Questions
Why is C&M continuing to demand that the FCSC awards are governed by the JPA when a Federal Judge who has reviewed this case in detail has stated in court that he doesn't believe that C&M's position has any merit.
"I think that Crowell & Moring is going to be very
hard-pressed to show any entitlement to this money under the terms and
conditions of the written agreements, which I've read in detail." - The Honorable Judge Gary Feess', United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division (full transcript of hearing downloadable below)
Why is C&M insisting that the FCSC awards are governed by the JPA when the awards are NOT a result of the lawsuit C&M filed?
Why hasn’t C&M acknowledged that their attorney’s fees under the JPA are “unlawful and void” per the federal statute governing FCSC awards?
Why has it taken a lawsuit for C&M to even acknowledge that their attorney’s fees may be improper ("we wish to assure you that all sums
representing our attorneys fees on FCSC awards will be set aside
pending final adjustment and the resolution of any objections you may
raise"? Why can't they resolve "any objections" now before they force you to turn over your awards to them?
Can C&M explain WHY they "believe that the complaints they have made about the law firm are without merit"? Or are they asking you to just trust them despite our experience with them thus far?
Why do C&M and the Liaison Group only share information after they are forced to disclose it?
Examples: The limit on attorney's fees, this lawsuit, the issue about whether the JPA is even applicable to FCSC awards, etc.
Relevant Documents
Amended Complaint - This is the complaint filed in Los Angeles against Crowell & Moring.
C. David Welch - Assistant Secretary of State for Near
Eastern Affairs, 2005 - 2008, Briefing on the U.S-Libya Comprehensive
Claims Settlement Agreement
Declaration of Professor Roger Alford - Expert in Contracts, Arbitration, and Foreign Affairs
Exhibit A - Alford
Declaration of Gargi Dave
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) Against Parallel Litigation
Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Transcript from the D.C. hearing - Full transcript of the hearing in D.C. in federal district court before
The Honorable Judge John Bates. To date, he has only ruled on one
motion... His ruling was that THERE IS NO
FURTHER CONFIDENTIALITY OBLIGATION UNDER THE JPA. The JPA is a PUBLIC
document now as ruled by the Court. Judge Bates also clearly stated in
court on the record that our
lawsuit raises a valid question of whether the JPA governs the FCSC
awards (a "colorable dispute" in his words). C&M and the LG have
made veiled threats about suing us for their attorneys' fees related to
this lawsuit based on the fact that it has no merit. Judge Bates' on
the record comments that our claims raise a "colorable dispute" defy
C&M and The Liaison Group's assertion that our case has no merit.
At no time during our almost three hour hearing did Judge Bates ever
state that the case has no merit and even appeared to go beyond what
was necessary to state the opposite. Some noteworthy sections of the
hearing are bookmarked in the document.
LG's Praecipe - This is the LG's attempt to prevent other U.S. nationals from joining our suit. Judge Bates barely even acknowledged this filing other than to comment that the trend of others joining our case is not in favor of the LG and that he does not think it is appropriate for the court to dissuade others from joining our case.
Response to LG's Praecipe - Our response to LG's Praecipe.
Transcript from the Los Angeles hearing - Full transcript of the hearing in Los Angeles in federal district court before The Honorable Judge Gary Allen Feess. Judge Feess stated in court that he does not see merit in C&M's and LG's position that the JPA governs the awards negotiated by and granted by the U.S. government.
C&M Attorney: “What we have here at bottom is a
request
for a series of declarations on novel and important issues of federal
law --
THE COURT: Not if in
the first instance you don't have a legitimate claim to this money,
and I
think that's -- I'm not sure that anyone who litigates this case is ever
going
to get to a federal question because I think that Crowell & Moring
is going
to be very hard-pressed to show any
entitlement to this money under the terms and conditions of the written
agreements, which I've read in detail.
C&M's Opposition to our Amended Complaint (adding additional U.S. nationals as plaintiffs) - C&M is falsely portraying that the U.S. nationals that have not yet joined as plaintiffs are declining to join and therefore support their position.
