Skip to content


August 15, 2013

Subject: FW: RABBIT, RUN (1960)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:56:19 +0000

Subject: RABBIT, RUN (1960)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:53:04 +0000


1) Full page BP public announcement as advertisement in The Washington Post, 13Aug2013, printed edition:

Three years ago, BP made a commitment to the people of the Gulf. Every day since then, we’ve been working hard to keep it. So far, we’ve spent $14 billion on response and cleanup to help restore the environment. We’ve also paid more than 300,000 claims totaling over $11 billion to help restore the Gulf economy. And last year, we signed a settlement agreement to ensure that people who suffered losses form the accident would keep being paid.


When we negotiated that agreement, we sat down in good faith with the goal of helping as many deserving people as possible. And when we signed it, that’s what we thought the agreement would do. Unfortunately, it’s now being applied in a way that ignores the agreement’s plain language, with enormous payments going to businesses that did not suffer any losses.


An obvious question is why BP would ever agree to a settlement that could be distorted in this way. The answer is simple: we didn’t. We agreed to a settlement that would pay legitimate claims for real financial losses. And that’s why we’re fighting to stop awards to businesses that had no losses. […]

2) Adam Liptak of The New York Times (13Aug2013) referencing Solicitor General Donald B Verrilli, Jr on a Supreme Court argument over a secret government surveillance program:

He said the plaintiffs in the case had not shown that they had been spied on and so lacked standing to sue.


This did not mean, he added, that no one could ever sue. If the government wanted to use information form the program in a criminal prosecution, he said, it would have to disclose that to the defendant, who would then have standing to challenge the program.


The words of Verrilli-as reported by Liptak-are most outlandishly naïve –disingenuous, as they say.

I call it garbage, plain and simple.

It is inexact to understand that the only way to use secretly -and/or-illegally-obtained information in a court of law is by disclosing it.

Simply, it can be feed illicitly and of illegal origin, into legitimate law-enforcement procedure without the need to in fact declare its real source.

As can be common practice in US law enforcement on-I understand-all levels.

As is, in fact, understood in many, broader circles of the US public and surely by Verrilli himself.

A better question for BP to ask itself is why should Joe the plumber-in whatever profession or business-operate on good faith when the cultural and institutional medium Joe lives in considers good faith, to a great degree, as a dangerous liability as naïveté in certain circumstances?

The answer is simple: he won’t be able to for very much longer.

I am on the move and I am going to start with institutions themselves.

And I do not accept bad faith.

See you in court.

Show time!:





Legal Disclaimer not in original email:

No person or entity as email address recipient of the above email is in two way communication of any kind with me other than by automatically returned server messages.


From → Directives, Orange

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s