Evidence Points to Federal Court Undermining Lawsuit Against BP

Dees Illustration

Brandon Turbeville

In early June, I wrote an article entitled, “Lawsuit Claims BP and Court Colluded to Keep Monopoly on Oil Containment Tech,”[1] where I detailed many of the claims made by Ron Johnson who sued BP for antitrust and negligence in regards to the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill. Johnson’s initial claims against BP were concerning enough. However, during the course of Johnson’s lawsuit and appeals process, Johnson began experiencing what he describes as clear corruption of the higher courts and collusion between these institutions and BP.

The court affair began when Johnson sued BP for negligence and antitrust for refusing to at least attempt to use his technology, the SAK-J5 and the S.O.C.K., equipment which had been tested at Ohmsett with an oil containment and recovery success rate of 100%, even after other methods had proven inadequate and BP was relying on toxic Corexit to simply hide the oil from public view. During the course of his subsequent lawsuit and appeals, Johnson claims that he experienced numerous instances of collusion between BP and the courts such as the Clerk’s Offices’ refusal to enter default against BP even after Federal court rules clearly deemed that this judgment was to be entered, attempts by the court to accommodate BP at every conceivable opportunity, tampering with confidential documents, and the denial of suits that were never signed by judges, just to name a few.

I encourage the reader to access my previous article in order to understand the background of this case.
But if the allegations made by Johnson regarding the behavior of the courts were not serious enough as revealed one month ago, Johnson is making still more claims regarding BP and US court collusion.
The additional allegations “begin” with Johnson’s filing of a Motion to Expedite due to the fact that, according to him, his case had laid dormant for over three months, with no communication or contact of any kind related to the suit. This was, he claims, despite the fact that other cases which were not of a criminal nature were placed on the court’s docket for January, 2012. Thus, Johnson filed the Motion in February, 2012, beginning the process of granting or denying his Motion which Johnson states should only have taken seven days. However, Johnson received a denial of his Motion by the court on June 1, 2012, a full three and a half months after the original Motion had been filed.


Johnson is quick to point out that the fact that made the Motion to Expedite necessary - the lack of forward motion with his case - was then perpetuated not only with the case as a whole, but with the Motion to Expedite itself. Johnson argues that this long period of inaction was nothing more than a stalling tactic which was used in order to cause him to miss other deadlines regarding separate court filings functioning as part of the appeals process.

Johnson explains his position as follows:

According to the Federal Rules of Appeals Procedure (F.R.A.P.), there is a time limit for every motion and response. As to the Motion to Expedite, I had motioned for this when I was not receiving answers from the Clerk’s Office. This was after I was told by a clerk that, on November 17, 2011, my case had been submitted to the Panel to determine the status and direction of this case. I had waited until January 2012 without any answer or information on the next steps. I began calling the Clerk’s Office to receive updates. I was then told that the case was now in the hands of the Panel for decision and one would come before the end of January. After no answer, I started calling the Clerk’s Office again, but all I received were unanswered questions and angry attitudes from the clerks. I then entered a Motion to Expedite on February 16, 2012. Now, keep in mind that F.R.A.P states that this Motion goes to the Motions Panel which is made up of Justices only. Only the Motion’s Panel can determine to grant or deny this motion. Also, this motion must be answered within 7 to 14 days. I never received an answer so, after waiting 24 days, I started calling the Clerk’s Office again. I would call at least twice a week to receive and update. After finally being fed up with no answers and the cold shoulder from the clerks, on June 1, I spoke with a Motion’s Supervisor and confronted him about my case and questioned him as to why I had not received an answer to my Motion. I stated the rules to him. Later that afternoon, I received the order denying my Motion to Expedite signed by the Clerk of Court, not by a Panel member. There was not even any mention of who they were even though they are listed. That was for the remainder of the month of February, 2012 and the month of February, March, April, and May. This so-called answer stated that my case was fully briefed and would be heard in due time. Keep in mind that my case was fully briefed and would be heard in due time. Also keep in mind that once a case goes to Panel, it should only take a total remainder of that month or no more than the next month in the worst case.

Johnson also states that his Motion to Expedite was supposed to have been heard by the Motion’s Panel, a panel which consists of three Clerk-appointed judges. However, Johnson claims that the decision to deny was made by the Clerk, not by the panel, and was subsequently entered into record by the Clerk. Indeed, the documents that Johnson has produced show no signs of signatures by the panel, merely the statement of denial and the file stamp of the Clerk’s office. Johnson asserts that has never seen a signature by the panel on his Motion to Expedite.
In fact, Johnson states:

There were no signatures of any kind from any of the judges. Not even from the Clerk, even though they are not supposed to sign off on this. . . .There were supposed to be signatures after they affirmed the decision to show who ordered this agreement with the lower courts. If the case paperwork stated that it was supposed to be brought before Justices Silverman, Thomas, and Schroeder only, then it should have been signed off by anyone of these three – the author of the opinion.

Likewise, Johnson maintains that the hearing and judgment regarding his En Banc Petition was stalled and ignored in hopes that he would miss his own filing deadlines for the US Supreme Court. Johnson anticipated such obstacles, however, and managed to file his Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court just two days before the deadline passed.

In relation to the En Banc hearing, Johnson says:

Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (F.R.C.P.) states that, after your case is over in Appeals Court, you have a total of 14 days from the date of the ruling. That date would be July 30, 2012. I filed the rehearing petition on August 8th. I should have received a reply within 21 days from the time of filing. That would have been on or around September 25th at the latest. The deadline for my appeal to the Supreme Court was October 27, 2012. I had waited until October 22, 2012 to file my Writ and I also stated the reason for filing my Writ to the Supreme Court – that I had not received any answer from the En Banc Panel on whether or not they had accepted my case for rehearing. After not receiving any answer from the Clerk of Court, Molly Dwyer, from my follow up letter, I was told by the Clerk of the Supreme Court my deadline date and that there are no exceptions. . . . .They (certain unknown clerks in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States) were in collusion with B.P.’s attorney, Christopher Keegan, to keep me from making my deadline to file in the Nation’s Supreme Court.

Shortly after the Motion to Expedite was denied, Johnson received the Mandate regarding the judgment of the US District Court for Northern California, which Johnson subsequently appealed. In keeping with the general direction of Johnson’s legal battles, the challenge to the Mandate was denied and a Memorandum was issued as ordered by the court regarding the denial of the entirety of the case.
Yet, Johnson maintains that, out of the judges required for making the judgment to deny his appeal by virtue of the Memorandum, two of those judges were not even in the appropriate location to hear and rule on his case and none of the judges were seated at the time of the decision. Johnson states,

I can’t say where the judges actually were, but I can say that Justice Thomas was on Calendar to preside over an oral hearing the week of July 16. This can be verified by checking the calendar. The rules do not allow for a Justice to preside over an appeal and render a decision on a merits case during his time in oral hearings. It is a conflict of interest. Also, I had read that, during that time, Silverman and Schroeder, were out of the area in Seattle and Arizona. This also can be verified by their calendar. You will not see them in San Francisco!

Thus, Johnson asserts that the decision was not made by the courts (via the judges) but by the Clerk’s Office.

Essentially, Johnson is claiming that the Clerk’s Office received and held the official court papers in an effort to stall his proceedings in hopes that he would miss his deadline. Then, after these attempts failed, individuals within the Clerk’s office who were loyal or affiliated with BP (through connections, favors, or monetary contributions according to Johnson) attempted to forge actual judicial orders in hopes that Johnson would simply accept the documents he received at face value and fade away. This, he says, explains the constant stonewalling whenever he attempted to speak to the Clerk of Court Molly Dwyer and relevant supervisors at every step of the case.

In regards to some of the evidence Johnson has gathered which he believes demonstrates the collusion and corruption mentioned above, Johnson refers to the actual physical court documents. He says:

First, just look at the Mandate! Notice the file stamp in the upper right corner. It is different from any of the other file stamps used by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The file stamp on the majority of the Motions filed are in a square box. This one clearly looks like an old stamp that was not retrieved when the new one was issued. 

Second, the title states “Not For Publication!” This decision that was supposed to be rendered by these Justices set a precedent and changes over 4 Federal rules and a State statute. This should go into the law journals and addendums so the entire legal system is made aware of the new rules. It is my strong contention that, because B.P.’s attorneys underestimated me because I was not an attorney and represented myself, I would not know or understand the law. I felt that they thought that they could barrage enormous amounts of paper to get me to go away and discourage me from continuing forward. The purpose was to cover up the collusion and fraud and misrepresentation that happened in the District Court of Northern California between B.P.’s Attorneys (J. Andrew Langan, Christoper Keegan, and Magistrate Judge LaPorte).

While Johnson is not able to identify the exact players in what he believes to be a concerted effort to derail his case, he is apt to point out that BP’s attorney, Chris Keegan, working for Kirkland and Ellis LLP, has a potential network of connections at the Clerk’s Office of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is because Keegan, before joining Kirkland and Ellis, once acted as a clerk for Judge John T. Noonan under this jurisdiction.[2] Johnson says this connection is yet one more strand in what he believes to the web of individuals colluding with BP in order to bury his case.

Overall, Johnson has remained surprisingly optimistic regarding the American Justice system, despite his grievances. When I asked him in an interview if he had anything else that he wanted to add, he stated the following:

I would like to say that, just because I caught a few rogue lawyers, one Magistrate Judge, and a handful of rogue administrative clerks in fraud, temporary collusion, and falsifying government documents, that does not change the intention of our justice system. When our forefathers established our system and rule of law, they were attempting to bring order from tyrants and establish a democracy for all to live by - not to allow for personal usage and greed, or to gain favors for those who are able to afford it. Since this has happened to me, it could very well be happening to many more undeserving persons in our country. We must do something about this. I ask everyone to help me fight this travesty of justice and write the Judicial committee, your congressperson, and your senator as well as the Attorney General and make them aware that you, the average citizen, are aware of the fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, and backroom deals that are being made in our Judicial system and this case should be reversed or actually reviewed and reversed by the powers that be and bring all parties to justice for the following: Judicial Terrorism, a violation of Due Process and Due Proof, Fraud, falsifying of government documents, tampering with government documents, and intentional cover up. All of those actions stated amount to Judicial terrorism (acts against the U.S. government for personal or political gain). People, we need to work together and I need your help.

Ron Johnson is currently working on a book about his experience with BP and the Federal Courts which is entitled, BPGate: The Real Pelican Brief. To support Johnson and help him fund his book effort, you can visit his Kickstarter page at:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1199415582/bp-gate-the-real-pelican-brief

Notes:

[1] Turbeville, Brandon. “Lawsuit Claims BP and Court Colluded to Keep Monopoly on Oil Containment Tech.” Activist Post. June 10, 2013. http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2013/06/lawsuit-claims-bp-and-courts-colluded.html Accessed on July 15, 2013.

[2] “Christopher W. Keegan – Partner.” Kirkland & Ellis LLP. http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=220&itemID=8294 Accessed on July 15, 2013.

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here. 

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor's Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published more than 200 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville's podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. 

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Be the Change! Share this using the tools below.