Preview
CAUSE NO. 2014-54027
BRADLEY MCDANIEL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, §
§
§ HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
BP AMERICA, INC., BP P.L.C., BP §
AMERICA PRODUCTION CO., AND §
MARK EDWARD COBB § 152 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REINSTATE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBERT SCHAFFER:
Plaintiff, BRADLEY ANIEL Plaintiff , files his Motion to Reinstate Cause Number
-54027, which was dismissed on 13 June 2017 after a brief hearing on 26 May 2017 and
after the Defendants filed a “Motion for Summary Judgement on Causation” on 28 March 2017 -
followed by a “Reply in Support of Summary Judgement on Causation” on 24 May 2017 - that
has now been exposed as blatantly dishonest given the facts and evidence that have long been
available in this case. The Plaintiff terminated his attorneys on 28 September 2017 with good
cause”, and reported their misconduct and potentially illegal actions to the appropriate
authorities and the Texas State Bar Association (further detailed below). Up to this date, the
Plaintiff’s attorneys misrepresented to the Plaintiff that his case had not been finally dismissed
only that “exemplary damages” for his knee injury had been ruled out and that hearings were still
pending for the “remaining causations” in his case. During this time, the Plaintiff’s former
attorneys asked for the Plaintiff to be patient as they were negotiating the terms of a settlement
with the BP Defendants. Only after recent discussions with Court Clerk, Katina Williams, did the
Plaintiff learn that his former attorneys’ representation of the status of his case was in fact false.
During the time these motions for summary judgment were being heard, the Plaintiff’s
former attorneys did not inform him that such motions had been filed, nor that they had
responded to them, nor that a hearing critical to his case was even taking place – this despite that
during this very time, the Plaintiff made multiple request for case updates and made requests for
his complete legal file. After the summary judgement was ruled in favor of the Defendants on 13
June 2017, the Plaintiff’s former attorneys incorrectly informed him that the summary judgement
only effected “Exemplary Damages” due to his knee injury and that hearing on the remaining
causations in his case would be heard in the near future – including “Fraud”, “Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress”, and others. The Plaintiff had been very active in
communications with his former attorneys and keeping up with, not only the developments in his
case, but also in the cases consolidated with his for the purpose of discovery. The Plaintiff was
shocked that he was not informed that a hearing critical to his case was taking place, not to
mention that he was not able to review his former attorney’s responses to the Defendants
“Motion for Summary Judgement” before they were filed with the court nor informed what they
were and were not, even after they were filed. After demanding multiple times to see what his
former attorneys had submitted and “argued” on his behalf, his former attorneys provided him
2
with the filing and some of the exhibits several weeks after the 13 June 2017 ruling against him.
The Plaintiff was shocked to find out his former attorneys had left out key evidence in his case.
Most troubling was the Plaintiff’s former attorneys’ blatant omission of the key facts that
led multiple FBI agents to strongly encourage the Plaintiff to pursue legal action against the BP
Defendants in the first place – namely the fact that the SARL BAAT labor strikers who the BP
Defendant’s tasked to “guard” the Plaintiff’s drilling rig, were known to the BP Defendants to be
Al Qaeda linked dating years before the crisis (Exhibit A, “V. Facts 5.01-5.08”). This was key to
the knee injury, “exemplary damages” argument on behalf of the Plaintiff because it was these
Al Qaeda linked labor striking “guards” who sounded the false alarm at an opportune time
around 04:30 a.m. on 17 January 2013 causing the Plaintiff to rush off his exposed position on
top of the Wellsite Leaders office injuring his knee. Clear evidence, including the BP
Defendant’s own “Confidential” evidence dating from the weeks surrounding the crisis,
establishes the Plaintiff’s actions took were in fact necessary and saved lives during the 4 day
siege. Also, the Plaintiff had multiple other encounters with these Al Qaeda linked, labor striking
“Guards” before and during the 4 siege that could have easily resulted in other physical injuries
or even additional deaths – the Plaintiff argues that by the BP Defendants gross negligence, at
best, in sourcing these individuals as “Guards”, in order to launder safe payment money to the
emir of Al Qaeda, Abou Zeid (Exhibit A, “V. Facts 5.01-5.08”), BP was directly responsible for
the Plaintiff’s knee injury. Tellingly, BP’s knowledge beforehand of the SARL BAAT labor
strikers links to Al Qaeda and other key evidence was clearly included in the 27 page “Mediation
Memorandum” dated 20 February 2017 signed by his former attorney, Brent Allison (Exhibit B).
After demanding his complete file multiple times and asking for answers to specific questions he
3
had from his previous attorneys, the Plaintiff was given only very minimal answers and
incomplete evidence. After giving his attorneys ample time to answer his questions, the Plaintiff
fired his attorneys on 28 September 2017 in a 43 page letter detailing the “good cause” in their
termination (Exhibit C). This letter specifically cites and details the reason for their termination
being “Conflict of Interest”, “Breach of Fiduciary Duty”, “Unethical Conduct”, “Potentially
Illegal Conduct”, “Deceitful Conduct”, “Blatant Dishonesty”, “withholding of key evidence”
(without consulting Plaintiff), “withholding key statements in (Plaintiff’s) answers to BP’s
interrogatories” (without consulting Plaintiff), and other very disturbing and telling misconduct.
One such telling fact detailed in this termination letter is that despite “representing” the Plaintiff
for over 3 years, the Plaintiff’s former attorney, Brent Allison, “hasn’t asked a single question in
a single deposition yet” on behalf of the Plaintiff. In just one example, the Plaintiff’s fellow BP
America Wellsite Leader, Billy Glenn Whitted and Texas resident was arguably the biggest
accessible witness in substantiating the Plaintiff’s account of what actually occurred on the
drilling rig during the 4 day siege 16-19 January 2013. Mr. Whitted was scheduled for a
deposition on 7 February 2017 but after meeting with the BP Defendants legal team in
preparation for the deposition, tellingly, Mr. Whitted refused to take any further advice from the
BP Defendant’s legal team, demanded his own attorney as an individual, and canceled his
deposition. Tellingly, the Plaintiff’s attorneys allowed the case to move on without taking his
deposition. Again and in fact, the Plaintiff former attorney, Brent Allison, didn’t ask a singled
question in a single deposition. In this termination letter, the Plaintiff informed his former
attorneys that he was reporting them to the FBI, Texas Attorney General’s Office, and Texas Bar
Association – all of which the Plaintiff has done. Only after notifying his former attorneys of this
in their termination letter did Brent Allison mail him a thumb drive containing key evidence
4
relevant to his case that was produced in other cases consolidated with his dating as far back as
2015! Suspiciously and tellingly, this key evidence along with other key evidence was not
submitted or argued on behalf of the Plaintiff in the hearing for the Defendant’s “Motion for
Summary Judgement” held without the Plaintiff’s knowledge on 26 May 2017. This evidence,
which was not heard, substantiates the Plaintiff’s account as not only honest, but in fact quite
accurate – while exposing the BP Defendant’s attorneys’ assertions during hearings and filings,
including their “Motion for Summary Judgement”, as blatantly dishonest versus the BP
Defendants own evidence dating back to the time of the crisis. Regardless of the Plaintiff’s
former attorneys’ motives for withholding this key evidence, their misconduct it is not the fault
of the Plaintiff. It is in the interest of justice and only fair that the evidence they withheld be
heard by the court on behalf of the Plaintiff.
Additionally, the evidence the Plaintiff recovered after terminating his attorneys on 28
September 2017 warrant additional, more severe causations in this petition – including naming
additional BP employees as defendants as individuals - with the most obvious being the BP
Defendants’ “Civil Conspiracy to Commit Fraud”, in addition to the “Fraud” we asserted as an
independent causation in our original petition - as laid out in the Plaintiff’s “Second Amended
Petition” filed with the court on 12/1/2017 (Exhibit A). The evidence laid out in this Second
Amended Petition substantiates the Plaintiff’s terrible experience working for the BP
Defendants, as mocked by the BP Defendant’s arguments and filings in this case, including their
now blatantly dishonest “Reply in Support of Summary Judgement on Causation” on 24 May
2017.
5
Additionally, upon review of the evidence in this case as laid out in the Plaintiff’s
“Second Amended Petition”, as well as the Plaintiff’s 27 page “Mediation Memorandum” dated
20 February 2017, which was signed by the Plaintiff’s then attorney - obvious “Federal
Questions” become apparent in hearing the Plaintiff’s case – including but not limited to the
application of Federal Whistle Blower protection laws including but not limited to the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002. Also, in naming the obvious, additional BP Defendants as individuals in this
case, the “Diversity” question is also met in warranting this case be heard in Federal Court.
Respectfully submitted,
BRAD MCDANIEL
_____________________________
Brad McDaniel
Texas Board of Professional Engineers EIT #36030
3803 St Andrews Ct
Midland, Texas 79707
Telephone (432) 214-7915
Brad0606@hotmail.com
PLAINTIFF “Pro Se”
6
NOTICE OF HEARING
The above motion is set for hearing on _________________ at ___________. m.
at the _________________________ County Courthouse, located at:
______________________________________________________________________________
Physical Address of Court House City State Zip
____________________________________________
Signature of Judge or Clerk
Certificate of Service
I will give a copy of this document to each party or attorney of record on the same day this
document is filed with the Court as follows:
If I file this document electronically, I will send a copy of it to each party or attorney of record
through the electronic file manager if possible. If not possible, I will give a copy to each party or
attorney of record in person, by mail, by commercial delivery service, by fax, or by email.
If I file a paper copy of this document, I will give a copy of it to each party or attorney of record
in person, by mail, by commercial delivery service, by fax, or by email.
_ _20 December 2017_____
Brad McDaniel Date
7
Preview
CAUSE NO. 2014-54027 BRADLEY MCDANIEL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, § § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § BP AMERICA, INC., BP P.L.C., BP § AMERICA PRODUCTION CO., AND § MARK EDWARD COBB § 152 JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REINSTATE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBERT SCHAFFER: Plaintiff, BRADLEY ANIEL Plaintiff , files his Motion to Reinstate Cause Number -54027, which was dismissed on 13 June 2017 after a brief hearing on 26 May 2017 and after the Defendants filed a “Motion for Summary Judgement on Causation” on 28 March 2017 - followed by a “Reply in Support of Summary Judgement on Causation” on 24 May 2017 - that has now been exposed as blatantly dishonest given the facts and evidence that have long been available in this case. The Plaintiff terminated his attorneys on 28 September 2017 with good cause”, and reported their misconduct and potentially illegal actions to the appropriate authorities and the Texas State Bar Association (further detailed below). Up to this date, the Plaintiff’s attorneys misrepresented to the Plaintiff that his case had not been finally dismissed only that “exemplary damages” for his knee injury had been ruled out and that hearings were still pending for the “remaining causations” in his case. During this time, the Plaintiff’s former attorneys asked for the Plaintiff to be patient as they were negotiating the terms of a settlement with the BP Defendants. Only after recent discussions with Court Clerk, Katina Williams, did the Plaintiff learn that his former attorneys’ representation of the status of his case was in fact false. During the time these motions for summary judgment were being heard, the Plaintiff’s former attorneys did not inform him that such motions had been filed, nor that they had responded to them, nor that a hearing critical to his case was even taking place – this despite that during this very time, the Plaintiff made multiple request for case updates and made requests for his complete legal file. After the summary judgement was ruled in favor of the Defendants on 13 June 2017, the Plaintiff’s former attorneys incorrectly informed him that the summary judgement only effected “Exemplary Damages” due to his knee injury and that hearing on the remaining causations in his case would be heard in the near future – including “Fraud”, “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress”, and others. The Plaintiff had been very active in communications with his former attorneys and keeping up with, not only the developments in his case, but also in the cases consolidated with his for the purpose of discovery. The Plaintiff was shocked that he was not informed that a hearing critical to his case was taking place, not to mention that he was not able to review his former attorney’s responses to the Defendants “Motion for Summary Judgement” before they were filed with the court nor informed what they were and were not, even after they were filed. After demanding multiple times to see what his former attorneys had submitted and “argued” on his behalf, his former attorneys provided him 2 with the filing and some of the exhibits several weeks after the 13 June 2017 ruling against him. The Plaintiff was shocked to find out his former attorneys had left out key evidence in his case. Most troubling was the Plaintiff’s former attorneys’ blatant omission of the key facts that led multiple FBI agents to strongly encourage the Plaintiff to pursue legal action against the BP Defendants in the first place – namely the fact that the SARL BAAT labor strikers who the BP Defendant’s tasked to “guard” the Plaintiff’s drilling rig, were known to the BP Defendants to be Al Qaeda linked dating years before the crisis (Exhibit A, “V. Facts 5.01-5.08”). This was key to the knee injury, “exemplary damages” argument on behalf of the Plaintiff because it was these Al Qaeda linked labor striking “guards” who sounded the false alarm at an opportune time around 04:30 a.m. on 17 January 2013 causing the Plaintiff to rush off his exposed position on top of the Wellsite Leaders office injuring his knee. Clear evidence, including the BP Defendant’s own “Confidential” evidence dating from the weeks surrounding the crisis, establishes the Plaintiff’s actions took were in fact necessary and saved lives during the 4 day siege. Also, the Plaintiff had multiple other encounters with these Al Qaeda linked, labor striking “Guards” before and during the 4 siege that could have easily resulted in other physical injuries or even additional deaths – the Plaintiff argues that by the BP Defendants gross negligence, at best, in sourcing these individuals as “Guards”, in order to launder safe payment money to the emir of Al Qaeda, Abou Zeid (Exhibit A, “V. Facts 5.01-5.08”), BP was directly responsible for the Plaintiff’s knee injury. Tellingly, BP’s knowledge beforehand of the SARL BAAT labor strikers links to Al Qaeda and other key evidence was clearly included in the 27 page “Mediation Memorandum” dated 20 February 2017 signed by his former attorney, Brent Allison (Exhibit B). After demanding his complete file multiple times and asking for answers to specific questions he 3 had from his previous attorneys, the Plaintiff was given only very minimal answers and incomplete evidence. After giving his attorneys ample time to answer his questions, the Plaintiff fired his attorneys on 28 September 2017 in a 43 page letter detailing the “good cause” in their termination (Exhibit C). This letter specifically cites and details the reason for their termination being “Conflict of Interest”, “Breach of Fiduciary Duty”, “Unethical Conduct”, “Potentially Illegal Conduct”, “Deceitful Conduct”, “Blatant Dishonesty”, “withholding of key evidence” (without consulting Plaintiff), “withholding key statements in (Plaintiff’s) answers to BP’s interrogatories” (without consulting Plaintiff), and other very disturbing and telling misconduct. One such telling fact detailed in this termination letter is that despite “representing” the Plaintiff for over 3 years, the Plaintiff’s former attorney, Brent Allison, “hasn’t asked a single question in a single deposition yet” on behalf of the Plaintiff. In just one example, the Plaintiff’s fellow BP America Wellsite Leader, Billy Glenn Whitted and Texas resident was arguably the biggest accessible witness in substantiating the Plaintiff’s account of what actually occurred on the drilling rig during the 4 day siege 16-19 January 2013. Mr. Whitted was scheduled for a deposition on 7 February 2017 but after meeting with the BP Defendants legal team in preparation for the deposition, tellingly, Mr. Whitted refused to take any further advice from the BP Defendant’s legal team, demanded his own attorney as an individual, and canceled his deposition. Tellingly, the Plaintiff’s attorneys allowed the case to move on without taking his deposition. Again and in fact, the Plaintiff former attorney, Brent Allison, didn’t ask a singled question in a single deposition. In this termination letter, the Plaintiff informed his former attorneys that he was reporting them to the FBI, Texas Attorney General’s Office, and Texas Bar Association – all of which the Plaintiff has done. Only after notifying his former attorneys of this in their termination letter did Brent Allison mail him a thumb drive containing key evidence 4 relevant to his case that was produced in other cases consolidated with his dating as far back as 2015! Suspiciously and tellingly, this key evidence along with other key evidence was not submitted or argued on behalf of the Plaintiff in the hearing for the Defendant’s “Motion for Summary Judgement” held without the Plaintiff’s knowledge on 26 May 2017. This evidence, which was not heard, substantiates the Plaintiff’s account as not only honest, but in fact quite accurate – while exposing the BP Defendant’s attorneys’ assertions during hearings and filings, including their “Motion for Summary Judgement”, as blatantly dishonest versus the BP Defendants own evidence dating back to the time of the crisis. Regardless of the Plaintiff’s former attorneys’ motives for withholding this key evidence, their misconduct it is not the fault of the Plaintiff. It is in the interest of justice and only fair that the evidence they withheld be heard by the court on behalf of the Plaintiff. Additionally, the evidence the Plaintiff recovered after terminating his attorneys on 28 September 2017 warrant additional, more severe causations in this petition – including naming additional BP employees as defendants as individuals - with the most obvious being the BP Defendants’ “Civil Conspiracy to Commit Fraud”, in addition to the “Fraud” we asserted as an independent causation in our original petition - as laid out in the Plaintiff’s “Second Amended Petition” filed with the court on 12/1/2017 (Exhibit A). The evidence laid out in this Second Amended Petition substantiates the Plaintiff’s terrible experience working for the BP Defendants, as mocked by the BP Defendant’s arguments and filings in this case, including their now blatantly dishonest “Reply in Support of Summary Judgement on Causation” on 24 May 2017. 5 Additionally, upon review of the evidence in this case as laid out in the Plaintiff’s “Second Amended Petition”, as well as the Plaintiff’s 27 page “Mediation Memorandum” dated 20 February 2017, which was signed by the Plaintiff’s then attorney - obvious “Federal Questions” become apparent in hearing the Plaintiff’s case – including but not limited to the application of Federal Whistle Blower protection laws including but not limited to the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002. Also, in naming the obvious, additional BP Defendants as individuals in this case, the “Diversity” question is also met in warranting this case be heard in Federal Court. Respectfully submitted, BRAD MCDANIEL _____________________________ Brad McDaniel Texas Board of Professional Engineers EIT #36030 3803 St Andrews Ct Midland, Texas 79707 Telephone (432) 214-7915 Brad0606@hotmail.com PLAINTIFF “Pro Se” 6 NOTICE OF HEARING The above motion is set for hearing on _________________ at ___________. m. at the _________________________ County Courthouse, located at: ______________________________________________________________________________ Physical Address of Court House City State Zip ____________________________________________ Signature of Judge or Clerk Certificate of Service I will give a copy of this document to each party or attorney of record on the same day this document is filed with the Court as follows: If I file this document electronically, I will send a copy of it to each party or attorney of record through the electronic file manager if possible. If not possible, I will give a copy to each party or attorney of record in person, by mail, by commercial delivery service, by fax, or by email. If I file a paper copy of this document, I will give a copy of it to each party or attorney of record in person, by mail, by commercial delivery service, by fax, or by email. _ _20 December 2017_____ Brad McDaniel Date 7