Thieves in The Temple

I've spent the last few months trying to liberate information surrounding the Plaintiff Steering Committee (PSC) lawyers for the BP trial and the operations of the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center (DHECC).  While pursuing the Wisner story I started receiving allegations from multiple, credible sources of widespread corruption within the DHECC claims process and, in particular, with some of the PSC lawyers using their positions to manipulate the claims process to their own personal and financial gain.

In the course of pursuing these allegations, I filed a FOIA request with the DHECC but they denied the request stating that the information I was seeking is not privy to the Freedom of Information Act.  When I originally posted the denial from the DHECC, I blacked out what I was requesting because I didn't want to divulge the information I was seeking until I had exhausted every avenue to obtain it.  While I have been unsuccessful in getting the information, I have been able to obtain some corroborating documents that don't necessarily confirm some of the allegations that I have received but they do provide a basis for at least one of the allegations against the PSC lawyers.

My FOIA request that was denied requested two things, A list of all the claims filed in the first four weeks of the claims center opening on June 4, 2012 and a list of the claimants and their respective attorneys who had previously filed with the DHECC but then opted out of the process.

Due to my admitted lack of knowledge of the American legal system, I did not understand that the information I was requesting violated the claimants' right to privacy in this matter....or so I'm told.

The reason I'm seeking this information is not to identify any particular claimant participating in the DHECC process but to identify the claims being represented by the attorneys who are also serving on the PSC and to see if the office of the DHECC has processed some, if not all, of these particular attorneys' claims ahead of everyone else's.  Also, to determine if these PSC attorneys are presently, or have previously, advised their own clients to "opt out" of the DHECC claims process.  

There have been two major allegations that I received regarding, at least some, of the PSC attorneys using their position to gain an unfair advantage in the claims process and these two items I requested would provide very basic information that could confirm or deny the first of the two allegations.  This particular allegation is that, at least some, of the PSC lawyers manipulated the DHECC claims process to have their clients' claims processed ahead of other claimants.

So far, none of my sources are willing to go on the record to back up these allegations but I have been provided with some information that leads me to believe there is fire underneath the smoke.

I was told by three separate sources that a single PSC law firm received over $24 million out of $30 million in client claims processed in the first round of payments from the DHECC upon opening in June of 2012.

As it turns out the number is closer to 27 million but I'll get to that in a minute.

If true, this is a clear violation of the claims process.  When the DHECC was being structured by Judge Barbier during the transition period from Feinberg's Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF), in item #10 of this order on March 8, 2012  he mandated that all claims should be paid in the order they are received:

10.  New claims may be filed during the Transition Process until such time as the Court Supervised Claims Program is established and operational as set forth above. New claims submitted shall be processed and evaluated in the order they are received. Non-deficient claims previously pending with the GCCF shall be processed and evaluated prior to any new claims filed after the creation of the Transition Process.

Now, aside from the allegations that the PSC lawyers had their claims pushed to the top, I was contacted by an anonymous source that told me there is rampant corruption inside the DHECC office among some of the CPA's working there.  I was even told of possible bribes being taken by employees of the DHECC to move claims ahead of others, regardless of the order they were filed.

I was also told that claims which didn't have private legal representation were being treated with less importance than the claims that were submitted by law firms.  This is in direct violation of the March 8, 2012 order by Judge Barbier.

The entire purpose of the creation of the DHECC and the appointment of the PSC lawyers under multi-district litigation guidelines was for these chosen lawyers to represent all affected parties making claims against BP.  A claimant shouldn't have to hire a private lawyer in order to get his/her claim processed as long as the claim is submitted properly and the accounting is done according to spec.

That last item...the accounting...and "filed according to spec."....is the pickle.

There is a formula that all claimants must follow in order for their claims to be filed expeditiously.  It involves previous tax filings and other factors but what's important to note is that this alchemy was created by the PSC lawyers in the creation of the DHECC.  No doubt, they pulled heavily from the formula already established by their predecessor, the Gulf Coast Claims Center (Feinberg), but what's important to note is that the new formula was created by the PSC lawyers and by the time the DHECC office opened in July of 2012, if you had prior knowledge of exactly what this formula is, you had a much better chance of getting your claims processed before the the poor schmucks who had to file their information in the dark.  If your claim doesn't fit neatly into the prescribed formula, it gets kicked out and shelved.

This formula was/is incredibly valuable.  Prior knowledge of this formula was/is incredibly valuable.

It was so valuable, I believe it was sold through a specific accounting firm (I do know who the alleged firm is) acting as an agent for at least one of the PSC law firms before it was made available to the public.  I even have a number....50k.  For 50,000 bucks, you (most likely a huge law firm with multiple claims) could get access to the exact accounting formula you needed to process your claims ahead of every other claim that would inundate the DHECC.  The "bribe" was channeled through the accounting firm and eventually to at least one of the specific PSC law firms who created the formula to begin with.

Why do I believe this?  I believe it because I have three, independent...unfortunately anonymous (at this point).....sources who told me the exact same story.  One of the sources even claims to have seen the accounting firm make the offer in person.  I believe there were numerous accounting firms, as well as law firms, along the Gulf Coast that were approached with this offer but I have been unable to get any of these folks to go on the record and confirm this.

Understandably so, they have a lot to lose (their clients' claims) by coming forward and potentially damaging the DHECC process.  If they don't play ball and the DHECC is suspended, they and their clients lose.  They may be disgusted by the situation but in the interest of their clients and their own best interest...they capitulate.

Alright, in terms of hard evidence to support these allegations, I have this document I want to present.

This is the first filing made by Patrick Juneau, the DHECC Claims Administrator.  It shows that $26,295,186 was paid out in the first round of payments.  Of 582 payments that constituted that amount, $24,617,700 out of $26,295,186, went out to VoO claimants, the Vessels of Opportunity program.

That is an inordinate amount of money going out the door to a single claim "category" on the first round of payments.  It's important to remember that the claims coming in to the office were supposed to be processed in the order they were received per Judge Barbier's order issued on March 8, 2012.  I find it hard to believe that every claim in the VoO program was filed ahead of every other claim in the DHECC process.  My question is why was this block of claims processed ahead of everyone else's?

If you recall, I received more than one tip that the PSC attorneys' personal plaintiff's claims were being processed ahead of other claims in the DHECC and that three different sources specified that a PSC attorney had "24 million in claims" processed in the first round of payments, ahead of all the other claims.  I am positive they are referring to this $24,617,700 payed out to the VoO program claimants.

The reason I filed the FOIA was to find out exactly whose claims were being paid out first and who their corresponding attorneys were.  If a PSC law firm was on the receiving end of that 24.6 million, right out of the gate,  I think my bullshit meter just slammed against the peg.

However, the answer may lie in how the claims are being processed instead of what order they are filed.

If other claims were/are being shelved because they didn't/don't meet the exact accounting formula established by the PSC laywers, that could be an explanation as to why their own clients' claims were getting fast tracked ahead of everyone else's.  That's convenient....for the private clients of the PSC attorneys....not so convenient for everyone else who didn't have the wherewithal to hire an accountant or law office that understood the exact formula.

If the PSC lawyers (one firm or all) were auctioning off that information through a second party accounting firm...a filter/agent...that would be pretty shitty.  They were handed the keys to the kingdom as multi-district ligation attorneys by Judge Barbier to basically write the rules to the DHECC.  If they were auctioning off access to those rules before the office opened...and let me be very clear...that is the allegation I have received from multiple sources...that creates a "pay to play" situation.

These specific PSC attorneys were, reportedly, not only using their position to profit above the table by having their own clients' claims pushed to the front, they were also profiting under the table by selling the formula to law firms eager to have their claims payed out ahead of everyone else's.

At this point, perhaps you're asking yourself, "What difference does it make if these lawyers got themselves and their clients paid first?  BP's nose is being held to the grindstone by Barbier and Mr. Fed and even if my claim hasn't been paid yet, it is guaranteed to be paid, eventually."

In fact, I've heard that exact statement from the mouths of some very powerful attorneys who currently have client's claims pending in the DHECC.  They scoff at my suggestion that the claims process may be grinding to a halt and are confident the BP money train wil continue to chug on down the line.

To that end...I would offer this perspective.  BP is a global proxy company for England.  They constitute a very significant portion of the British economy.  They are the global definition of "too big to fail".

When this settlement process started with Feinberg and the GCCF, there was a number established by both parties on what the inevitable payout should be....20 billion.  When the process was shifted from the GCCF to the DHECC, I'm told there was literally an envelope delivered to one of the PSC law firms with a new number on it.  That number was the new ceiling and I believe it would coincide with the original 20 billion dollar ceiling established at the origin of the GCCF.  So subtract what the GCCF paid out, 6.2 billion, and I think you can get a pretty good idea at the number in that envelope handed to the PSC lawyers.

I believe...I don't know...that the claims that are currently queued in the DHECC office far surpass the ceiling established by BP.  I believe the PSC lawyers knew full well the ceiling would collapse and if their claims were purposely pushed to the top, ahead of the natural order of the claims received in the office, well...you see my point.

This breach of protocol is compounded by the fact that this group of lawyers, the PSC, were established to represent all claimants in the BP settlement process, not just their private clients.  So as a claimant, I shouldn't even need to hire a personal lawyer as the PSC attorneys were appointed by a federal court as multi-district litigators to serve me in the claims process.

The second part of my FOIA request was to find out which claimants had "opted out" of the DHECC settlement process.  If we have personal clients of the PSC lawyers that are opting out of the DHECC claims process...the claims process these very lawyers designed and were appointed to oversee....you know we have a problem and the allegations in this post take on much more weight.

Although I'm unable to confirm it, I've been told that one of the PSC's group of clients, five oyster farms here in Louisiana, received a whopping settlement of 600 million dollars that was processed very early on.  That would constitute 1/5 of the 20 billion dollar ceiling on one set of claims alone.  I would love to see what portion of claims have gone to PSC lawyers' private claimants in contrast to other claimants.  Unfortunately, that information appears to be unattainable.

Perhaps this post is so much piss in the wind as most of the information needed to examine these allegations seems to be inaccesible to the public.  But to add weight to my words,  I want you to take note that BP has started a PR campaign to portray themselves as the victim of a "feeding frenzy" claims process that has arisen over the spill:

How BP Got Screwed on Gulf Oil Spill Claims

It seems, to me, the machinations to grind this claims process to a halt are well under way.

One other thing I want to point out is that these PSC lawyers were moved to "class action status" by Barbier AFTER the DHECC process was in full swing.  That's a big deal and the subject of another post.  In the meantime, chew on this stuff for a while and I'll keep digging.

    

    

A river runs through it

And here....most certainly here.....

Louisiana government is making itself off limits to the public:  Robert Mann

And I'll have more to follow.  Just remember this one as well:

A little help

I never got that one fulfilled....but I ended up obtaining some records that are almost as good.

Here's some 411 I'm going to throw at you in regards to my FOIA....chew on it if you're curious:

"24 million....DHECC....first round of payments goes to (one of the) PSC attorneys."

I got an email that suggested that  one of the PSC law firms had pulled in about 24 million out of 27 million dollars of the first round of payments from the DHECC for their own clients.

I've looked into it and I believe this claim is true.

The accusation is that the same attorneys that were chosen to be on the "Plaintiff Steering Committe" by Judge Barbier are getting paid by the DHECC....first.

I am trying to find out if the PSC attorneys' claims were, and still are, being fulfilled ahead of everyone else's BP claims by the DHECC.

This is important because according to Judge Barbier's mandate the claims submitted to the DHECC are supposed to be fulfilled in the order they are received.

I do have supporting evidence that this is happening but I'll refrain from posting it at the moment.  My hope is that someone will audit the situation and we can figure out what needs to be done.

I think we need Judge Barbier to turn over the DHECC accounting records to the U.S. Attorney General in order to find out exactly what claims have been paid and what claims are left on the board.  We just need some honest public accounting....that's what I was requesting in my FOIA.

Do you...yes, you....have a claim against BP right now?  Don't you want to see the records in regard to who has been paid, how much, and in what order?   Shouldn't this information be a matter of public record?  Shouldn't the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center make all of the entity's actions public?

After all...a federally appointed counsel, the Plaintiff Steering Committee, has been chosen to represent all DHECC claims under the auspices of Multidistrict Litigation.

The PSC's actions should be public record...shouldn't they?

A little help

I'm currently working on a story about the BP PSC attorneys that I discovered as an offshoot of the Wisner story.  I recently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center (DHECC) to get some basic information I need to tell the story.

Last week my request was denied:

I blacked out the actual request because I don't want to tip my hat just yet as to what I'm looking for.  I don't want to reveal the story until I can get the data I need to back it up.

The documents I am seeking do not infringe on the privacy of claimants, I am just seeking general information on what claims were filed within a certain time period.

I'm posting this because I need help.  If there are any legal eagles out there or freedom of information advocacy type folks who can help me, I need it.  I thought I had some peeps that were helping me with this but they seemed to have bugged out (it's a pretty big deal so that doesn't surprise me).

I know the information I'm seeking exists, it would be contained within this recent court order from Judge Barbier.

I think the information I'm seeking deserves public transparency as does the overall story.  It will be of great interest to the public, especially those who are still waiting to see their claims resolved...especially considering what is currently transpiring with the BP settlement:

BP asks federal judge to halt approval of billions in payments for fictitious 'losses'

If you would like to help me, just contact me via email @ ashedambala@gmail.com.  I'll be happy to show you the FOIA request and explain what story I'm working on after I establish contact with someone(s) who I know is sincere in wanting to help.  Thanks.

DHECC - Comment Bump, Jan. 12, 2013 - $3 million a month?

There was some speculation in the T&A post comment section as to how much the Freeh Group/Pepper Hamilton are actually billing the DHECC.  This is a response from Anon:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "DHECC: Tits and ass, corporate espionage, white-co...": 

I know that they have at least 42 people working here staying at the top hotels, eating at the top restaurants, renting out an entire floor of a class a building and building out more space, flying back and forth to DC every weekend, renting cars or drivers, hiring security and surveillance as well as top of the line electronics. Read the Penn State articles. Freeh typically charges $6m turnkey for a report that takes 2 months or less to produce. I doubt that the court paid him cash upfront in this case. The Sutton report took 2 months and he has been working on a second report for 4 months. $3 million per month is an educated guess.  

I've heard the 42 (approx.) number of employees from 2 other folks in the building as well...neither with the DHECC though.  3 million a month?  What the fuck are they doing in that office?  Freeh was hired to launch an investigation, not process claims.  So just so I understand this, the DHECC has payed Freeh possibly over 10 million dollars to claw back $357,000 from the Thonn claim?  Or are they now being paid to process claims?

That's the funny thing about this settlement...they, Barbier and Juneau, keep claiming the office isn't public but that they are being transparent to the public.  If that's truly the case, why was my FOIA denied, my personal letter to Judge Barbier left unanswered and how is it that this man hired to launch an investigation is now possibly running the office without any way for the public to find out what is really going on?

I guess they're practicing the Mayor Landrieu version of "transparency".

    

DHECC - $14,000,000 doesn't get you much these days

Mr. Anonymous is keeping me busy with document dumps from the DHECC.  I don't know where they're coming from but keep 'em coming.

Today I got this letter, or partial letter, written by an unidentified BP representative to Claims Administrator, Pat Juneau.

  Mc Glad Ley Letter 1 by Jason Brad Berry

Aside from railing on Juneau for his failure to be transparent, the letter points out that he had originally contracted the McGladrey firm at an estimated cost of 1.2 to 1.6 million.  Over the course of a year that cost ballooned to a whopping 14 million + smackeroos.

Looks like everyone is making a ton of money on this settlement with the exception of the actual claimants, many of whom are still suffering from the effects of this spill.

The McGladrey firm was apparently contracted to conduct an internal audit of the settlement program.  Funny thing is it looks like there is nothing to show for it...at least not to BP.

I was told about a month ago by a source a "scathing audit" had been conducted, mostly surrounding the seafood claims, which Pat Juneau redlined the moment it was delivered.  He then went on to apparently shitcan the whole thing before it could see the light of day.  I assume this is that audit.

If that's the case I can understand the ire of the author of this letter....14 million and nothing to show for it.

Once again we're in a grey zone here regarding the transparency issue.  If the DHECC was a public body then I could file a FOIA for that audit but I know I will simply get denied if I do as the DHECC body does not consider itself a public entity.  However, as the above letter points out (ad nauseam) Juneau has repeatedly touted his intent to make the settlement process transparent.  I think the public deserves to see this audit.  Judge Barbier, himself, has even stated the settlement will be transparent.  One would think he would order this audit to be made public....if he is aware of it (and we know he is now).

I'm not gonna hold my breath either one of those guys are going to live up to their promises but if there is anyone out there that can get their hands on this thing, please send it to me even if it's COD.  I will ask for donations to cover the cost.  

Actually...I'm gonna ask for donations anyway since I haven't in a while :).  If you appreciate the work I do here on AZ you can send a few bucks...or 14 million.....my way via the PayPal button on the right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. 

Leaving so soon?

The City of New Orleans has issued a new RFP for legal services in the BP case:

2013-03-07 CNO Request for Legal Services BP

I am assuming this means that the current law firms, the ones I referred to as the JV attorneys in Part 2, Herman, Herman, Katz and Cotlar,  Fayard and Honeycutt,  Domengeaux, Wright, Roy &amp, Edwards Leger & Shaw are being let go.

It could also mean the City is seeking additional counsel on the matter but I seriously doubt that is the case.

This is an interesting turn of events.  If you read Part 2 of the Wisner chronicles, I brought up numerous potential conflicts of interest with these law firms serving as counsel for the Wisner property in their case against BP while simultaneously serving as counsel for the City of New Orleans as well as serving on the BP PSC (Plaintiff Steering Committee).  

Basically they have all the bases covered.  It's like they hit the lottery in litigating anything of significance against BP.   

Although, remember, that Leger & Shaw are not on the PSC.  It would be interesting if Leger & Shaw reapply under the new RFP and land the job, huh?  But Leger & Shaw may have another conflict of interest with Wisner interests if you take into account that they are representing LaFourche Parish in its case against BP.

Interesting times.  

My main question now is who will serve as counsel for the Wisner Trust?  These lawyers were originally moved into their position as Wisner counsel without an RFP.  If you read Part 2, you know the back room politics which took place in order for these lawyers to be placed as Wisner's counsel.

These lawyers were put into place as Wisner's council after they were already representing the City of New Orleans' interests.

This current RFP says it was released on March 7th and the deadline for submissions is March 18th.  Not a lot of time but this will have a significant impact on the Wisner Trust as it could be left in the lurch regarding legal representation against BP.  In fact, this continuous counsel shuffle could be considered a breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the Mayor as a trustee to the Committee.

This is conjecture, but it would appear to me that the conflicts of interest named in Part 2 may have led to the JV lawyers' exit....if, indeed, that is what is happening.  As stated, these lawyers also serve on the PSC and the law firms involved are asking for 600 million for their services in the BP case.  Their involvement with the City/Wisner case may be posing some serious problems for them and I suspect they may have just decided it is better to walk away from those interests in order to protect their financial interests as PSC attorneys.

By the way...are these PSC attorneys considered "Class Action" attorneys?  I think it's important that we figure that one out.

I am currently pursuing a separate story about the PSC attorneys and I have filed a FOIA request with the Deepwater Horizons Claims Center which I believe is being rejected but I have yet to receive the explanation for that rejection in the mail.  I hope to know more about that tomorrow but I would like to send out a plea for help, here on AZ, if there are any attorneys or freedom of information advocacy groups out there that could help me obtain the information I'm seeking.  I'm pretty much on my own here and I would like to file an appeal if I am rejected.  I would appreciate any help I can get.

Let's keep digging, zombies...there are bodies in these graves.   

what racist websites?

Nagin claims that the picture the TP published of him pointing a gun at Cheif Riley has been picked up by racist blogs and websites. Where are they? Which sites is he talking about? I've been looking for about 2 hours on Google and I haven't found a single one. Can anybody point one out?

A message to Nagin:

Here's an idea...shut the fuck up and answer the multitude of FOIA requests which have been submitted to your office over the past 3 years from activists like Matt McBride and Karen Gadbois. Or better yet, from reporters like Gordon Russell and Lee Zurik. Or even better yet, how about providing the PUBLIC INFORMATION Inspector General Cerasoli has requested and not received from your office. He's been forced to file subpoenas to obtain the information and you are legally challenging his right to do that....what are you hiding?

You have not only gone off the deep end...you're obstructing justice. Why are you withholding public record?

We, the public, have a right to know where you are, what you're doing, and how you're spending our money. Especially when you're riding on Lear jets with contractors you are pumping money to, then paying them out of city coffers for the plane ride after that fact became public knowledge.

OR here's a better idea.....just quit....just leave.

Comment(s) Bump - March 24, 2013 - PLEASE READ

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "A little help": 

Having firsthand knowledge of the DHECC, I know that claims are not handled in any particular order or manner. 

PSC attorney firms and other attorneys have direct access to DHECC decision makers, whereas on the other hand, the DHECC and their representatives’ instruct its staff not to publish phone numbers and other contact information to the general pubic.

Because these attorneys have direct access to accountants responsible for reviewing and processing claims, they are having their claims paid in ridiculous proportions compared to other claimants.

Accountants behind the scenes largely ignore claimants not represented by attorneys, in clear violation of an agreement that is supposed to be fairly administered to all claimants similarly situated. 

Accounting firms reviewing claims have no incentive for expediency or results, but only to bill as many hours as they can, while often preforming redundant tasks, in hopes this boondoggle will last as long as possible.

A travesty indeed, unless you are a PSC attorney, or another law firm who is well connected… 

And this one:

Kevin has left a new comment on your post "A little help": 

Anon:

Are the PSC firms representing opt-out claimants? Are the PSC firms receiving attorney's fees for assisting the claimants you describe in your comments above? 

I'm gonna let you chew on these for a little while before I post any further on the matter.  I will leave you with this order issued by Judge Barbier on March 8, 2012 regarding the transition from the Feinberg process to the DHECC.  Please note item number ten:

10.  New claims may be filed during the Transition Process until such time as the Court Supervised Claims Program is established and operational as set forth above. New claims submitted shall be processed and evaluated in the order they are received. Non-deficient claims previously pending with the GCCF shall be processed and evaluated prior to any new claims filed after the creation of the Transition Process.

These issues are directly related to the FOIA request I filed.  I will expound later in the week.  Suffice to say I believe there is a lot the public should be concerned about regarding the operations of the DHECC and the role some of the PSC attorneys have played in its structure and operations.

This is going to get much uglier, you'll want to stay tuned.

DHECC - Proof positive of claims being expedited by the PSC

For the past year and a half I've been reporting on issues that have occurred with the BP oil spill multi-district litigation settlement and the Claims Office of the Deepwater Horizon Economics Claims Center (DHECC).

From the beginning, I was approached by multiple sources that made claims of fraud and manipulation within the DHECC process.  Most of the allegations involved issues that were instigated by members of the Plaintiff Steering Committee (PSC)....the lawyers chosen to represent all the class claimants along the Gulf Coast in their lawsuit against BP.

Typically...frustratingly..... almost every one of my sources refused to go on the record and I've had a difficult time providing hard proof of the allegations.

My luck changed last week.

Allegations

There are two main issues I've been researching regarding the misconduct of specific PSC members:

1.  The allegation that some PSC firms sold access to the claim "formula" before the claims office opened.  In fact, it now appears some of the PSC firms entered into joint venture agreements with other law firms around the Gulf Coast without disclosing the nature of their involvement to either the claimants or the claims office.

2.  That members of the PSC had their own private claims expedited before other claimants who had filed ahead of them.

The Rules of the Settlement

Before I get to the evidence, I want to point out again that by order of Federal Judge Carl Barbier, the claims which come into the DHECC must be processed in the order they are received:

10.  New claims may be filed during the Transition Process until such time as the Court Supervised Claims Program is established and operational as set forth above. New claims submitted shall be processed and evaluated in the order they are received. Non-deficient claims previously pending with the GCCF shall be processed and evaluated prior to any new claims filed after the creation of the Transition Process.

A Breach of the Settlement?

Last week, I received an unmarked envelope in the mail that contained a series of email exchanges between employees of the Claims Office and other DHECC officials.  Among those involved in the conversation included Claims Administrator Pat Juneau, court vendor Brown and Greer, and members of the PSC.

These emails clearly suggest that PSC members were not only expediting their own claims, they were actually issuing directives to the employees of the Claims Office.  In fact, it looks like they were even holding back specific claims from being processed for political reasons.

Keep in mind the PSC lawyers are supposed to be representing all the claimants in this settlement process, not just their own personal clients.

Trying to get answers

A year ago in March of 2013, I filed a FOIA request with the DHECC in an effort to find out if any PSC members had expedited their own claims within the office.  My request was denied:

A little help

After the denial, I drafted a personal letter to Judge Barbier asking him to redact claimants' private information and make the claim data public so the public could be assured the process was operating according to the standards he had ordered:

The DHECC - Examining the "Claims" - Part 1

Judge Barbier never responded to my letter.

I made contact today with the Claims Office and requested an interview with Claims Administrator Pat Juneau.  My interview request was denied but he did agree to provide statements and facts to any questions I had.  I responded by asking him (via email) if he was aware of any claims that may have been expedited in the office, particularly ones that were being represented by PSC attorneys.  This was his response:

"The Deepwater Horizon Claims Center processes claims as they are submitted. 

In the early stages of the process prior to the Fairness Hearing, and at the request of all parties, the Claims Administration Office had to select sample claims from each claim type that had the required and sufficient documentation to determine the accuracy of the claims process. 

Following this sample selection for the Fairness Hearing, claims are processed as they are received. " 

I replied and asked him exactly how many claims were used in the sample selection and what specific time period this sampling occurred.  I didn't receive a response as of my publishing this post. 

The Evidence

The first email exchange I received in the anonymous package is from PSC attorney Calvin Fayard to former Claims Office employee Christine Reitano with a carbon copy sent to Claims Administrator Pat Juneau.

ITEM 1:

Fayard email exchange request to expedite

As you can see the claim # is blacked out, so I am unable to identify what claim Fayard was asking to be expedited.  But note that Fayard says "Pat mentioned for members of the PSC to send along claim numbers for claims that have been filed and ARE LARGER (emphasis mine) claims that perhaps could be looked at more quickly."  Juneau then responds and orders Reitano to contact Brown and Greer with a request to expedite Fayard's claim.

ITEM 2:

The second email goes even further into the process and features directives dictated to the Claims Office by two PSC members, Steve Herman and Jim Roy:

Email exchange with Herman and Roy directives

The first directive in this email states that the Claims Office should only expedite three of the PSC members requested claims, across two or more claim types.

The second directive in this email is very interesting in that it orders the Claims Office to review and expedite roughly 24 claims across different claim types for six of the law firms that were considered major objectors at the time:  Rick Kuykendall, Sher Garner, Smith Stag, Farrel & Patel, Brent Coon and The Buzbee Law Firm.

It's not clear why Herman and Roy would have ordered the objectors' claims to be expedited along with their own but one possibility is that it could have been a tactic to eliminate these law firms' objector's status against the settlement.

I contacted three of the six objectors firms, two of them confirmed for me, off the record, that they were unaware their claims had been expedited.

One firm, Brent Coon, confirmed, on the record, that he was unaware any of his claims had been expedited.

After looking at the email exchange, Coon also called my attention to the relevance of the 3rd directive which orders the Claims Office to cease and desist reviewing the "class representative" claims (i.e., Lake Eugenie).  Apparently the PSC wanted to hold up these claims because if they were processed too early it would negate their ability to qualify as a "class rep claim".  Coon suggested that if the PSC had those claims sequestered without the consent of the claimants, that could be as big an issue as having their own claims expedited.

And I would also note Odom's curious response to the Herman and Roy directives:

"There was a question regarding item 3 of your email from the accountants.  Are they supposed to stop processing all claims for Class Representatives?  I assume this would be all of the PSC?  If so, what are the accountants supposed to tell the Class Representatives that have been calling them?  What happens to the claims?"

Directives 1, 2 and 3 in this email show a pattern by the PSC to manipulate the claims process as defined by the court.  The other interesting revelation of this email is that is demonstrates that the Claims Office was apparently taking directives from the PSC members with Pat Juneau's knowledge and consent.  It's not the PSC's role to give directives to the Claims Office.

ITEM 3:

The third email exchange contains an actual matrix from Brown and Greer of 409 claims per law firm and claim type that were expedited previous to September 27, 2012:

Email exchange with expedited claim matrix up to Sept. 27, 2012

 

That's 409 claims that were expedited for both the PSC firms and objectors (with at least three of them unaware this had happened).  There are obviously other law firms on the matrix but I have no idea why these particular law firms' claims were expedited.

In the email exchange, Bill Atkinson of Brown and Greer states that they didn't know which three claims to expedite for each objector (per the PSC request) so they just randomly chose the objectors' claims.  This would seem to validate the assertion by the objectors I spoke with that they had no idea that their claims had been expedited.

Sampling?

I suppose it is possible that these claims mentioned in the emails were expedited as part of the sampling process but that doesn't seem likely.  Please note I did not show Juneau the emails.  Had he agreed to the interview I would have shown them to him to get his immediate response.  I point this out to note that his response was not directly to the emails but the general question of whether or not claims, particularly PSC member's claims, had been expedited.  Also note that he never actually said claims had been expedited but his answer suggests some were for the sampling process alone.

The claims in these emails don't appear to be part of a sampling process and there is no mention of sampling associated with them in the email chain.  There are a number of other reasons the sampling suggestion wouldn't make sense.  I contacted two lawyers familiar with MDL claims processes (not associated with the DHECC) and they brought up the following points:

- The entire reason a Claims Administrator is appointed is to avoid having the PSC members calling the shots within the office.  The Administrator is supposed to be an unbiased arbitrator in the MDL process.  The fact that they selectively chose PSC firms' and objectors' claims to sample would not make sense and it's highly unlikely that BP would have agreed to this.  I suppose we'll find out if BP people read this post.

- The whole reason for conducting a sample in the first place is questionable considering Feinberg had already been processing claims in the GCCF for some time.

- Why were over 400 claims used for a sampling process and why were they specifically chosen from PSC filings?  It would make more sense to pull the first 10 to 20 claims from each claim type.  Plus, the PSC samples were most likely all accurate as they understood the filing requirements better than most.  This would tilt the sampling process negating the reason to conduct one in the first place.  The whole purpose of running a sample would be to discover potential problems.

- Juneau suggested the sample claims were pulled "in the early stages of the process" before the fairness hearing.  This fairness hearing did occur approximately one month (November 2012) after these emails exchanges but it seems unlikely they would be sampling claims in the 11th hour, four months after the Claims Office opened for business in June of 2012.  Also, if there was a sample that occurred, you would think Juneau should have reported the results in a spreadsheet to the Court and especially in preparation for the fairness hearing.  I haven't been able to find any such report (if anyone is aware of that report please contact me).

- Why did Calvin Fayard specify that the PSC members were allowed to expedite "larger" claims?  If you were conducting an accurate sample, it seems you would want all type of claims across the spectrum.

If all these claims were expedited for sampling purposes, the sampling process itself needs to be questioned.

A Blind Eye?

The revelations provided in the emails are not a surprise to me.  What is a surprise to me is that Special Master Louis Freeh hasn't addressed these issues.  He must have this email chain as he obtained Christine Reitano and David Odom's DHECC email databases during his investigation.  I must assume he is aware of the issues and he recognizes that they are a clear violation of the terms of the settlement.

In my opinion, these revelations are much more serious than the single claim, Thonn, that Freeh focused on in his first report.  I believe the issue he mentioned on page 60 of the first report is much more serious than the Thonn claim as well because it suggests actual fraud occurred in respect to the seafood claims....allegedly by an unnamed PSC firm.

In fact, expediting a claim (for the Andry Law Firm) is exactly the charge Freeh levied against Lionel Sutton.  Here we have 409 claims that were expedited, many for PSC members.  Is this not worthy of investigation?

The possibility for selective prosecution is of great concern here, as is the overall fiduciary duty to the class claimants by the PSC attorneys.  I believe these issues need to be addressed and explained by Louis Freeh, the PSC attorneys, Pat Juneau and in particular Judge Carl Barbier....they simply can't ignore this.

The Real Problem

The processing of claims has recently slowed to a near halt.  Many of the claimants who properly filed claims are now being asked to go back and meet new requirements that didn't exist at the beginning of the program.  IF PSC attorneys got their own clients paid ahead of other class claimants it is a clear fiduciary breach under MDL standards.

Many of the hard working people of the Gulf Coast...the shrimpers, the oyster fishermen....the people who have suffered the most from this disaster have yet to receive compensation while it appears these PSC attorneys have paid themselves first.  I'm going to introduce AZ readers to some of these folks down the road.

Contrary to Mr. LeCesne's opinion....I believe this is a very big deal.

Attribution note:  This website is under a Creative Commons license and any reference to this post and its material should follow the CC guidelines.

The entire email exchange referenced in this post can also be obtained at the following link but if republished it must be attributed to the American Zombie blog and/or "independent, investigative journalist, Jason Brad Berry":

http://www.scribd.com/doc/211748455/DHECC-Master-Email-Exchange-regarding-expedited-claims-of-PSC

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 - 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.     

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.