(NaturalNews) The April 2010 British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was one of the worst environmental accidents in U.S. history, but what is perhaps equally damaging are the legal machinations which have since occurred behind the scenes.
Enter Ron Johnson, the owner of Ericam Environmental, LLC. Three years ago, he filed suit against BP for negligence and antitrust after the oil company giant refused to at least attempt to use his technology, the SAK-J5 and the S.O.C.K., equipment, oil containment and recovery technology that had previously been tested at a 100 percent success rate, writes Brandon Turbeville for the Activist Post
.Widespread collusion between BP and federal courts?
Here's some background from Turbeville, who quoted from Johnson's lawsuit:While BP's negligence in the Deepwater Horizon spill scarcely needs a court case in which to be proven, Johnson's case focused largely on the aspect of antitrust in which he claims that BP "willfully and intentionally mislead and concealed facts to the American government, the President of the United States and the American public about the Deep Water Horizon oil spill, clean up and recovery."
In addition, Johnson's suit claims that BP "willfully and intentionally misquoted the actual amount of oil arising from defendant's [BP] damaged oil rig." Furthermore, "[D]ue to the continuing negligence in the operation of the remediation of this oil that is spreading across the Gulf of Mexico waters and costal shorelines, causing total destruction of the wetlands, fish and wildlife with, complete hardship for the people of the states adjacent to the Gulf waters, along with future undetermined damage to the fish industry as well."
Rather than use his technology, BP
chose instead to utilize Corexit, a compound that worked merely to hide the oil from view but did little to actually clean up the spill.
But the situation has only gotten worse since Johnson filed his suit. Now, he claims, there is collusion between BP and the federal 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 document; and the denial of suits that were never signed by judges," among other claims, Turbeville writes.
Johnson explains: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.
Johnson said he would call twice a week for updates regarding the progress of his case, but to no avail.
"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," he says. "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."
He finally got an answer - a denial of his motion to expedite his case - in June 2012, after confronting a Motions supervisor about his case.Despite the barriers, there is hope - and irony
As the case progressed or, rather, did not progress, there were other irregularities as well. But throughout it all, Johnson has remained optimistic.
"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," he told Turbeville. "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," he continued, "it could very well be happening to many more undeserving persons in our country. We must do something about this."
Ironically, BP is suing the federal
government itself, claiming that the company is being shut out of bidding on federal contracts "to supply fuel and other services," The Associated Press