First there was the famous Wino of Lafayette Square…..

And now there are signs of life along High Street.

Speaking of Jackson, I seem to remember hearing a Federal Grand jury there was probing aspects of the BP Multidistrict Class Action Litigation in New Orleans or in lawyer parlance the MDL.  If you’re not following Jason Berry’s coverage of that which is happening I highly recommend you pay him a visit and read the last three posts.

23 thoughts on “First there was the famous Wino of Lafayette Square…..”

  1. Keeping matters in perspective, depending on what body of law you are suing under, you do NOT want your claims handled through the proess but instead filed separately. There’s the obvious that those who sek remediation funds for coastal/wetland/animal losses will see nothing in the $20 billion, and certainly none of the punitives.

  2. Jason takes a needed professional break to feed his children and when he comes back there is major BP blood in La. waters and the politico shark lawyers are in such a greedy feeding frenzy and gettin’ so sloppy with their unethical bites that they are getting bitten and chunks taken out of their own asses by fellow jealous politico lawyers.

    Personally, I hope they all catch a marine bacterial flesh eating disease in their ” bloody” wounds and all float to the top as there are too many greedy politico sharks in La. waters.

    The more “bloody” money is paid illegally and unethically to these sharks the less money there will be dispersed to the state for coastal rebuilding and storm surge mitigation.Thus NOLA will truly be a town on the move, not ” into” but “outof “, due to monster flood insurance rates.

    1. Given Barbier’s role in the proceedings and his familiarity with those on the committee, one legal wag has commented that the committee wasn’t chosen by Barbier – Barbier was chosen by the committee.

        1. Don’t shoot the messenger, cuz.
          And on the other hand, from personal experience, Barbier is fortunate he has good law clerks helping him.

          1. Your suggestion that the plaintiffs’ committee had any choice in how this case was randomly allotted is absurd. You’re not the messenger on that line of horseshit, cuz. You are implying that the USDC clerk’s office illegally conspired with the plaintiffs’ committee to have the case allotted to Judge Barbier. You might want to take a look at the La. Rules of Professional Conduct, cuz.

          2. Prince:

            Was the first-filed case even assigned to Barbier?

            Did the MDL panel take briefs and oral argument from local lawyers on the assignment of the case?

          3. Prince:

            Who filed case no. 10-1155? What judge was it assigned to? Why was it a “deficient case opening”.

            You say:
            “Your suggestion that the plaintiffs

          4. Prinz, your inanity is overwhelming. The quip I set forth here was from another lawyer. Just because you find it offensive is your problem, and judging from your inane comments, you are the one who need do a reality check – AND you might profit from reading the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct, cuz.

            I imply nothing. Only a fool or a piss-poor practitioner strives to insert “between the lines” what isn’t there, and you’re treading far over that line.

            I’ve practiced before Barbier and have had no problems, CUZ, with Barbier, particularly when he has a sharp lawclerk. On the other hand, CUZ, the fact that other counsel step up to the plate and note without refutation His Honor’s associations over the years with counsel in the trade who made their way onto the committee is certainly indicative of a problem – and CUZ, if you want to attribute to me the sentiments of others as part of some contrivance on on my part, go for it, far better men than you have made such a foolish assertion and profitted not a bit from same.

          5. Empire:

            First of all, why don’t you identify your “legal wag”?

            And second, it was clear that your original comments attempted to paint Judge Barbier as being both dumb and corrupt. Now, you try and back off of both of them. Only rednecks and douchebags address people as “cuz” and “son”

          6. Prince:

            You are speaking only for yourself, of course, when you say “it was clear that your original comments attempted to paint Judge Barbier as being both dumb and corrupt.” I never got that impression from Empire’s comment in any way.

  3. Uh…yeah, Empire Parish. You may want to look the Herman’s campaign donations, above board and below, to the both Mitch and Mary. Then you may want to look up Stan Chesley, his connections with both the Hermans and the Landrieu’s and how the GCCF was shut down by Barbier’s decision and as NAAS suggested. You should also look at MDL and how this thing went down….it’s never happened like this in the history of MDL.

    Did the PSC choose Barbier? Kind of. Mary Landrieu chose Barbier, the current administration complied with her wishes and the people stuffing her pockets made sure of it. You need to know who’s stuffing Mitch and Mary’s pockets before you dismiss the claims so quickly.

    And I agree with NAAS…you are either super naive or you have an alternate agenda. No shame in respect to naivety…I would humbly ask you to read what I’m going to post in the coming weeks, months, and I think you will see a pattern laid out that lends credibility to NAAS’s comments.

    I don’t know NAAS or have any allegiance to him but words have gravitas.

    One of the key pivot points was Stan Chesley. You may want to read up on him if you’re serious about understanding what has happened:

    http://www.kypost.com/dpps/news/local_news/cincinnati-mayor-defends-disbarred-lawyer-stan-chesley-in-interview_8419416

    1. Dambala, you miss my point and start wading off into the nether-realm occupied by “Prinz Harming.” What I am noting is the fact that high-quantum complaints WERE filed by “plaintiffs’ counsel” (just love that inane pejorative, don’t you?) in order to escape the cesspool of the favored few on the Committee. This was done precisely because of the known associations you allude to; it is puzzling that you in turn suggest I don’t acknowledge same when I note expressly other filings were done to avoid the cesspool.

      Why don’t you consult with Doug before assaulting the keyboard – Doug will give you a full note that I’m no shill or patsy or dinsinformation artist for the sorry lot you roundly criticize. I’ve been battling equally sorry lots for decades and I do not intend to stop now with this pack.

        1. My apologies! It was Prince Charming, not you. Sorry for the confusion, I was on phone when I read it and I thought you made that comment.

          Mea Culpa…my distaste should be directed at Prince Charming.

  4. One thing I’d like to see competently (not hysterically) addressed in the days, weeks and months to come is: Who was justly compensated, what did the lawyers for justly compensated claimants get, who realized legally unjustified (and I don’t give a rat’s ass what Barbier or Juneau said) recoveries, and what did certain politically-connected lawyers realize by way of “windfall” legal fees? This case had LOTS of legally justified damages to go around. Who was “compensated” because of who they are rather than by virtue of what damages their clients legitimately suffered? Ashton O’Dwyer.

    1. AROD:

      You’re barking up the right tree.

      Let them start with the law firms (including individual staff) in Louisiana that filed for and received compensation because of “lost” income or profits. That’s a claim I will never understand. Speaking from first-hand experience, I was approached and told that I had a valid claim simply because I am a paralegal in Louisiana working for plaintiff lawyers. I KNOW I did not lose a dime because of the oil spill.

  5. Empire Parish,

    I apologize once again. My phone wasn’t populating the thread as clearly as I see it now, on my computer. i thought you had made the Prince Charming comments. My bad.

    Now…

    Prince Charming…I’ve looked at the rules regarding attorney, and more importantly, judicial, conduct among “Louisiana folk”. In fact, I’m very confident I’m not the only one looking at it right now. I’d be willing to bet that it’s being looked at on a national level as well.

    You want to make that bet with me? I’m game.

    Prince….I will gladly review the LA laws of professional conduct for attorneys and judges with you. Truth is… it matters not. This whole racket is well past Louisiana gaming standards…it’s now federal. It’s actually international. If you want to get into a pissing contest with me on that level I’d be happy to oblige. In case you don’t understand what’s happening, that funny tickling sensation beneath your feet is the sand shifting.

    1. The Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct also apply in Fed Ct., and to how you write about Fed Judges. If you’ve got some hard evidence that Carl Bariber has done something unethical or illegal, bring it. There’s no shifting sand under my feet; they are on solid ground.

      What bet are you looking to make? People are always “looking into” the conduct of lawyers and judges in MDL and large class actions. You seem to be “looking into” it. So what are you sugesting?

      1. I’m suggesting that these attorneys and Barbier are being investigated by at least one federal entity, possibly more. It may not be a criminal investigative body, but it could lead to that. Potential disbarment is a more likely scenario for some of the players mentioned here.

        Freeh’s appointment is simply window dressing…I’m not referring to that. I believe there are other entities looking at what has happened with these PSC lawyers, Barbier, Juneau, and the DHECC.

  6. The Conduct of Federal Judges, including Judges sitting in the Eastern District of Louisiana and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, is governed by the “Code of Conduct for United States Judges”., The only problem is: The Code “don’t work”. I invite anyone who is interested to look up how many Complaints have been filed, and how many Complaints ever made it past the filing stage, before being summarily dismissed without any substantive treatment of the merits. Let’s go back 5 years. The numbers will astound you, I promise. I challenge anyone to identify to me any Federal Judge who has even received a written reprimand, as opposed to “real punishment” in the last 5 years, other then “G.T. Orteous”. Parenthetically, the lawyers, other the Amato (RIP) and Creely, namely Gardner, Chopin and Forstall (and possibly others), have received no discipline whatsoever. A Federal Judge who is disciplined, because he is a lawyer, is also subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct, which governs lawyers. “G.T. Orteous” was disbarred after he was convicted in his impeachment trial in Washington, D.C. Ashton O’Dwyer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *