25,000
People Reject BP Oil Spill Settlement Plan but Some May Be Forced to Accept
By JG Vibes
theintelhub.com
November 12, 2012
When the government or
major multinational corporations do something that results in harm to people or
destruction to the environment, they usually try to sweep the problems under
the rug as quickly as possible.theintelhub.com
November 12, 2012
“Hush money” is usually given to people who were effected in the form of legal settlements, and many times they are bound to remain silent about their ordeal because of how the agreements are written.
Of the roughly 79,000 people who have filed claims against BP over the deep horizon oil spill, 25,000 have decided to reject the deal, saying that it is unfair.
“Patrick Juneau, who heads a claims center established as part of the agreement, said 25,000 prospective plaintiffs applied to opt out ahead of a Nov. 1. deadline.
But he predicted the actual number will be much lower, saying about half the opt-out applications didn’t comply with court requirements. Claimants who don’t opt out must proceed under the terms of the settlement.”
This means that the people who are filing damages charges that aren’t able to jump through all of the correct hoops will be forced into accepting the deal and all of the terms that come with it.
According to the lawyers representing gulf residents, the deals are unfair and people in some areas are neglected by the terms of the settlement.
On the other hand, the courts and the lawyers representing BP insist that the deals are perfectly fine.
James Roy, a lawyer on the steering committee who negotiated the settlement, responded to criticisms by saying that,
“This settlement should amicably resolve in excess of 100,000 economic claims from the world’s largest oil spill disaster.
The settlement creates a court supervised settlement program – it gives those individuals who suffered economic damages a fair and objectively determined settlement.”
Just this week in an entirely different case involving the
BP oil spill, a judge denied a former BP engineer’s motion to
dismiss one of two obstruction of justice charges that he faces for
allegedly deleting text messages related to the amount of oil flowing into the
Gulf of Mexico following the 2010 spill.
The fallout from the BP
oil spill is still being dealt with in many ways, both in the court room and in
the clean up effort.
2 comments:
Most of us are being rejected for the claim itself. They sprayed me for 4 months with corexit 9500 here in the canals of Eden Isles and the rigolets and they deny the claim because I was on social security disability and had no medical coverage to back me up. BP is corrupt and so is the people down here that works with them. Heck, they stole 90% of the fema money and Ed Falcone's funds to repair our infrastructure. Nothing has changed.
This means that the people who are filing damages charges that aren’t able to jump through all of the correct hoops will be forced into accepting the deal and all of the terms that come with it.
A contract by force is void ab initio.
A settlement for the right of a wrong by force is void ab initio.
You can't force someone to accept what you consider is making them whole when they tell you they are left unfulfilled by the settlement.
The statement above is bogus and has no legal standing. No one has to jump through the right hoops to say, no.
Also, it's an offer.
When they say 'you have to accept this', you can always reject the offer.
The people that fold - they don't know their power - were driven by fear - made someone their leader/their God and let them tell them what they can and will do, well they'll accept anything given to them and then complain about how they got rolled over.
You are the Creator of your future.
If your future includes this settlement, come hell or high water you will accept it.
If it does not, then come hell or high water, you should be standing firm and rejecting and and determining the authority of anyone who says you have to accept it.
People who's homes were stolen did not accept the first offer, it was junk. Some held out and ignored the 'offer of a settlement' through filing out some stupid form saying we 'lost' our house.
NOpe, it was not lost, it was stolen.
To lose something means I had acted irresponsible, I know the legal definition of 'lost' cause I took the time to look.
Nope it was stolen.
They have to, by law of remedy for the cause of action they created to interfere with your path that you were on in your life; they have to provide a decent restitution.
They make enough money in a year's time in profits to settle up properly.
People were still buying their gas; knowing they had polluted land and sea.
I saw their stations and people pulled up to the pumps and supported them with money.
People don't care about anyone until the problem affects them; then they want People to care.
Crazy how that do unto others rule works.
Post a Comment