Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ken Feinberg tells judge to keep out of the oil spill claims fund process.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 04:58 PM
Original message
Ken Feinberg tells judge to keep out of the oil spill claims fund process.
Edited on Wed Apr-13-11 05:00 PM by madfloridian
This sounds like Feinberg and his lawyer are telling the judge not to interfere in the process of filling claims.

That's pretty nervy.

Feinberg Tells Judge to Stay Out of BP Oil Spill Claims Fund

Kenneth Feinberg, the administrator of BP Plc (BP/)’s $20 billion spill-claims fund, told the U.S. judge in charge of hundreds of oil spill damages lawsuits that he shouldn’t -- and legally can’t -- take charge of the claims- payment process.

The attorneys general of four Gulf Coast states had asked U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans to monitor Feinberg to ensure fair and prompt payment of thousands of oil spill damage claims, as required by law.
On April 7, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood asked Barbier to intervene, conduct an independent audit of Feinberg’s Gulf Coast Claims Facility and hold public hearings on the findings.

...“The court does not have the power under the Oil Pollution Act to impose upon the GCCF the monitoring sought by the attorney general,’’ David Pitofsky, Feinberg’s lawyer, said in court papers filed today.

“Even if it did" have legal authority, imposing the court’s supervision over Feinberg’s fund would divert resources and “chill the ability of GCCF personnel to work expeditiously without fear of running afoul of an independent auditor and a court-imposed evidentiary hearing," Pitofsky said.


They don't want the judge to have the ability to hamper the Gulf claims folks. Seems they want to work without fear of oversight....that's what it sounds like to me.

Seems to me Feinberg needs some supervision in this claims process, considering he is paid a large sum every month by BP, and he just got a huge raise.

Feinberg Gets $400,000 Raise

The man in charge of paying oil spill claims is now getting $1.25 million a month from BP.

PASCAGOULA, Miss - Documents provided by the administrator of BP's claims fund for Gulf oil spill victims show the oil giant agreed to increase his law firm's monthly compensation from $850,000 to $1.25 million.


Last week, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange accused Feinberg of dragging his feet until victims are so desperate they will settle for anything. Feinberg called those claims unfounded.

The documents furnished to The Associated Press include a letter from former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey to claims czar Kenneth Feinberg. Mukasey stated his belief that the extra money was warranted because Feinberg's duties had grown.


This fellow needs watching. He recently told some foreign press that he could not pay 80% of the remaining claims, implying they were not done correctly.

Ken Feinberg tells foreign journalists he can't pay 80% of the remaining Gulf claims..100,000 claims

Gulf Coast Claims Administrator Kenneth Feinberg told a group of foreign journalists yesterday that close to 100,000 claims submitted as a result of the BP oil spill "lack proof."United Press International reported today Feinberg's statement that he cannot pay "80 percent of the remaining 130,000 claims because they lack adequate documentation."

"The claims that were denied had woeful, inadequate or no documentation to speak of," Feinberg is quoted as saying.

The GCCF has come under heavy scrutiny from all parties. Currently state attorneys general and plaintiffs attorneys are arguing that the GCCF is in violation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Recently, Alabama, Mississippi Florida and Louisiana all filed memos criticizing Feinberg and the GCCF.


Here is more on what Judge Barbier said in the ruling earlier. They simply lecture and defy him it seems.

US District Judge Carl Barbier said he was ordering BP, Mr Feinberg and any of their agents to change the way they communicated with people seeking money from the fund. Judge Barbier said Mr Feinberg must clearly disclose in all communications that he was acting for and on behalf of BP in fulfilling its obligations as the responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act.

The judge stopped short of ordering changes to a release form that people who accept final payments from the fund must sign. He asked lawyers to submit additional briefs to the court on that, as well as address the question of whether BP was complying fully with the law in the processing of claims.

..."Lead lawyers in hundreds of claims filed over last year's Gulf Of Mexico rig explosion and massive oil spill had asked Judge Barbier to intervene in the communications between Mr Feinberg and fund claimants. The attorney generals in Mississippi and Louisiana have backed the motion and Florida joined in on Wednesday.


Feinberg should have had someone giving him oversight, he should not have just been turned loose on the Gulf States like that.

Seems like his arrogance is showing up now, more than before.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have NOT been pleased with him
Edited on Wed Apr-13-11 05:22 PM by gimama
..I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt when he was appointed,
didn't last long.. this story is..outrageous.
I hear sometimes there are still 9-11 Families with claims in dispute/denied..
maybe that needs looking into right now, as THIS disaster/crime is.."handled".

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. He really is getting paid a lot by BP...
and that is where his loyalty lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. that's right, from earliest days
of his appt, I watched him acting like the comforting ole grandpa,
carefully calming down the upset residents & workers..
& in between the lines, if You listen carefully,
he was obviously shielding/covering for bp.
I was disgusted, watching a "community meeting" he met with(cspan?)..
Feinberg sure was a nice guy,
till a REAL Person challenged him on his bs/non-answer..
kindly ole grandpa transformed into a snide, sneering shark..his real self.

Who SPEAKS for US?
WHO STANDS for us? really?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. & a mad kick 'n'r from me nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidthegnome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. damn
this one just makes me sick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-13-11 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
6. Working for the oil industry is like working for the MAFIA ... confident no one is ....
Edited on Wed Apr-13-11 09:57 PM by defendandprotect
going to interfere with what you're doing -- !!

Remember seeing this the morning after the ExxonValdez oil catastrophe in Prince

William Sound -- Hearings in the Senate started immediately --

the guy who came in to represent the oil industry -- a VP, I think -- made it

obvious that they were irrelvant and he little bothered with them -- an air of

assurance that made clear he knew where the power was and it was no threat to him!


I think we can identify this power more readily when we understand that OIL is a

"national security issue" -- and that Obama's protection of BP/Gulf Oil drilling --

is about protecting a resource for the MIC.

No oil = no wars --


hmmmmm............


:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. as the bush-Iraq war was beginning,
there was a report on some msm(for a few days, network teevee) that the US Military
consumes 80% of the fuel used by the US.

80%! I've tried at different times to find a clip, or a study/source for that report, & got onto some spooky sites by accident,but haven't found my info..yet.

what is that? not a self-fulfilling prophesy, but there's a name for a system that cycles on itself this way.

I got a few special names for the system, but Im trying not to cuss tonite. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Aha ... you're got the info I've been looking for -- I picked it up from Thom Hartmann ....
Edited on Thu Apr-14-11 01:23 AM by defendandprotect
as he reported it one day -- MIC uses 80% of our oil!!

Anyway, I've repeated that here a few times -- and someone wanted source for it

and wasn't satisifed with Hartman!! Tough!

But, it's a concept people here at DU have to begin to get!!

And thanks for giving me another source for that info!!

:)


Btw, business also uses 80% of our water!!

Fortunately, they haven't used water yet to kill people -- well, barring fire hoses!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. AHA YourSELF! Glad to hear Hartman on it
was that recently? Keep me posted, when You find source/video, & I'll do the same, ok?
I have been kinda obsessed with the story since..2003?! I only search every few months; like I said, there are some wierd paths it takes me on, but I'll keep looking.
It's more important than most of us can conceive..but it explains so many things & brings more questions.

And EQUALLY important, the Water issue..no wars YET over Water.. but there have been in the past, could be again.
'Specially when 2-leggeds keep screwing it all up. Water is precious, & it is sooo disrespected.

Goood to find a fellow Searcher on these numbers!:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Re Hartmann . . .
don't really recall when -- possibly like last summer, not more than a year ago.

Tried to get more details from him on this - his source -- but couldn't get the

question thru. Also, I don't get to tune in to his program as often as I would

like so don't know if he's mentioned it since then.

Obviously, you heard about it long before I did. And completely agree with you

on the importance of this!

Thank you -- I consider your info confirmation enough for me --

but I will continue looking -- !!


:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
9. Ken Feinberg is an asshole of the highest order.
That is all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnyxCollie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
10. K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:47 AM
Response to Original message
12. k& r, & off to bed
Clean Blue Water & rolling Waves,
JUSTICE & PEACE Dreams to You All..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 04:42 AM
Response to Original message
13. I was ridiculed by some here when I said
the people would get the shaft, back when this claims business first started. Just sayin'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Were they all born yesterday, or what?
Valdez, Bhopal... who is that naive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
15. BP, short for Beyond Public Scrutiny. REC. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Good point.
They think they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azureblue Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-14-11 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
16. echos of post Katrina
when the insurance companies, etc., tried everything hey could to keep from having to pay out, and the government had to step in and lean on them. Teh Insurance companies said the same thing - no jurisdiction, butt out, etc.

Take 2, Feinberg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
19. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
This is what came up when I Googled. I don't know whether this has been amended.

SEC. 1004. LIMITS ON LIABILITY.
(a) GENERAL RULE.—Except as otherwise provided in this section,
the total of the liability of a responsible party under section
1002 and any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible
party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed—
(1) for a tank vessel, the greater of—
(A) $1,200 per gross ton; or
(B)(i) in the case of a vessel greater than 3,000 gross
tons, $10,000,000; or
(ii) in the case of a vessel of 3,000 gross tons or less,
$2,000,000;
(2) for any other vessel, $600 per gross ton or $500,000,
whichever is greater;
(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total
of all removal costs plus $75,000,000; and
(4) for any onshore facility and a deepwater port,
$350,000,000.
(b) DIVISION OF LIABILITY FOR MOBILE OFFSHORE DRILLING
UNITS.—
(1) TREATED FIRST AS TANK VESSEL.—For purposes of determining
the responsible party and applying this Act and except
Q:\COMP\WATER2\OPA90
December 29, 2000
Sec. 1004 OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 244
as provided in paragraph (2), a mobile offshore drilling unit
which is being used as an offshore facility is deemed to be a
tank vessel with respect to the discharge, or the substantial
threat of a discharge, of oil on or above the surface of the
water.
(2) TREATED AS FACILITY FOR EXCESS LIABILITY.—To the extent
that removal costs and damages from any incident described
in paragraph (1) exceed the amount for which a responsible
party is liable (as that amount may be limited under subsection
(a)(1)), the mobile offshore drilling unit is deemed to be
an offshore facility. For purposes of applying subsection (a)(3),
the amount specified in that subsection shall be reduced by the
amount for which the responsible party is liable under paragraph
(1).
(c) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) ACTS OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY.—Subsection (a) does not
apply if the incident was proximately caused by—
(A) gross negligence or willful misconduct of, or
(B) the violation of an applicable Federal safety, construction,
or operating regulation by,
the responsible party, an agent or employee of the responsible
party, or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship
with the responsible party (except where the sole contractual
arrangement arises in connection with carriage by a common
carrier by rail).
(2) FAILURE OR REFUSAL OF RESPONSIBLE PARTY.—Subsection
(a) does not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses—
(A) to report the incident as required by law and the responsible
party knows or has reason to know of the incident;
(B) to provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance
requested by a responsible official in connection with removal
activities; or
(C) without sufficient cause, to comply with an order
issued under subsection (c) or (e) of section 311 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321), as
amended by this Act, or the Intervention on the High Seas
Act (33 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.).

. . . .

Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and in consultation
with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the heads of other affected agencies, not later
than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall
promulgate regulations for the assessment of natural resource
damages under section 1002(b)(2)(A) resulting from a discharge
of oil for the purpose of this Act.
(2) REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION.—Any determination or assessment
of damages to natural resources for the purposes of
this Act made under subsection (d) by a Federal, State, or Indian
trustee in accordance with the regulations promulgated
under paragraph (1) shall have the force and effect of a rebuttable
presumption on behalf of the trustee in any administrative
or judicial proceeding under this Act.
Q:\COMP\WATER2\OPA90
December 29, 2000
249 OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 Sec. 1007
(f) USE OF RECOVERED SUMS.—Sums recovered under this Act by
a Federal, State, Indian, or foreign trustee for natural resource
damages under section 1002(b)(2)(A) shall be retained by the trustee
in a revolving trust account, without further appropriation, for
use only to reimburse or pay costs incurred by the trustee under
subsection (c) with respect to the damaged natural resources. Any
amounts in excess of those required for these reimbursements and
costs shall be deposited in the Fund.
(g) COMPLIANCE.—Review of actions by any Federal official
where there is alleged to be a failure of that official to perform a
duty under this section that is not discretionary with that official
may be had by any person in the district court in which the person
resides or in which the alleged damage to natural resources occurred.
The court may award costs of litigation (including reasonable
attorney and expert witness fees) to any prevailing or substantially
prevailing party. Nothing in this subsection shall restrict any
right which any person may have to seek relief under any other
provision of law.
(33 U.S.C. 2706)


http://epw.senate.gov/opa90.pdf

Hmm! Wasn't BP grossly negligent?Oil Pollution Act of 1990?

With the enactment of OPA on August 18, 1990, Congress consolidated the existing federal oil spill laws under one program. The 1990 law expanded the existing liability provisions within the CWA and created new free-standing requirements regarding oil spill prevention and response.
Key OPA provisions are discussed below.
Spill Response Authority
When responding to a spill, many considered the lines of responsibility under the pre-OPA regime to be unclear,33 with too much reliance on spillers to perform proper cleanup.34 OPA strengthened and clarified the federal government’s role in oil spill response and cleanup. OPA Section 4201 amended Section 311(c) of the CWA to provide the President (delegated to the USCG or EPA) with three options: perform cleanup immediately (“federalize” the spill), monitor the response
efforts of the spiller, or direct the spiller’s cleanup activities. The revised response authorities addressed concerns “that precious time would be lost while waiting for the spiller to marshall its cleanup forces.”35

The federal government determines the level of cleanup required. Although the federal government must consult with designated trustees of natural resources and the governor of the state affected by the spill, the decision that cleanup is completed and can be ended rests with the federal government. States may require further work, but without the support of federal funding.36
31

http://www.capalphadc.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2010-04-30-desc-RL33705.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-15-11 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
20. Thank you Ken, for explaining how things really work. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chervilant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 02:18 AM
Response to Original message
21. Shakespeare said it best:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". - (Henry VI, Act IV, Scene II).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC