http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/05/did-bp-transocean-lawyers-spin-\ james.html
Posted by Vatic at 09:46 <http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/05/did-bp-transocean-lawyers-spin\ -james.html> [icon-action] <http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=5848012286026687939&postID=1\ 341828014301192839> [icon-action] <http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5848012286026687939&postID=13\ 41828014301192839> Vatic Note: Here is another take on the interview, which I questioned when it first came out. Who was this person, who got him to call the show, but why particularly Mr. "Levins" show. Why did he mistakenly say Bomb twice and then retract??? So many questions and now add this and its beginning to smell again. I actually got into trouble with a reader for making too much out of this. So given he may have a point, I present this to you for your own addition to the previous offer I made and see for yourself what you think, keeping in mind we already know 9-11 was an inside, mossad false flag, that trading on stocks affect by 9-11 occurred the day before, as it did on this massive destruction, so its very possible this could have been similar. However, I will let you read it and decide for yourself. Before reading this, please watch this video and notice it follows the fire frm beginning to end even when the pontoons are finally gone and only the derrick is left. And listen to the interview with an small oil co owner who has inside info on something that happened two hours before the explosion. Would this contributed to gross negligence or would it mitigate it? This video and information on Bureau of Land management visiting the rig two hours before the explosions is very telling and the video itself shows something much different that what we have been shown in cuts from the MSM, SO WATCH . Here is the link, Bureau of Land management was doing a surprise inspection on oil Rig 2 hours before it exploded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHj97pvEHkM <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHj97pvEHkM> Did BP, Transocean Lawyers Spin The "James" Oil Rig Survivor Interview on The Mark Levin Show? http://www.lawco.com/424/did-bp-transocean-lawyers-set-up-the-james-oil-\ rig-survivor-interview-on-the-mark-levin-show/ <http://www.lawco.com/424/did-bp-transocean-lawyers-set-up-the-james-oil\ -rig-survivor-interview-on-the-mark-levin-show/> May 3rd, 2010 Author: Lawco Staff Steve Gordon, maritime lawyer, representing the family of Karl Kleppinger, Jr, one of the missing 11 oil rig workers aboard the Transocean Deepwater Horizon disaster on April 20, 2010, claims that an oil rig survivor's story was set up by British Petroleum (BP) and Transocean lawyers for the purpose of spinning the account of the disaster. The interview was broadcast on The Mark Levin Show on Friday, April 30, 2010. An anonymous caller referred to as "James", the survivor from the disaster, phoned into the radio talk show and told his account of what happened on the rig that fateful morning. Gordon believes that this interview was set up by the lawyers at Transocean and BP. Steve Gordon goes on to say on his Deepwater cause and investigation web page: After 8 days of "silence", all of a sudden, an unnamed "caller" calling himself James, who says that he was actually on the Deepwater Horizon [DWH], calls into a radio show in Dallas, Texas and wants to "clear the air". This, I am sure will be proven to be a planned effort on the part of the lawyers at Transocean and BP. (1) The Jones Act, a law that allows injured victims in a maritime incident to receive economic damages, covers the Kleppinger Family's claim. A Jones Act violation is easily going to be provable in this disaster and, therefore, the "liability" of Transocean, as to our client, is going to be easily made. But the Kleppinger case, or any other DWH injured workers' claim, does not stop with finding "liability" as that is just half of the legal equation The other half is "damages". If you listen to the caller, he explains what happens as sort of a "surprise" and one attributable to "Mother Nature" and, therefore trying to negate a finding of gross negligence; (2) However, gross negligence is a possibility in this case against Transocean and/or BP. But, neither Transocean nor BP is "admitting" the Jones Act allows punitive damages in a Jones Act Wrongful Death Claim. 1. This is very important and I do not want to confuse anyone so I will re-state this another way. I believe that Transocean and BP are going to come into our court case and say "We Stipulate to Liability", in other words they will "confess" liability as to negligence. Then they will argue that "gross negligence" is not available as a matter of law! By arguing this, they will then take the position that they will not have to produce all the (1) statements and (2) documents related to their investigation, or (3) the videos of the rig floor that get sent to shore in "real time"; (4) or all the memoranda related to discussions of the very thing occurring offshore that actually did happen on the Deepwater Horizon; because, once all these things are produced, then gross negligence will be "unveiled" and a jury could then award punitive damages. 2. Another thing is, the questioner asks "did they [the 11] die instantly?" He just ask this out of the blue. Well, once again, this is a very important aspect of the recovery of the Kleppinger family and it is called "Conscious Pain & Recovery of Karl Kleppinger, Jr. just prior to his death" 3. "You can't win against Mother Nature" the Caller says; then he says, "This was a .. literally could have been .a once in a lifetime freak accident or it could be negligence". Notice no mention of gross negligence. He attempts to portray this event as completely unexpected and not one as a result of poor decisions at the corporate level. Gordon says to listen to the interview with an "ear" with the analysis that Transocean and BP are trying to explain how it was just "negligent" but not "grossly negligent". --- In cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com, "muckblit" <muckb...@...> wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/message/49361
