Friday, 28 May 2010
Anniversary of announcement of Libyan settlement offer
It was on this day in May 2002 that Kreindler & Kreindler, the New York law firm representing many of the families of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster, disclosed that Libya had offered a $2.7 billion settlement of their compensation claims ($10 million per family). A contemporaneous report on the CNN website can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On 5 December 2003, Jim Kreindler revealed that his Park Avenue law firm would receive an initial contingency fee of around US$1 million from each of the 128 American families Kreindler represents. The firm's fees could exceed US$300 million eventually. Kreindler argued that the fees were justified, since "Over the past seven years we have had a dedicated team working tirelessly on this and we deserve the contingency fee we have worked so hard for, and I think we have provided the relatives with value for money."
ReplyDeleteGreat quote, Patrick.
ReplyDeleteK+K do provide great value. My girlfriend's purse was once stolen, and they got us a new purse, plus $20 million for themselves, by pinning the blame on North Korea. Suddenly, the US government was on our side, it was amazing.
(joking of only slight relevance)
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteIst der "BP Oil Spill" im Gulf of Mexico eine symbolische Strafe für den merkwürdigen "Lockerbie-Handel" mit Libyen (u.a. Rückzug des 100% erfolgversprechenden Reappeals) zum Schaden der Wahrheits-Aufklärung gegenüber der Welt und den Hinterbliebenen der Opfer von PanAm 103 ?
Der weiterhin rechtsgültige "PanAm 103 Fluch", welcher bei jeder Gelegenheit immerfort mit Libyen und Al Megrahi in Verbindung gebracht wird, muss nach dem fertiggestellten MEBO "Lockerbie Finalreport" und der von Justice Secretary, MacAskill versprochenen Öffnung der SCCRC-Dokumente, endlich aus den Weltmedien verschwinden !
Demnächst wird mit ergänzenden Fakts nachgewiesen, dass Libyen und Abdelbaset Al Megrahi mit der PanAm 103 Tragödie nichts zutun haben konnten und dadurch erwarten können, dass die Ehre und das Prestige wieder hergestellt wird.
Following only one computers translation of "Babylon", German /English:
Is the "BP Oil Spill" in the Gulf of Mexico a symbolic punishment for the strange "Lockerbie Trading" with Libya (among other things retreat of the 100% promising Reappeals) to the damage of the truth clearing-up opposite the world and the Family of the Victims of PanAm 103?
The further legal "PanAm 103 Curse", which is always brought with each opportunity with Libya and Al Megrahi in connection, must after the finished MEBO "Lockerbie Finalreport" and of Justice the Secretary, MacAskill promised opening of the SCCRC documents, finally from the world media disappear!
With supplementing fact it is proven shortly that Libya and Abdelbaset Al Megrahi with the PanAm 103 tragedy do not have anything to do could and thus to expect be able that the honour and the prestige are repaired.
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland, URL >www.lockerbie.ch<
In the wicked business of US contingency fees the skim ran at about 25% (for nationals) and 35% (for foreigners), so I expect the take in Lockerbie is nearer to $1B. It may explain why, it is said, American lawyers, were very upset when the likes of Jim Swire began to doubt the truth of the Libyan milch cow.
ReplyDeleteBut what is truth when the stage full of American cardboard actors is baying, and the SD, DoJ, CIA, FBI, Senators Congressmen, Presidents, media, the CIA commentocracy, and fixated xenophobic bloggers trumpet their demands. Pay up, pay up, then we'll just might play with you again.
The quantity of infected muck than passes for decent, informed public opinion in the US is quite beyond belief, and any lie whatsoever may be advanced to manitain the facade of the bully pulpit.
The quantity of infected muck than passes for decent, informed public opinion in the US is quite beyond belief, and any lie whatsoever may be advanced to manitain the facade of the bully pulpit.
ReplyDeleteToo true, and I fear there's no cure for the condition this side of the big decline. The USA will have to be brought low before it stops acting so high and mighty. Or just mighty.
The comparison of a girlfriend's purse, or attorney's fees to the value of human lives lost on PA 103 is astounding. Disgusting as it is to put a price on a human life; that's what law suits do to penalise heinous acts. $10MM or $300MM is a pittance for what the families endured in the loss of their loved ones.
ReplyDeleteI can understand people who have lost a breadwinner being compensated for the loss of income - and future income. Beyond that, what's the logic? Are the people who lost loved ones yesterday in Cumbria going to receive millions of pounds? What about the people who lost loved ones yesterday in road accidents? What about people whose loved ones die young of natural causes?
ReplyDeleteEvery one of these has lost someone. Maybe someone far more dear to them than a relative who happened to be on PA103. But it was the relatives of the people on the plane who became millionnaires. Funny thing, that.
Maybe it's no wonder that people who became wealthy years ago because of this, first through the compensation paid by Pan Am because of the judgement that their security at Frankfurt should have caught the bomb that allegedly came off KM180, and then from Gadaffi's successful attempt to buy his way back into the international community, should be rather resistant the the idea that the bag didn't come through Frankfurt, and wasn't planted by Libya.
I don't blame them for taking the money - I would probably have taken it myself. I don't blame them for being uncomfortable with the idea that the basis on which the money was awarded might well be erroneous. I just don't think we should pay too much attention to their protestations.
Having met many UK Lockerbie relatives, many of whom I know well, it may surprise some readers that that in the dozens of family meetings I've attended, the issue of money has not arisen.
ReplyDeleteYou may say that my view is prejudiced by my knowing Lockerbie relatives, when I am the relative of another atrocity. But the French relatives I know (from UTA) do not campaign for money either.
I rather think money was not in the minds of the relatives of IR-655, however little they recovered, by comparison with UTA or Lockerbie.
Rolfe's comparison with more mundane but equally saddening tragedies, is I think not appropriate.
None of us entered the condition of being a relative with a view it being a meal ticket.
Can we simply look at the existential fact that we lost a relative in future?
None of us entered the condition of being a relative with a view it being a meal ticket.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you didn't. And yet, for some people that's exactly what it turned out to be. Funny that.
What is so different about the relatives of the victims of these terrorist outrages, compared to the relatives of Bird's victims, or the victim of a careless driver? Is there something about the culprit being a terrorist rather than a lunatic or an idiot that means all this money flows logically from that circumstance?
I don't necessarily blame anyone who accepted money that was being thrown at them anyway. I could see, though, that they might find themselves feeling irrationally guilty about it once they received it. (I found my mother crying with guilt after she received a few thousand pounds as part of a class action against asbestos manufacturers, following my father's death - and that really was pocket change in comparison.)
Can we simply look at the existential fact that we lost a relative in future?
No, not really. One group of relatives received enormous amounts of money, even though no amount of money can compensate for the loss of a loved one, and another group did not. This is a fact and it doesn't go away.
And the main reason we shouldn't ignore the vast amounts of money sloshing around here is that it's perfectly reasonable to imagine that possession of that money might influence the possessor's attitude to evidence that the money was disbursed on false premises.
I am posting this yet again to Professor Blacks blog I first posted it today 16 June 2010 at 10.11 am. It had not appeared by 10:30 am. I am posting it again at 16:25 and taking a copy of what I send. Professor Black says I have not been banned from blogging. I got a message at 10:11 that it would appear in a few minutes. When therefore doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteI'm trying again. Now 16:25. Charles Norrie.
I too find it hard to search the blog. And I've had things that don't appear.
So I'll post in relation to something Rolfe wrote on about the 16 June 2010. It reads as as follows:
It is interesting that Rolfe asks for more facts. In my opinion facts is just what we don't need, as they are likely to be misleading or simply a distraction. I am not interested in writing pretty stories a la Seymour Hersh; I am interested in solving Lockerbie, and at the risk of making Rolfe, him, or should I say her, irate again, you start with theory and then apply facts to that.
I have eight facts that point to a second explosion on the Maid. But when I promote this account, each is taken on its own and I am told it is impossible. I cannot see any reason for the impossibility of each or the facts taken individually.
To take one example. The AAIB report says that there was not more than one IED. Rolfe tells me that it is impossible to conclude that one reading of this statement was that there was one IED and one explosion that was not IED.
I am copying this entry, as I have had three items not appear on Professor Black's blog site, and it seems I am not the only one.
He tells me I am not censored, so where did they go. By the way the 15 interline passengers are neatly listed in Crawford's book from p80 on, though the amount of luggage each had is not given. But it is known I am sure. All the personnel are inaccurately described if they have US Government connections and Crawford is silly enough to say of some that have "no known state function". Singularly not said of Curry, Gannon, laRiviere, McKee or O'Connor, but these folk are misleadingly defined. Curiously, I had to source my copy of Crawford's book from a on-demand outlet in Victoria, BC, Canada
Now, did it get posted this time or not?
posted as norr....etc with google a/c password
at 201006161011
and again at 201006161621