IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
DIVISION
IN RE: C.R. BARD, INC. PELVIC REPAIR MDL NO. 2187
SYSTEM PRODCUTS LIABILITY LITGATION _______________________________________
IN RE: AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, MDL NO. 2325
INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION _______________________________________
IN RE: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC, PELVIC MDL NO. 2326
REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION _______________________________________
IN RE: ETHICON, INC. PELVIC MDL
NO. 2327
REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION _______________________________________
IN RE: COLOPLAST PELVIC REPAIR MDL NO. 2387
SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION _______________________________________
IN RE: COOK MEDICAL, INC, PELVIC MDL NO. 2440
REPAIR LIABILITY LITIGATION
_______________________________________
IN RE: NEOMEDIC PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM MDL NO. 2511
PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION
_______________________________________
LANA C. KEETON
OBJECTION TO FEE AND
COST COMMITTEE (NON) RECOMMENDATION
and to EXTERNAL
REVIEW ADVISOR JUDGE DANIEL STACK
(NON) RECOMMENDATION
of ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
pursuant to PRETRIAL
ORDER 332
LANA C. KEETON, PLAINTIFF PRO SE, prays this Honorable Court will
grant her
objection to her complete exclusion/omission from the
Recommendation(s) by the Fee and Cost
Committee and the Recommended Allocation(s) by Judge Daniel
J. Stack, External Review
Specialist, for payments to be distributed from the 5% fee
of $550 million dollar (estimated total)
to be paid from over $7,000,000,000.00 billion dollars
(estimated) into IRS 468 B Qualified
Settlement Funds held in escrow accounts by various attorney
firms. Keeton has been denied
access to Due Process of the 5th/14th Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States.
Keeton
requests the Honorable Court to allow Keeton to attend in camera review of
Keeton’s pertinent documents provided by Fee and Cost
Committee and External Review
Specialist, Judge Daniel J. Stack on April 9. 2019. The Fee
and Cost Committee nor Judge
Daniel J. Stack have allowed Keeton to make an in person
presentation of her submission at any
time despite multiple requests to the entire FCC members. For
the record, it is Keeton’s belief
and opinion that her Time and Submission for payment(s) from
the Common Benefit Fund(s)
have not been distributed to Judge Daniel Stack, nor all
members of the FCC.
Henry G. Garrard III recused
himself from the Fee and Cost Committee, without
approval of the Court January 27, 2017, from consideration
of Keeton’s submissions to the FCC.
Exhibit No. 1
Since that time, Keeton has attempted to communicate with the Fee and Cost
Committee to have her work reviewed for payment under the
protocols set forth and ordered by
the Honorable Court. As demonstrated by Pretrial Order #332,
instead of actually recusing
himself, Garrard, as head of the Fee and Cost Committee, completely
omitted and denied access
and violated Keeton’s right to Due Process under the 5th/14th
Amendments in concert with
Joseph R. Rice, Judge Daniel Stack and David Montgomery.
The question is: Why? Although
Henry G. Garrard III and his law firm, Blasingame,
Burch, Garrard & Ashley PC, currently owes Lana C.
Keeton over $30 million dollars for selling
her privileged and confidential work product without her
express permission, the Time and
Expense amount submitted to be paid from the Common Benefit
Fund has nothing to do with
that. It is a separate amount of less than $5 million
dollars.
Based on a notarized certification
by Arica M. Waldron, no money ever paid to Keeton
by Garrard’s firm, Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley
PC, has been submitted to the
Common Benefit Fund(s) for any of Keeton’s work. Exhibit No. 2 Just as attorneys
are paid fees
of 40% by their individual clients in these MDL’s, that has
nothing to do with the 5% they will
be paid from the Common Benefit Fund(s). It is separate.
Meticulous protocols of the HONORABLE JUDGE JOSEPH R. GOODWIN
have been subverted by FCC members and Judge Daniel J. Stack
and David Montgomery,
Hudson, Montgomery, Kalivoda &Connelly, P.O Box 8068, Athens,
GA 30603. Exhibit No. 3
Pretrial Orrder #332 is the
culmination of these meticulously set up protocols in these
vast MDL’s for payments to be made from the multimillion
dollar 5% Common Benefit Fund:
ETHICON MDL 02327, PRETRIAL ORDER # 332
ORDER SCHEDULING OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO FEE AND COST PROTOCOL
“This court previously entered its
Pretrial Order establishing the Fee
Committee Protocol for the review and evaluation of time and expense for
consideration by the Common Benefit Fee and Cost Committee (the “Protocol”).1 1 Bard MDL 2187 PTO
257, AMS MDL 2325 PTO 244, BSC MDL 2326 PTO 166, Ethicon MDL 2327 PTO 262, Cook
MDL 2440 PTO 81, Coloplast MDL 2387 PTO 133, Neomedic MDL 2511 PTO 38.”
“Pursuant to the terms of the
Protocol, on October 13, 2017, the court entered its Order Granting Motion to
Appoint the Honorable Daniel J. Stack, Retired, as External Review Specialist
to work with the Common Benefit Fee and Cost Committee (“FCC”) in accomplishing
the court’s directives under the Protocol. 2 2 Bard MDL 2187 Doc. No. 4663, AMS
MDL 2325 Doc. No 5112, BSC MDL 2326 Doc No. 4422, Ethicon MDL 2327 Doc. No.
4783, Cook MDL 2440 Doc. No. 592, Coloplast MDL 2387 Doc. No. 1572, Neomedic
MDL 2511 Doc. No. 177.”
“The Protocol ordered the External
Review Specialist to prepare and deliver his Recommended Allocation to the court. The Protocol
further provides that “[u]pon receipt of the…external review
specialist’s…recommended allocation, the
court will determine the
process for consideration of any objections to the…external review
specialist’s recommended allocation.”
“The court having entered its
Pretrial Order Re: Petition for an Award of Common Benefit Attorneys’ Fees and
Expenses on January 30, 2019,
received (1) the Final
Written
Recommendation of the FCC, (2) the Recommended Allocation of the External Review Specialist,
and (3) supporting materials, and has been notified that each
participating plaintiff’s firm has received these materials on March 12, 2019.”
The
following Order of the Court in Case No. 2:13-cv-24276 ECF 34 Lana C. Keeton v.
Ethicon Inc., et al. on January 4, 2017 governs the actions
of the FCC:
“In the Petition,
the pro se plaintiff, Lana Keeton,
seeks the court’s approval for payment from the Common Benefit Fund in the
amount of $732,000 for “legal work performed for the benefit of the Plaintiffs
in MDL 2327.” [ECF No. 33-1, p. 1]. Pursuant to PTO No. 211, the court established the Fee and Cost Committee
(“FCC”) and appointed members to serve on the FCC. The FCC’s responsibilities include making recommendations to the court
for reimbursement of costs and apportionment of attorneys’ fees for common
benefit work and any other utilization of the funds.
“Plaintiffs’ Petition must first be submitted
to the FCC for consideration and
recommendation. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition [ECF No. 33]
is DENIED without prejudice.”
Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, Case No. 2:13cv24276 U.S. District Court, Southern
District of West Virginia.
The Honorable Court
states:
1. Keeton
is a Pro Se Plaintiff.
2. The
Honorable Court states the order is for legal work performed for the benefit of
the Plaintiffs in MDL 02327.
3. The
Honorable Court states “the FCC’s responsibilities include making
recommendations to the court for reimbursement of costs and apportionment of
attorneys’ fees for common benefit work and
any other utilization of the funds.”
Keeton complied with the Honorable
Court’s order. ECF No. 33-1, p.1was submitted
01/12/2017 to the FCC for consideration and recommendation. Exhibit
No. 4 In other words,
the funds are not limited to attorneys or to attorney fees. Quite
the contrary.
The Common Benefits
Fund pays:
paralegals, secretaries, law clerks, legal consultants,
medical device experts, doctors, court reporters, their firms, videographers
for depositions, expert witnesses, e-discovery platforms, accountants,
certified public accountants (CPA’s), their firms, process servers attorneys.
All of this is “legal work” that
inures to the benefit of all plaintiffs. Without this concert
of professionals, there would be no MDL litigation because
no one individual has
all the skills (nor the time) necessary to prosecute an MDL. Some of
these
individuals/firms bill direct to the Common Benefit Fund.
Others bill through attorney firms.
Lana C. Keeton, Med Device Expert LLC have invoiced the Common
Benefit Fund directly.
Each and every order signed by the
Honorable Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in each and
every one of the 7 MDL’s states “and all unrepresented
parties”. In other words all Pro Se
Plaintiffs. All Pro Se Plaintiffs, including Plaintiff Pro
Se Keeton are held accountable to the
orders issued by the Honorable Court. There is even an
attorney assigned by the Court to
coordinate with Pro Se Plaintiffs.
Pro Se Plaintiff Lana C. Keeton has a right to be heard in this Honorable
Court based on
rulings by the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has long championed the cause of litigants
who file their
own lawsuits Pro Se as listed below:
1.
Haines
v. Keaner, et al. 404 U.S. 519,92 s. Ct. 594,30 L. Ed. 2d 652.
Whatever may be the limits on the scope
of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations
such as those asserted by petitioner, however
inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to
call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence.
We cannot say with assurance that under
the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.' Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,45 46 (1957). See
Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944).
2.
Baldwin
County Welcome Center v. Brown 466 U.S. 147,104 S. Ct. 1723,80 L. Ed. 2d 196,52
U.S.L.W. 3751. Rule 8(f) provides that 'pleadings shall be so construed as to
do substantial justice.' We requently have stated that pro se pleadings are to
be given a liberal construction.
3.
Estelle,
Corrections Director, et al. v. Gample 29 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d
251. We now consider whether respondent's complaint states a cognizable 1983
claim.
The handwritten pro se document is to be
liberally construed. As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519 (1972), a pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded,"
must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
appears "beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of
facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id., at
520 521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,45 46 (1957).
4.
Hughes
v. Rowe et al. 449 U.S. 5, 101 S. Ct. 173,66 L. Ed. 2d 163,49 U .S.L. W .3346.
Petitioner's complaint, like most
prisoner complaints filed in the Northern District of Illinois, was not
prepared by counsel. It is settled law that the allegations of such a [pro se]
complaint, "however inartfully pleaded" are held "to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,520 (1972). See also Maclin v. Paulson, 627 F.2d 83,86
(CA7 1980); French v. Heyne, 547 F.2d 994,996 (CA7 1976). Such a complaint
should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim
which would entitle him to relief. Haines, supra, at 520 521. And, of course,
the allegations of a complaint are generally taken as true for purposes of a
motion to dismiss. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319,322 (1972).
5.
Rabin
v. Dep't of State, No. 95-4310, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15718.
The court noted that pro se plaintiffs
should be afforded "special solicitude."
However, Pro Se pleadings are now also
governed by Ashcroft v. Iqbal556 U.S. 662
(2009):
“Dismissal of a complaint at the
pleading stage is appropriate where, accepting the allegations as true, the
complaint fails to allege the essential elements of a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A
complaint must allege a claim “plausible on its face,” not simply one that is
“speculative,” “conceivable,” or “possible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56,
562-63, 570.”
Although the
2007 Supreme Court ruling, in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, replaced
Conley v. Gibson's “no set of facts” standard with the plausibility standard, under which a
complaint must contain enough factual allegations to
state a claim that is plausible on its face,
Keeton has met those plausibility standards in her
product liability and RICO lawsuits against
Ethcion/ Johnson & Johnson, et al. starting in
2005. And this instant
motion is sufficiently
detailed factual matter to meet the standards of Ashcroft
v.Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atlantic Co. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
HISTORY AND FACTS
Based on information publicly available on the Honorable Court’s
website to Lana
Keeton through Pretrial
Order #332 Order Scheduling Objections Pursuant to Fee and Cost
Protocol, March 12,
2019, Lana C. Keeton and her firm, Med Device Expert LLC, are
completely excluded and omitted from the entire 186 pages.
Lana Keeton was not mentioned, not recommended nor awarded one red
cent in the Exhibits
attached to Pretrial
Order 332 from the Fee and Cost Committee and Judge Daniel Stack,
External Review
Specialist despite Keeton’s extensive high value contribution(s) to all
7 Pelvic
Mesh Multidistrict Litigations through over a decade of work
that is the foundation of these
MDL’s.
Lana Keeton v. Gynecare/Ethicon/Johnson
& Johnson, Case No. 1:06-cv-21116-UU,
is
the LEGACY PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE
for all Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson cases filed
in
Ethicon MDL 02327. Pro Se Plaintiff Lana C. Keeton was the FIRST to FILE A LAWSUIT
recognizing
the severe debilitating effects of Pelvic Synthetic surgical mesh in the fall
of 2005.
Product Liability Lawsuit
Lana Keeton v.
Gynecare/Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 1:06-cv-21116-UU U.S.
District Court, S.D. of Florida, for Gynecare TVT Prolene polypropylene
Bladder Sling synthetic surgical mesh implanted December 21, 2005 and originally
filed in Florida State Court, December 21, 2005
1.
April 27, 2006 Ethicon issues Litigation Hold for Keeton case
2. Removed
to U.S. District Court, S.D. of Florida, May 2006
3. There
were no other existing Synthetic
Surgical Mesh cases against Ethicon, Inc. / Johnson & Johnson / Gynecare in
the United States at that time, or before that time.
4. Plaintiff’s
co-lead and Steering committee, Bryan Aylstock, Renee Baggett, Tom Cartmell, Ed
Wallace based their Motion for Spoliation Ethicon’s
Litigation Hold Date of April 27, 2006 on Lana Keeton v.
Gynecare/Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, Case 1:06-cv-21116-UU, Southern
District of Florida
Product Liability Lawsuit
Lana Keeton v. Ethicon/Johnson
& Johnson Case No. 2:13-cv-24276 U.S. District Court, S.D. of West Virginia,
October 1, 2013
1. Lana
C. Keeton Short Form complaint included the correct Defendant Corporations
based on discovery from Lana Keeton v.
Gynecare/Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 1:06-cv-21116-UU U.S.
District Court, S.D. of Florida. Plaintiffs’
Steering Committee Attorneys named Ethicon LLC in Puerto Rico as a Defendant
for ALL PLAINTIFFS in MDL 02327. Ethicon
LLC did not even exist when first Gynecare producst were distributed in the
1990’s. Plaintiffs Attorneys later filed
motions to remove the wrong defendant, Ethicon LLC, from the Court Docket in
West Virginia. To this day, the Honorable Court has to deal with the nightmare
of correcting thousands of cases.
2. Lana
C. Keeton’s Memorandum in Support of Spoliation January 2014 demonstrating
Spoliation was/is a repeat violation in multiple mesh lawsuits by Ethicon Inc.
and Johnson & Johnson for at least a decade. At a spoliation hearing before
Judge Cheryl Eifert January 23, 2014, Keeton’s Florida case was the first
subject of discussion at the hearing based on the Litigation Hold Date of April
27, 2006.
RICO Civil Lawsuit
Lana Keeton v. Johnson &
Johnson, Ethicon, Inc., et al. Case 1:15-cv-20442-JLK, U.S.District Court, S.D.
of Florida 02-04-2015 Pro Se
prosecution of civil RICO in Federal Court vs. Arnstein & Lehr, LLP, Peter
Cecchini, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Delos Cosgrove, Willy G Davila, Ethicon
Sarl, Ethicon, Inc., Gynecare Worldwide, Johnson & Johnson, David Krause,
Neville M. Leslie, Jeffrey B. Shapiro, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
Center for Devices and Radiological Health (FDA's CDRH) opened doors to
discovery for Plaintiff’s Attorneys Steering Committee in Ethicon MDL 02327
unavailable elsewhere.
The value of LANA C. KEETON’S long
term work to the benefit of all Plaintiffs in these
7 MDL’s is well known and immeasurable. Keeton consulted on
scientific matters, research,
discovery, strategic issues and extensive other matters such
as actual legal defendants in MDL
2187 and MDL 2327, FDA’s 510(k) regulations, physical and
chemical properties of
polypropylene as they impact wound healing of implanted mesh
products, instructions for use for
pelvic mesh products, expert witness procurement, medical
device expert, research analyst, other
trial strategies, influenced FDA decisions and actions, as
they relate to mesh products. And more.
Pursuant to Pretrial Order #332
Order Scheduling Objections Pursuant to Fee and
Cost Protocol, March 12, 2019, LANA C. KEETON objects on the
following grounds:
I.
FRAUD
BY OMISSION
“Where, as here, a
plaintiff’s fraud claim relies on a theory of fraud by omission, the plaintiff
must allege that the defendant had a duty to speak, and must show “when (01-15-2016), where (in the S.D.W.VA), how(by following Judge Goodwin’s
protocols related to the FCC) and what duty (make written
recommendation(s) / allocation(s) re: Keeton and present it to the Court) was created.” To wit:
Henry G. Garrard III, along with
all other members of the Fee and Cost Committee, and
External Review Specialist, Judge Daniel J. Stack, had a
duty to speak because of Judge Joseph
R. Goodwin’s order ECF 34 Case No. 2:13-cv-24276 Lana C.
Keeton v. Ethicon Inc.:
“In the Petition, the pro se plaintiff, Lana Keeton, seeks the court’s approval
for payment from the Common Benefit Fund in the amount of $732,000 for “legal
work performed for the benefit of the Plaintiffs in MDL 2327.” [ECF No. 33-1,
p. 1]. Pursuant to PTO No. 211, the
court established the Fee and Cost Committee (“FCC”) and
appointed members to serve on the
FCC. The FCC’s responsibilities include making recommendations to the court for
reimbursement of costs and apportionment of attorneys’ fees for common benefit
work and any other utilization of the funds.
“Plaintiffs’
Petition must first be submitted to the FCC for consideration and recommendation. It is ORDERED that
Plaintiff’s Petition [ECF No. 33] is DENIED without prejudice.” Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, Case No. 2:13cv24276
U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia.
The Fee and Cost Committee have completely
excluded and omitted and denied access to
Lana C. Keeton’s submission of Invoice No. 1 ECF33 and Judge
Goodwin’s ECF 34 from
consideration. See Pretrial Order #332, Ethicon MDL 02327,
March 12, 2019. And the FCC has
completely excluded Keeton’s submission of T&E for Bard MDL
02187 in the amount of
$816, 897.64. In
fact, the name Lana Keeton, Med Device Expert LLC are nowhere on the
Exhibits of the Fee and Cost Committee or that of External
Review Specialist, Judge Daniel
Stack. Nor has Lana Keeton been advised or notified by the
Honorable Court itself or the Clerk
of the Court at any stage in the proceedings since March
2017, despite Judge Goodwin’s Orders
entered in Case No. No. 2:13-cv-24276 Lana C. Keeton vs.
Ethicon Inc. et. al., ECF’s No. 33,
34, 35, 36 in Ethicon’s MDL 02327.
II.
VIOLATION
OF KEETON’S 5th / 14th AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
“Due Process Violation. Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution, neither the federal government nor state governments
may deprive any person “of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law.”
As to Judge Daniel J. Stack’s
non-existent written review of the non-existent FCC written
recommendation, his threatening position on Lana C. Keeton’s
T&E submissions is not
permitted by law. The Honorable Judge Joseph R. Goodwin
presides over all 7 Multidistrict
Litigations. Judge Stack was appointed by Judge Goodwin.
Judge Goodwin established and re-
established protocols for payment from the Common Benefits
Funds. Judge Daniel Stack has an
ancillary position as an External Review Specialist. Judge
Stack does not have authority to make
dispositive decisions.
Judge Stack threatened Keeton in
e-mail correspondence. Keeton’s 5th / 14th
Amendment rights were violated. Keeton was denied due
process. Keeton was denied equal
protection of the law under the 5th / 14th Amendments. Keeton was
oppressed, threatened, and
intimidated in the free exercise or enjoyment of her right or privilege secured to her by
the Constitution or laws of the United
States, and because of Keeton having so exercised the
same. EXHIBITS No.
5 & 6: E-mail Communications with Judge
Daniel J. Stack, March 29, 2018 through June 18, 2018; FCC Member Joe Rice and
External Review Adviser Judge Daniel Stack 03-29-2018 to 04-11-2018
In United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court held that violations of the Fourteenth Amendment can serve as grounds for criminal charges under a federal
conspiracy law that makes it a crime to
“injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws
of the United States.” The Court held that 18 U.S.C. §241 of the Criminal Code
could be applied to protect the rights of equal protection and due process secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
Keeton’s constitutional rights under the
5th / 14th Amendment were violated by Henry
Garrard
III, Joseph R. Rice, David Montgomery, personal attorney to Henry Garrard III
and his
firm,
Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley, PC and Judge Daniel J. Stack in their
capacities as
the
Fee and Cost Committee members and External Review Specialist and personal
attorney to
Henry
Garrard III.
All that was
required was for the Fee and Cost Committee members (see list), to adhere the
meticulous protocols set forth by the Honorable Judge
Joseph R. Goodwin to recommend to the
Honorable Court how much of the allocations of Time and Expense submissions be
paid to Lana
C. Keeton, Med Device Expert LLC, from the Common Benefit
Fund(s).
The Fee and Cost Committee had a
duty to comply with Judge Joseph Goodwin’s orders
in Case No. 2:13-cv-24276 Lana C. Keeton vs. Ethicon Inc.
et. al., ECF 33 and ECF34
(MDL02327). None of the members of the FCC complied. Rather
Henry Garrard III recused
himself from considerations of Lana Keeton’s Time and
Expense. Exhibit No. 1
Garrard then proceeded to completely
omit and exclude and deny access to Keeton from
any and all communications with the Fee and Cost Committee subverting
the process authorized
by Judge Goodwin. Judge Daniel J. Stack and Henry Garrard
III and others ignored the authority
and Orders of the Honorable Court. The question again is:
Why?
“The appointment to
the FCC is of a personal nature. Accordingly, in the performance of the
FCC’s functions (such as committee meetings and court appearances), the above
appointees cannot allow others to
substitute for them in fulfilling this role, including by any other
member or attorney of the appointee’s law firm, except with prior approval of the Court. Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 7563-1 Filed
02/14/19 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 187772, Paragraph 1.
EXHIBIT I Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 7242-10 Filed
11/26/18 Page 1 of 63 PageID #: 185836 “Declaration
of Henry G. Garrard, III in Support of Final Written Recommendation of
the Common Benefit Fee and Cost Committee Concerning the Allocation of Common
Benefit Fees and the Reimbursement of Shared Expenses and Held Costs”
“On this day came the undersigned, Henry G.
Garrard, III, who, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1746, makes this declaration under
penalty of perjury:”
And each and every one of these signature pages is signed ONLY by Henry
Garrard III, and not any other member of the FCC:
Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 7242-10
Filed 11/26/18 Page 53 of 63 PageID #: 185888
Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 7242-10
Filed 11/26/18 Page 59 of 63 PageID #: 185894
Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 7242-10
Filed 11/26/18 Page 63 of 63 PageID #: 185898
EXHIBIT B Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 7242-3 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1
of 86 PageID #: 185662 “Final
Written Recommendation of the Common Benefit Fee and Cost Committee Concerning
the Allocation of Common Benefit Fees and the Reimbursement of Shared Expenses
and Held Costs”signature page signed solely by Henry Garrard III is a lie as
it is based on false statements: Case 2:12-md-02327 Document
7242-3 Filed 11/26/18 Page 74 of 86 PageID #: 185735
Case 2:14-md-02511 Document 184-10
Filed 11/26/18 Page 34 of 63 PageID #: 1256
227. “The FCC exhaustively reviewed
all of the facts and information provided by
common benefit applicant firms,
applied the principles and complied with the
directives established in the
Court's protocol, and relied upon its experience and
familiarity with the litigation and
with the facts, providing multiple opportunities
Case 2:14-md-02511 Document 184-10
Filed 11/26/18 Page 35 of 63 PageID #: 1257
to provide and receive input by
common benefit applicant firms in writing and in
person.”
228. “The FCC, through carrying out
the process in the Protocol, allowed firms seeking
payment for common benefit work to
participate in the process of evaluation and
provide additional information to
the FCC including: (1) allowing firms to self audit
their time prior to consideration
by the FCC; (2) allowing firms to respond to
the comments delivered as a result
of the FCC's initial review; (3) allowing firms
to appear for an in-person
opportunity to be heard; ( 4) allowing firms to provide a
written objection from the FCC's
preliminary written recommendation; and (5)
allowing firms to provide a written
objection to the FCC's final written
recommendation.”
“I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.” [Emphasis Added]
“Executed on November 9, 2018.”
“Henry
G. Garrard III
Blasingame, Burch, Garrard &
Ashley, P.C.
440 Coll ge Avenue
P.O. Bo 832
Athens, Georgia 30603
Henry Gilbert Garrard
III, an officer of the court licensed by the State Bar of Georgia,
Perjured himself
in a court of law. See below:
“The FCC, through carrying out the
process in the Protocol, allowed firms seeking payment for common benefit work
to participate in the process of evaluation and
provide additional information to
the FCC including:
(1) allowing firms to self audit their
time prior to consideration by the FCC;
(2) allowing firms to respond to the
comments delivered as a result of the FCC's initial review; THERE
WAS NO INITIAL REVIEW OF KEETON’S SUBMISSIONS.
(3) allowing firms to appear for an
in-person opportunity to be heard;
KEETON
WAS NOT ALLOWED AN IN-PERSON OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
( 4) allowing firms to provide a written
objection from the FCC's preliminary written recommendation; and
THERE
WAS NO FCC PRELIMINARY WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION OF KEETON’S SUBMISSION.
(5) allowing firms to provide a
written objection to the FCC's final written
recommendation.”
THERE
WAS NO FCC FINAL WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION OF KEETON’S SUBMISSION.
This is in direct violation of
Judge Goodwin’s orders that the below
appointees cannot
allow others to
substitute for them in fulfilling this role, including by any other FCC
member.
1.
Henry
G. Garrard, III, Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley, PC
440 College Ave., Ste. 320, Athens, GA
30601
2.
Joseph
F. Rice, Motley Rice, LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd., Mount Pleasant, SC
29464
3.
Clayton
A. Clark, Clark, Love & Hutson, GP
440 Louisiana St., Ste. 1600, Houston,
TX 77002
4.
Carl
N. Frankovitch
Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio &
Simon
337 Penco Road,Weirton, WV 26062
5.
Yvonne
Flaherty, Lockridge Grindal Nauen
Suite 2200, 100 Washington Avenue, South
Minneapolis, MN 55401
6.
Thomas
P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300, Kansas
City, MO 64112
7.
Renee
Baggett, Aylstock Witkin Kreis & Overholtz
Suite 200,17 East Main Street, Pensacola,
FL 32502
8.
Riley
L. Burnett, Jr., Burnett Law Firm
55 Waugh Drive, Suite 803, Houston, TX
77007
9.
William
H. McKee, Jr., CPA
1804 Louden Heights Road, Charleston, WV
25314
The Fifth Circuit explained that a district court has inherent authority “to
bring management power to bear upon massive and complex litigation to
prevent [the litigation] from monopolizing the services of the court to the
exclusion of other litigants.”33 Therefore, an MDL court “may designate one
attorney or set of attorneys to handle pre-trial activity on aspects of the
case where the interests of all co-parties coincide.”34 Naturally, this authority would be “illusory
if it is dependent upon lead counsel’s performing the duties desired of them
for no additional compensation.”35 Assessment
of those fees against other retained lawyers who benefitted from the work done
was permissible and appropriate.36 Eldon
E. Fallon, Common Benefit Fees in Multidistrict Litigation, 74 La. L.
Rev. (2014) p. 377
As
to harassment, I know what my rights are and I was oppressed, threatened, and
intimidated in the free exercise or
enjoyment of my right or privilege secured to me by
III.
FALSE
EVIDENCE
Henry Garrard III and Joseph
R. Rice and Bryan Aylstock have for decades introduced
False Evidence
into the Federal Courts at will. Other attorneys know this but fear the power of
Henry Garrard III and Joseph R. Rice and Bryan Aylstock to
keep them off future Multidistrict
Litigations Plaintiff Steering Committees, a well-founded
fear. Their power is well documented
by UGA law professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, in her “Judging Multidistrict Litigation” and
“Monopolies in
Multidistrict Litigation” which name these men as the Repeat Entrenched
Players.
Through False Evidence Henry Garrard III, Joseph R. Rice and Bryan
Aylstock have
created the strawman prosecution requiring Surgical Removal
of a permanently implanted
medical device, synthetic polypropylene surgical mesh, for bladder
suspension for Stress Urinary
Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse repair. The Strawman
“Surgical Removal” substantially
benefits Plaintiff’s Attorneys Steering Committee,
Corporations and Defense Attorneys by
allowing them to pay and/or to be paid through the IRS 468
(b) Qualified Settlement Fund.
Again HENRY GARRARD III subverted
the process and committed fraud by omission
against LANA C. KEETON in a Federal Court proceeding. On January
27, 2017 Henry G.
Garrard III sent a letter of recusal to the Fee and Cost
Committee, not to the Honorable Court.
Exhibit No. 1. He did not recuse himself from the Fee
and Cost Committee related to
Lana Keeton.
Instead of recusing himself,
Garrard suppressed, omitted, denied access, in every way
possible to prevent Keeton from being considered for payment
from the Common Benefit
Fund(s) by the Fee and Cost Committee as ordered by the
Honorable Court. In other words,
Henry G. Garrard III committed willful fraud by omission,
along with Joseph R. Rice, Judge
Daniel J. Stack and David Montgomery.
Where, as here, a
plaintiff’s fraud claim relies on a theory of fraud by omission, the plaintiff
must allege that the defendant had a duty to speak, and must show “when, where,
how and what duty was created.” Breeden
v. Richmond Cmty. College, 171 F.R.D. 189, 196 (M.D.N.C. 1997).
ECF #34 Case No. 2:13cv24276
S.D.W.VA. Lana C. Keeton v. Ethicon specifically
orders Lana C. Keeton to submit her T&E Invoice to the Fee
and Cost Committee for
consideration. Despite multiple submissions and
communications to, not from, the Fee and Cost
Committee the Honorable Judge Joseph R. Goodwin’s order was
completely omitted from the
process for submissions laid out in multiple Pre Trial
Orders by Judge Goodwin.
The entire Fee and Cost Committee,
in particular, Henry Garrard and Joe Rice, Judge
Daniel J. Stack, external adviser to the FCC, David
Montgomery, the personal attorney of Henry
Garrard III and his law firm, Blasingame, Burch, Garrard
& Ashley, subverted the process
outlined in PTO 211. Henry Garrard III committed perjury on
documents he, and only he, signed
under the penalty of perjury. Pre Trial Order 211 was not
adhered to in the case of Lana C.
Keeton and her firm, Med Device Expert LLC.
IV.
WILLFUL
BLINDNESS
All members of the Fee and Cost
Committee have engaged in “Willful blindness”, a
criminal state of mind, related to Lana C. Keeton’s
submissions of Time and Expense to be paid
from the Common Benefit Funds since at least January 2017 in
response to communications to
Lana C. Keeton. Keeton has hundreds pages of documentation
and evidence of this “Willful
Blindness”. At the request of the Honorable Court, it will
be provided.
None of the members of the Fee and
Cost Committee even signed the Report.
Henry
Garrard III signed for all other members of the Fee and Cost
Committee. This despite Judge
Joseph R. Goodwin’s explicit order that each and every
member was the sole individual assigned
his/her responsibilities and duties as a Fee and Cost
Committee member. PTO #211
In
conclusion, there are no statements in this motion that are not verifiable and
extensively documented. Any and all will be made available
to the Court upon request.
Lana C. Keeton prays this Honorable
Court will grant her objection to the Fee and Cost
Committee (Non) Recommendation and to External Review
Specialist Judge Daniel Stack (Non)
Recommendation of allocation of Funds pursuant to Pretrial
Order #332 for the reasons stated in
this motion, including granting her personal attendance at
the in camera review of documents
presented by the Fee and Cost Committee and Judge Daniel J.
Stack, External Review Specialist,
for documents related to Keeton’s submission, and an
opportunity to be heard through the fair
and honest due process of law. Lana Keeton must be paid from
the Common Benefits Fund(s)
for the thousands of hours in a decade of valuable work
benefitting all Plaintifffs in these
massive Multidistrict Litigations. Penalties are not the
purpose of this motion. Any penalties for
the obvious wrongdoing of Officers of the Court noted in
this motion by the Honorable Court are
appreciated.
Dated: March 26, 2019 Respectfully,
Miami Beach, Florida 33139 LANA
C. KEETON
___
LANA C. KEETON
Plaintiff Pro Se
901 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Suite 3-423
Miami Beach, FL 33139
305-342-8002; 305-671-9331
phones
800-509-9917 fax
By: LANA
C. KEETON
___
Lana
C. Keeton, Plaintiff Pro Se
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I
hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via
Federal Express this 26th day
of March 2019 on all counsel or parties of record by filing
it with the Clerk of the Court. LANA C. KEETON ___
LANA C. KEETON
Plaintiff Pro Se
901 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Suite 3-423
Miami Beach, FL 33139
305-342-8002; 305-671-9331
phones
800-509-9917 fax
By: LANA
C. KEETON
____
Lana
C. Keeton, Plaintiff Pro Se
