No He Did Not!

[i_am_the_swammi]

Surely none of the money would be accidentally funneled to the DNC.

 

[gbpfan1231]

I pretty much agree with what Barton said. The $20 Billion in escrow was nothing but a shake down, so that old Barry can try to score some political points that he desperately needs. Based on what I've read, BP has already settled half the claims against it so far, and there was no indication that they were trying to slow play. They were doing it without the government forcing them to. Barton went as far to say that “There is no question that BP is liable for the damages, but we have a due process system where we go through litigation and court cases to determine what the damages are and when they should be paid,” and I agree with that as well. We used to have this thing called the Fifth Amendment, but I guess this administration doesn't think any more of it than they do the rest of The Constitution. So far since the spill BP has done pretty much everything they possibly can to make things right, with the exception where our government has tied their hands.

 

ETA:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

BPWallace - is it ok if I reply +1 to the above post? Just checking cause I am dense.

[rattsass]

I pretty much agree with what Barton said. The $20 Billion in escrow was nothing but a shake down, so that old Barry can try to score some political points that he desperately needs. Based on what I've read, BP has already settled half the claims against it so far, and there was no indication that they were trying to slow play. They were doing it without the government forcing them to. Barton went as far to say that “There is no question that BP is liable for the damages, but we have a due process system where we go through litigation and court cases to determine what the damages are and when they should be paid,” and I agree with that as well. We used to have this thing called the Fifth Amendment, but I guess this administration doesn't think any more of it than they do the rest of The Constitution. So far since the spill BP has done pretty much everything they possibly can to make things right, with the exception where our government has tied their hands.

 

ETA:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What is this strange document you are quoting, and what relevence does it have with life in America?

[Perchoutofwater]

BTW Barton is a sleazeball that has long been in the pockets of the oil companies, still he is right in this case.

[detlef]

oh snap!!

 

its called due process!!!

Curious. Because when some dirt ball gets killed while committing a crime by a concerned citizen with a concealed weapon permit or when that old fart told 911 to shove it and gunned down those two guys stealing from his neighbor, there were quite a few around here who called them heroes. Just one less trial to clog up our courts, right?

 

Here's the thing. This money is being pulled into escrow which only insures that it will be there once whomever decides upon it says that it's due. Obama isn't saying, "pay this guy $100K and that guy $250" How much crap would people give the government if they allowed BP to piss away its holdings to its investors and go bankrupt before everyone got what they were owed?

[i_am_the_swammi]

The Republicans want nothing more than the ability to say that Obama is dragging his feet or not doing enough to fix the problem. Obama's problem. Now we have a dude that is apologizing to BP for America being too heavy handed?

 

 

the only things thicker than the irony of this conversation are the ones attacking it.

[dmarc117]

Curious. Because when some dirt ball gets killed while committing a crime by a concerned citizen with a concealed weapon permit or when that old fart told 911 to shove it and gunned down those two guys stealing from his neighbor, there were quite a few around here who called them heroes. Just one less trial to clog up our courts, right?

 

Here's the thing. This money is being pulled into escrow which only insures that it will be there once whomever decides upon it says that it's due. Obama isn't saying, "pay this guy $100K and that guy $250" How much crap would people give the government if they allowed BP to piss away its holdings to its investors and go bankrupt before everyone got what they were owed?

 

 

oranges and apples

[i_am_the_swammi]

Curious. Because when some dirt ball gets killed while committing a crime by a concerned citizen with a concealed weapon permit or when that old fart told 911 to shove it and gunned down those two guys stealing from his neighbor, there were quite a few around here who called them heroes. Just one less trial to clog up our courts, right?

 

Here's the thing. This money is being pulled into escrow which only insures that it will be there once whomever decides upon it says that it's due. Obama isn't saying, "pay this guy $100K and that guy $250" How much crap would people give the government if they allowed BP to piss away its holdings to its investors and go bankrupt before everyone got what they were owed?

 

Stop making so much sense.

[dmarc117]

the dog and pony show is sickening. these politicians get all righteous when the cameras are on them. for the people!!! bla bla bla.

[detlef]

oranges and apples

Exactly, playing judge and jury when it means gunning a dude down in the streets is much worse than simply making sure a company who has the money to cover it's debts right now, still does when all is settled.

[rattsass]

Oh, I remember now. It was called the Constitution. Well, that was really just sort of a guide anyway...

[MikesVikes]

Yeah, I'm sure the "independent" agency in charge of the payouts won't end up with any misappropriated funds either. All above board I'm sure. Surely none of the money would be accidentally funneled to the DNC.

 

I agree with you here big guy. Plus I'm sure there will be some fees involved as well. I have heard of people that were none too impressed with how the govt. paid out flood relief funds. How one neighbor can get paid out 100K more than another for two similar houses. Sorry that one was pre-Obama.

 

I don't think this is a good enough reason to give BP their chunk of change back to them however.

[rattsass]

Oh, I remember now. It was called the Constitution. Well, that was really just sort of a guide anyway...

And anyway, Barry had his fingers crossed behind his back when he took the oath so.....

[MikesVikes]

Is this not an example of public danger?

[dmarc117]

Exactly, playing judge and jury when it means gunning a dude down in the streets is much worse than simply making sure a company who has the money to cover it's debts right now, still does when all is settled.

 

 

a life or death split second decision in your own home vs an ongoing prolonged accident. ya, those are pretty close.

Edited June 17, 2010 by dmarc117

[SEC=UGA]

Here's the thing. This money is being pulled into escrow which only insures that it will be there once whomever decides upon it says that it's due. Obama isn't saying, "pay this guy $100K and that guy $250" How much crap would people give the government if they allowed BP to piss away its holdings to its investors and go bankrupt before everyone got what they were owed?

 

Let us say you have a company. You have 6 investors and each of them are owed a quarterly draw on profits. One day a piece of something falls off of one of your trucks because it wasn't secured. This piece of something that fell of your truck hits a car, the car swerves off the road, hits a guard rail and the person is paralyzed from the waist down. Your insurance will cover up to 1 million dollars. The person is suing you for 50 million. Your company is profitable, no problem paying out the dividends that you owe to your owners. But, if that 50 million claim were to be awarded that would rended you penniless. So, prior to a trial even starting, the judge calls you into his quarters and says "I need you to take all of the cash you have on hand in your company and place it into escrow. I don't want you squandering it paying your investors, or potentially losing it on bad deals until we see if you really are liable to pay this guy 50 million." Well, since they put all of your operating revenue into escrow you can't make payroll, you can't pay your investors, hell, you can't pay yourself. You go out to find other investors to get more working capital, but you can't find any who are willing to give you the money because of pending litigation So your company basically closes the doors. Does this sound proper? This is basically what just happened to BP, except they won't have to close their doors, though, investors will be extremely wary of investing in the company while any litigation is pending.

Edited June 17, 2010 by SEC=UGA

[Perchoutofwater]

Curious. Because when some dirt ball gets killed while committing a crime by a concerned citizen with a concealed weapon permit or when that old fart told 911 to shove it and gunned down those two guys stealing from his neighbor, there were quite a few around here who called them heroes. Just one less trial to clog up our courts, right?

 

Here's the thing. This money is being pulled into escrow which only insures that it will be there once whomever decides upon it says that it's due. Obama isn't saying, "pay this guy $100K and that guy $250" How much crap would people give the government if they allowed BP to piss away its holdings to its investors and go bankrupt before everyone got what they were owed?

 

In the cases you list above there is an immediate threat to the person who is shooting the criminal, if there isn't than the person shooting the criminal is a criminal as well. There are laws, even for people who carry concealed handguns. If you don't know them, then you don't get the CHL, if you break them then you face a jury of your peers. My problem with the Obama shakedown is there is no law saying he can do what he is doing, in fact there is an amendment against it.

[Azazello1313]

so impotent and inneffectual is the president on this matter, that the only thing he feels like he can do is publicly lash BP. apparently, to him and his advisors, this is the thing to do politically because 1) it helps him funnel all the blame and anger their way, and 2) he can say he is "doing something" and "kicking someone's ass".

 

so now, it is the executive's role to step in and take over for the judiciary to "punish" BP, but it is NOT the executive's role to protect the country's shores and waters from an environmental catastrophe. we'll just let BP handle that on their own, we don't want to assume that responsibility. we'll just stand back and grandstand with our mad face on.

[gbpfan1231]

Let us say you have a company. You have 6 investors and each of them are owed a quarterly draw on profits. One day a piece of something falls off of one of your trucks because it wasn't secured. This piece of something that fell of your truck hits a car, the car swerves off the road, hits a guard rail and the person is paralyzed from the waist down. Your insurance will cover up to 1 million dollars. The person is suing you for 50 million. Your company is profitable, no problem paying out the dividends that you owe to your owners. But, if that 50 million claim were to be awarded that would rended you penniless. So, prior to a trial even starting, the judge calls you into his quarters and says "I need you to take all of the cash you have on hand in your company and place it into escrow. I don't want you squandering it paying your investors, or potentially losing it on bad deals until we see if you really are liable to pay this guy 50 million." Well, since they put all of your operating revenue into escrow you can't make payroll, you can't pay your investors, hell, you can't pay yourself. You go out to find other investors to get more working capital, but you can't find any who are willing to give you the money because of pending litigation So your company basically closes the doors. Does this sound proper? This is basically what just happened to BP, except they won't have to close their doors, though, investors will be extremely wary of investing in the company while any litigation is pending.

Apples to Oranges!!! Your compnay you mention is not an Oil company who makes a lot money.

[bpwallace49]

ETA:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

I guess the hazmat suits for cleanup are strictly for ornamental reasons? BTW, here is some actual debate on the legal issues of claims.

 

BP's Gulf Coast oil spill - a legal primer

By Roger Parloff, senior editorJune 6, 2010: 9:10 AM ET

 

 

FORTUNE -- To help readers navigate the legal landscape surrounding BP's mammoth oil spill (or "oil spew," as some argue it should more properly be called) in the Gulf Coast, I have looked into some of the law-related questions and statements that keep surfacing as the press and bloggers keep up with the crisis. I rely mainly here on an interview with Christopher B. Kende, an international insurance law specialist at the firm of Cozen O'Connor. Kende also teaches attorneys about the legal issues stemming from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as a lecturer for HB Litigation Conferences.

 

Is BP really protected by a $75 million cap on damages?

 

Probably not. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, known as OPA (pronounced like 'Oprah' without the 'r'). For leaks from offshore oil rigs like this one, OPA limits the liability of the responsible party -- BP in this instance -- to $75 million in economic damages, but there are several mammoth exceptions. To begin with, the limitation does not apply to any of BP's liability for state and federal cleanup costs, for which BP (BP) is 100% responsible. As of early June, these costs had already come to about $990 million, according to BP, and the company seems to be just getting started. (BP has also committed to spending another $360 million to fund the building of barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana.)

 

But the key, ginormous loophole in the $75 million OPA limit is that BP isn't allowed to take advantage of it if the company -- or any of its contractors, Kende stresses -- acted with gross negligence or violated any federal safety law or regulation. In other words, if either BP or rig-owner Transocean Ltd. (RIG), or cement contractor Halliburton Energy Services (HAL, Fortune 500), or the blowout preventer manufacturer Cameron International (CAM, Fortune 500) violated some safety rule -- the limit vanishes. (If a subcontractor is the one responsible, BP might then be able to go after that company for contribution or indemnification.)

 

"I think there are enough regulations in this area," says Kende, "that something was probably done wrong" by someone, though he acknowledges that that's speculation on his part.

 

Has BP really waived the $75 million limitation?

 

BP representatives have made statements in the press and before Congress that have certainly implied that it would not invoke the OPA $75 million limitation. As a technical matter, Kende says, "I think statements in the press would not be considered legal waiver." He can't comment on BP's intentions, he adds.

 

Given the public relations fiasco BP would face if it tried to invoke the limit, however; and given the likelihood that the limitation would be legally breakable anyway; and given BP's conduct so far -- as of early June the company had already paid out $42 million in private claims for economic damage, according to its press statements and SEC filings -- it seems likely that, one way or another, BP won't be getting the benefit of the limit.

 

Why in the world did congress limit an oil company's liability in the first place, especially in a law passed right after the Exxon Valdez fiasco?

 

It didn't really. Prior to OPA's passage, it was actually harder for the federal government, states, and private parties to recover their losses and expenses from an oil spill.

 

"OPA was designed to expand liability," Kende says, "to make it easier to sue for more categories of damages."

 

Prior to OPA, for instance, general maritime law principles would have barred Gulf Coast hotel owners from bringing claims against BP for lost revenues unless they had actually owned beachfront property that was physically drenched with oil. Under OPA, hotel owners all over the Gulf region can bring such claims based purely on cancellations and other lost revenue. OPA also makes BP strictly liable for such losses -- i.e., the claimant doesn't have to prove negligence on BP's part, as it would have to do in court. If the damage turns out to have been some other company's fault, BP can later sue that party for reimbursement.

 

Just how remote can economic damages be? If a New Orleans barber says he has suffered loss in revenue, due to fewer tourists visiting and his regulars being too strapped to come as often, does he have a claim against BP?

 

Kende replies with an even more disturbing hypothetical of his own: "Suppose a New York travel agent makes claims against BP based on the loss of her commissions from fewer clients making trips to Louisiana?"

 

Kende doesn't know the answer to either of our questions, since a situation like this one hasn't arisen before. "Courts will just have to draw a line somewhere," he says.

 

He assumes that the more remote geographically someone gets from the spill, and the longer the chain of events is that led to a claimant's alleged damages, the harder it will be for the claimant to prevail. (Kende observes that the desire to avoid engaging in such difficult line-drawing was the precise reason courts had, prior to the OPA, refused to recognize claims for economic damages from spills unless the claimant had also suffered physical property damage.)

 

Can a state or municipality make a claim against BP for, say, diminished sales taxes, due to lost tourism or from residents moving away?

 

Yes. "OPA specifically allows for recovery for lost tax revenue," says Kende. It also covers a municipality's increased costs for public services, he adds. For instance, if a city incurs extra expenditures from paying overtime to police or firefighters, those are economic losses for which BP would apparently be liable.

 

Can claimants also lodge claims against some sort of trust fund?

 

Yes. OPA also created something called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, paid for by petroleum taxes.

 

The fund, administered by the U.S. Coast Guard, has $1 billion available to pay claimants from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. If an idled fishing business, for instance, or a cancellation-plagued Gulf Coast motel makes a claim against BP, and BP for any reason refuses it, the claimant can then file an administrative claim against the trust fund. If the trust fund refuses the claim, the claimant can still go to court.

 

If, on the other hand, the trust fund pays the claim, the fund can then seek reimbursement -- or subrogation -- from whichever party it considers responsible for the damage (be it BP, Halliburton, Cameron, or whomever).

 

But, Kende warns, if the claimant files suit before making a claim against BP or the trust fund -- as so many already have -- they cannot file a claim with the trust fund until after their litigation ends, which could be years, if not decades. The law is intended to encourage people to try the administrative claims procedure first before resorting to litigation. (Parts of the Exxon Valdez litigation are still ongoing, 21 years after the spill. Ironically, one potential defendant in the Exxon Valdez litigation is BP, which is a 47% owner of Alyeska Pipeline Service, which owned the terminal at Valdez. Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500) has threatened to sue for contribution.)

 

Could rig-owner Transocean be liable for only $27 million? How can that be?

 

Transocean Ltd., the Swiss owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig, did file suit in federal court in Houston last month invoking a nineteenth-century law which, it says, limits its total liability for personal injury and wrongful death actions arising from the April 20 explosion to $26.7 million. (Eleven workers are missing and presumed dead, including nine Transocean employees, and an unspecified number of the 115 surviving crewmembers were injured.)

 

The law in question, the Limitation of Liability Act, was passed by Congress in 1851 in an effort to encourage investment in shipping. It says that a ship owner's liability "shall not exceed the value of the vessel and pending freight."

 

Part of what makes the law so harsh is that it's not referring to the value of the vessel before the explosion, but rather to its value right now. The value of the Deepwater Horizon -- exploded, burned, and lying at the bottom of the ocean -- is zero. The arcane term "pending freight" is actually the source of the $26.7 million value Transocean is now assigning to the rig; in this context, it refers mainly to the rent money Transocean says BP still owed for leasing the rig as of April 28, the date Transocean's CFO did the computation. (The Limitation of Liability Act provides an even more bizarre formula for computing Transocean's minimum exposure under the act: You multiply the vessel's weight -- 32,588 tons in the Deepwater Horizon's case -- by $420 per ton. But since that arithmetic produces a number less than the value of the "vessel and pending freight," the latter figure is the one that's used.)

 

According to Kende, the subsequent passage of OPA effectively repealed the Limitation of Liability Act with respect to oil pollution damages, so Transocean's liabilities for those are not capped at $26.7 million. A Transocean spokesman confirms Kende's understanding, saying, "We have never intended or asserted [otherwise and] we have clarified that to the ... court and to the Department of Justice."

 

Nevertheless, the 1851 law may well cap Transocean's liability in the personal injury and wrongful death cases, all of which are currently stayed pending a ruling on that question.

 

Though the Limitation of Liability Act's cap can be lifted if the ship owner is shown to have been "complicit" in the negligence that caused the injuries -- and plaintiffs' lawyers say the exception applies -- Kende says it's a hard sell. The whole point of the law, he explains, was to suspend the ordinary rule, under which an employer is automatically responsible for the negligence of his employees. Here, the plaintiffs will have to prove that high-level Transocean officers were intimately involved in the negligence that led to the accident.

 

The 1851 law has no impact, however, on the liability of other potential defendants, like BP, since only Transocean was a vessel "owner." (BP leased the Deepwater Horizon from Transocean.)

 

interesting stuff here . . . if there already is 1 billion dollar "trust fund" available, then why have a 20 billion dollar number thrown out there? Obviously expected claims will be far, far above that number. I like how this fund was designed to not run through the courts forever, but encourage settlements so that lawyers dont get the lions share.

[rattsass]

Is this not an example of public danger?

Interesting you should mention that. Yes it certainly is public danger. It was a public danger in late April when we have about 13 nations offering us help to stop this monstrosity. But Barry didn't see it as a public danger then. He only smelled danger when the checkbook came out.

 

Thanks for reminding me.

Edited June 17, 2010 by rattsass

[dmarc117]

I guess the hazmat suits for cleanup are strictly for ornamental reasons? BTW, here is some actual debate on the legal issues of claims.

 

 

 

interesting stuff here . . . if there already is 1 billion dollar "trust fund" available, then why have a 20 billion dollar number thrown out there? Obviously expected claims will be far, far above that number. I like how this fund was designed to not run through the courts forever, but encourage settlements so that lawyers dont get the lions share.

 

 

i read somewhere that in order to get some claims for loss of income, they have to show their past tax statements. well most of these fishermen are sole props and have, shall we say, understated their past earnings. so now they are skrewed cause the govt is only giving them what is stated on their statements. ouch.

[SEC=UGA]

i read somewhere that in order to get some claims for loss of income, they have to show their past tax statements. well most of these fishermen are sole props and have, shall we say, understated their past earnings. so now they are skrewed cause the govt is only giving them what is stated on their statements. ouch.

 

The sick and twisted side of me would find that to be incredibly hughmorous

[MikesVikes]

i read somewhere that in order to get some claims for loss of income, they have to show their past tax statements. well most of these fishermen are sole props and have, shall we say, understated their past earnings. so now they are skrewed cause the govt is only giving them what is stated on their statements. ouch.

 

 

Well it looks like we've become a fisherman of men then.

[rattsass]

Interesting you should mention that. Yes it certainly is public danger. It was a public danger in late April when we have about 13 nations offering us help to stop this monstrosity. But Barry didn't see it as a public danger then. He only smelled danger when the checkbook came out.

 

Thanks for reminding me.

And this is our "environmental" president in action. He turns down help from other nations because he is an egotistical prick, but his ears perk up when the money is at stake. And he will use this to get more money with his cap & tax, because his plan to save the world is to throw MORE of our money at black holes and dreams.

 

I'm sorry but this is all a huge farce. Political games are costing us our planet. What have we done?