the blog since it was enacted.  Thousands of claims have already been kicked out or denied....we now have a completely different, more stringent, settlement class to the great benefit of BP and the great detriment of the remaining class claimants.

Now, BP is asking Judge Barbier to retroactively enforce act 495 and claw back claims that have already been paid out that did not match revenues to expenses.

The PSC just filed this opposition memorandum in Judge Barbier's court petitioning the judge to deny the retroactive enforcement of 495 which would prevent these claw backs.  I want you to read the language the PSC used (right out of the gate on page 1) from the original settlement contract agreed to by both BP and the PSC:

If the Court does approve the proposed class action settlement, an appellate court could reverse the approval.  In addition, it is possible that the terms of the proposed settlement may change in the future-for - for better or worse - as a result of further legal proceedings.  However, if you sign this Individual Release, none of those uncertain future events will affect you....  In fact, even if the Court does not approve the proposed class action settlement agreement or the approval is reversed by an appellate court, you shall continue to be bound by this Individual Release. 

In the initial settlement agreement the PSC acknowledged that the terms of the settlement may change.  They acknowledged this possibility, in print, in the agreement they wrote.  They were fully aware that 495 or another deviation could change the terms of the original settlement down the road and still they expedited their own claims ahead of every one else's.

They are now using this language to try and block 495 from being enacted retroactively which may affect their own personal claims as well as thousands and thousands of others.  That's still not going to help the remaining claimants who never got a dime from the settlement and are now shit outta luck.

So....I want someone to tell me how the PSC expediting their own claims is not a big deal.

Please...I'm all ears.

In specific, I'd love Louis Freeh to answer that.     

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 - Comment Bump June 7, 2014

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "DHECC - 495 matching policy": 

Blood on the streets. 

Well here we go since June 2, 2014 when the claims center announced payments will start to resume so have the denials. This is the largest blood bath to date over a 7 day period 3,921 denials along with $32,043,869.00 in payments.

268 IEL Claims Denied

357 Start Ups Denied

200 Failed Businesses Denied 

3096 Business Claims Denied

IN-HALE

Winning!!!!



Also, the PSC filed a motion to clarify 495 today:

PSC Motion to Clarify Order 495 Policy

They're essentially asking for all the claims that were held up from the appeal to be paid and not be subject to 495.

DHECC - 495 matching policy

I was going to save this until after the final segment of the Lionel Sutton interview but it's becoming such a topic of discussion among commenters I figured I should go ahead and discuss it.

For those of you who may not understand, about a month ago Judge Carl Barbier capitulated (to some extent) to BP's demands and officially adopted Policy No. 495 for BEL claims, also known as the "matching policy".  Essentially this raises the bar for claimants and requires them to not only file revenue information in order to receive a claim, now they must match their expenses to their revenue.

Barbier order to adopt 495  

This order completely changes the playing field.  Claimants that are still waiting in queue may now have to go back and refile claims or their claim may simply be outright denied according to these new standards.  Claimants that have already been paid didn't have to meet the matching requirements.

That includes all the claims the PSC had expedited for their personal clients.

Meanwhile, the PSC has been popping corks and running victory laps as Doug put it, over the Appeals Court decision against BP.  Even the peanut gallery is dutifully trumpeting the masterful heroics of the PSC:

Makes a great story doesn't it?  Except it's bullshit.

Even the PSC admits in this Motion to Amend 495 that the claims process has now shifted against the current batch of claimants.  This Motion states that the 495 policy "fundamentally alters the specific (causation) criteria and formulae" that was previously agreed to in the settlement.  The memo also states the matching policy "exceeds the authority of the Claims Administrator and the Court".

That doesn't sound like much of a victory to me.  Coupled with the fact that current claimants no longer have the option to opt out of the settlement because these requirements weren't in place during the fairness hearing, it seems to me the good ol' boys have royally fucked this settlement up.  I doubt they care too much considering they expedited their own claims and they'll get their 600 million dollar gratuity in the end whether the buffet runs out of food or not.

And let's not forget Louis Freeh is rumored to have over 70 employees in the Claims Office for a $3 million a month contract including an expense account that would arch the eyebrows of Dennis Kozlowski's accountant.  What do you think he's doing for all that cash?  I certainly don't think he's investigating the PSC....I do suspect he's scrutinizing claims in a much more rigorous fashion than they were a year ago.

How does this constitute a "besting" over BP by the podunk PSC attorneys?  Yeah boy!  They're really sticking it to BP ain't they?

I'm told the matching policy may affect 10's of thousands of claims...and on the high end of 10's of thousands...closer to 100k.

As AZ commenter IN-HALE mentioned in a previous post, there are numerous plaintiff attorneys ready to go to war with the PSC if they don't make an effort to strike 495 down.  If they're going to lobby Barbier to strike it...they better do it quickly.