Friday, August 23, 2019

AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM FAILS THOUSANDS OF PLAINTIFFS AS IT CRUMBLES UNDER THE WEIGHT OF CORRUPTION BY ATTORNEYS & JUDGES. FIGHT WITH ME AGAINST UNEQUAL JUSTICE IN MASSIVE #MESH MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN WEST VIRGINIA ~ ~ MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE JOSEPH R. GOODWIN FILED AUGUST 23, 2019

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP SEES THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM
CRUMBLING FROM THE WEIGHT OF
THE CORRUPTION IN THE COURT SYSTEM
THE WHITE HOUSE. WASHINGTON, D.C.07/27/2010
@all rights reserved Lana C. Keeton
MOAR RALLY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 09/08/2018
@all rights reserved Lana C. Keeton

THE DAILY DROP”
The Legal Cartel: Facts, Rumors & Innuendos

“LANA C. KEETON’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE JOSEPH R. GOODWIN & MEMORANDUM OF LAW” “DUE TO PERSONAL BIAS and PREJUDICE AGAINST LANA C. KEETON and POTENTIAL MISHANDLING OF COMMON BENEFIT FUNDS”

by…..   Lana C. Keeton
Med Device Expert LLC
Legal Consultant  .  Medical Device Expert
© 2005 – 2019 Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Volume II, Issue 6, August 23, 2019

901 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 3-423, Miami Beach, FL 33139
305.671.9331 phone  .  800.509.9917 fax  .  305.342.8002 cell phone

LET'S FIGHT 
UNEQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW
IN MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 
TOGETHER

ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENT...  Excerpt from LANA C. KEETON"s
Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 8580 Filed 08/23/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 207547

Page 1 of 16
“LANA C. KEETON’S
MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE JOSEPH R. GOODWIN &
MEMORANDUM OF LAW”
“DUE TO PERSONAL BIAS and PREJUDICE AGAINST LANA C. KEETON
and POTENTIAL MISHANDLING OF COMMON BENEFIT FUNDS”

“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a) and certain sections of 28 U.S.C. § 455  (b), Plaintiff Pro Se Litigant, Legal Consultant and Medical Device Expert LANA C. KEETON calls for Judge Joseph R. Goodwin to recuse himself from any further adjudication of Keeton’s rightful legitimate claims to be paid from the Common Benefit Fund(s) of:”
“IN RE: C.R. BARD, INC.                                       MDL NO. 2187
IN RE: AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC  MDL NO. 2325
IN RE: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC                                MDL NO. 2326
IN RE: ETHICON, INC.                                           MDL NO. 2327
IN RE: COLOPLAST                                                MDL NO. 2387
IN RE: COOK MEDICAL, INC                                MDL NO. 2440
IN RE: NEOMEDIC                                                   MDL NO. 2511”

                Page 15 of 16
“Pursuant to these Supreme Court case laws and U.S. Judicial Codes, Judge Goodwin must recuse himself because:
1.      The risk of bias was too high to be constitutionally tolerable.
2.      Judge Goodwin’s significant personal involvement in an earlier judicial proceeding related to Lana C. Keeton
3.      Under 28 U.S.C. § 455 (a), recusal is mandatory in “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
4.      “Section 455(b) (1) provides that a judge should disqualify himself in any proceeding in which he has “a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” ie., Judge Goodwin’s close personal relationship with William H. McKee, Jr. whom he appointed to be paid from the Common Benefit Fund(s) based on his “non-attorney participation” on the Fee and Cost Committee and his personal knowledge of the facts of Keeton’s Case No. 2:13cv24276”

“Judge Joseph R. Goodwin’s clear bias and prejudice against Lana C. Keeton mandate his recusal. He favors Henry G. Garrard III and other known bad actors, Officers of the Court, who do not hesitate to place false evidence into the United States Federal District Court System         through their “theft by allocation” of unearned Common Benefits Fund over Lana C. Keeton’s rights to the fair and honest and due administration of justice and her rights to Due Process under the 5th/14th Amendments of the Constitution.”

Lana C. Keeton
© 2005 – 2019 Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Med Device Expert LLC
Legal Consultant . Expert Witness . Device Expert . Patient Advocate
901 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 3-423, Miami Beach, FL 33139

Facebook:  LANA KEETON  and  L.C. KEETON
Twitter:    @PlaintiffPower1

Volume II Issue 6 August 23, 2019
© 2005-2019 all rights reserved Lana C. Keeton

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
901 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 3-423, Miami Beach, FL 33139

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

THE AMAZING DR. ALLAN FIELDS, BOXING HALL OF FAME RING DOCTOR, AND MY WONDERFUL FRIEND FOR OVER 20 YEARS

Allan and I became friends over 20 years ago when I was a boxing promoter in the State of Florida. Allan was a very long time ring doctor and was inducted to the Boxing Hall of Fame for his expertise in, and his loyalty to, boxing. He helped everyone that crossed his path, and that included me. When I hit hard times back in 2005, Allan was there even when my family was not.

I watched as he did the same for everyone he knew, even to his own detriment at times. He has the most beautiful children and grandchildren. I knew Jon better than any of them. Jon loved, and loves, his Dad and Allan loved Jon so much. They were best of friends. Truly a special Father-Son relationship, always there for each other.

And his significant other, Alicia, was there for Allan in amazing ways. Her love for him and his love for her were beautiful. Her knowledge of organic foods and alternative healing supported Allan when he needed it the most. Suffering from kidney failure, diabetes and cancer, her care for him showed in the smile on his face and his remarkably beautiful skin despite all he was suffering.

The photo below, when Allan took me to lunch for my birthday June 11, 2018, shows how great he looked. I commented on it and his reply was... Alicia!

His loss June 9th of this year leaves a hole in my heart. A kinder more loving man I never knew, except for my own loving father, Kenneth. I write this with respect and love for the Great Man, DR. ALLAN FIELDS. God bless his family and friends as they look back over his incredible life!



Monday, July 29, 2019

ABUSED BY YOUR #MESH ATTORNEY? TEXANS DON'T LIKE ANYONE WHO ABUSES A WOMAN... @JNJCares @Ethicon @BostonSci @BardDavol @bbgalaw @motleyrice @awkolaw


ABUSED BY YOUR #MESH ATTORNEY? 

TEXANS DON'T LIKE ANYONE WHO 
ABUSES A WOMAN...

DO SOMETHING ABOUT ATTORNEY ABUSE! 

SO LET ME TELL YOU A STORY...  
ABOUT COLLUSION, CORRUPTION & CONSPIRACY.... READ BELOW TO SEE THE FIGHT WE ARE IN!


“THE DAILY DROP” 
The Legal Cartel: Facts, Rumors & Innuendoes

by Lana C. Keeton  Med Device Expert LLC 
Legal Consultant  .  Medical Device Expert
© 2005 – 2019  Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed - 1st Published:   Volume 1, Issue 6 July 18, 2018
  
THE THREE C’s:
THE VERY LIKELY COLLUSION, CORRUPTION and CONSPIRACY
of the LEGAL CARTEL

The philosophy of the powerful few PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS STEERING COMMITTEE in the West Virginia #MESH and other massive Multidistrict litigations is:                                                                                                                           “Don’t Kill the Company”

This philosophy has, and will continue to, perpetuate the power and positions of the Repeat Entrenched Players and their Repeat Entrenched Law Firms in massive multidistrict litigations across the U.S. for decades. 

These men and women perpetuate Unequal Justice Under the Law and the physical and financial ruin of their own plaintiffs. They perpetuate the use of extremely harmful drugs and devices. They have to be disbarred and brought to justice. And the guilty know who they are and what they have done. Hint. Hint. See below...


There’s not going to be any jury in a court of law on this matter. Just a public inquiry by the peers of these powerful unethical attorneys who should be disbarred, in particular for presenting false evidence in their prosecution of the over 104,000 Transvaginal Mesh lawsuits, under the authority of Judge Joseph R. Goodwin in the Southern District of West Virginia.


“But for a Judge, any Judge, to determine the worth of our Vagina and the rest of our health on the number of surgeries is wrong.”
Dottie Griggs, Non-Revision Plaintiff


Over 13,000 "Non-Revision Plaintiffs" who were dismissed without prejudice can probably thank

Henry Garrard III and Gary B. Blasingame of Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley 
- and - 
Clayton Clark and Scott Love and Shelley Hutson of Clark, Love Hutson 
- and – 
Fred Thompson and Joseph Rice of Motley Rice
- and -
Bryan Aylstock and Douglas Kreis of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz.

These and others have been for years and years the perpetual lead counsel / plaintiffs steering committee of various monstrous Multidistrict Litigations (mesh, asbestos, tobacco, 9/11, etc.). They, and/or others in their firms, are also the plaintiff’s steering committee in multidistrict litigations for Ethicon Physiomesh and Atrium C-Qur. They should all immediately resign from their positions on the plaintiffs steering committee of Ethicon Physiomesh and Atrium C-qur for conflict of interest in not fully prosecuting these 13,000 women’s cases in Ethicon’s MDL 02327.

So how do we remedy another potential 13,000 “Non-Revision” Plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Litigations for Ethicon Physiomesh and/or Atrium C-Qur if these men/women do not resign? Add new qualifications, not a part of the current member of the “Good Ole Boys/Girls Club” qualifications, to the current ones.

The current method of determining who will serve on the Plaintiffs Steering Committees for MDL and Class Action lawsuits has to change. The rules for nominating Plaintiffs Steering Committees have to include the following additional investigation of these powerful few men and women attorneys who control the destiny of  hundreds of thousands of Plaintiffs across the United States in the United States Court System:

1)      Forensic accounting of finances of Lead and Co-Lead counsel to determine they have actually paid their previous clients all the money they are owed and are actually financially stable.

2)      A psychological evaluation to eliminate the potential narcissist and/or sociopath.

3)      Drug testing to prevent drug addicted attorneys holding these positions of power

4)      Are there conflicts of interest with their current case load, as in the current situation between 13,000 “Non-Revision Plaintiffs and the new Hernia Mesh Plaintiffs for Ethicon Physiomesh and Atrium C-Qur?

This publication series will continue to expose the ugly underbelly of the West Virginia Multidistrict Litigations which has over 100,000 cases in the Southern District of West Virginia. Please continue to read this series. You need to fully understand the ugly underbelly of Multidistrict Litigations in the U.S.

© 2005 – 2019 Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
901 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 3-423, Miami Beach, FL 33139
305.671.9331 phone  .  800.509.9917 fax  .  305.342.8002 cell phone

IN HONOR OF KENNETH HAROLD KEETON
MY FATHER, WHO LEFT THIS WORLD 56 YEARS AGO TODAY, JULY 18, 1962,
AN HONEST HARDWORKING MAN WHO TAUGHT ME TO DO THE SAME, BE HONEST & HARDWORKING.


Sunday, June 30, 2019

THE DEATH OF PELVIC MESH MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION: CORRUPT ATTORNEYS, ET.AL.?


“THE DAILY DROP”
The Legal Cartel: Facts, Rumors & Innuendoes


by Lana C. Keeton
Med Device Expert LLC
Legal Consultant  .  Medical Device Expert
© 2005 - 2019 Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Volume II Issue 5 June 30, 2019

DOMINOES, DOMINOES, DOMINOES…THEY JUST KEEP FALLING

PELVIC MESH MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IMPLODING
AS PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS CORRUPTION IS EXPOSED?

In Volume II Issue 4 March 17, 2019, I ask the question:
DID ETHICON MDL 02327 WEST VIRGINIA PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS STEERING COMMITTEE MAKE ANY OBJECTION TO RITUAL MESH REMOVAL MUTILATION OF 13,000 WOMEN ORDERED BY JUDGE JOSEPH GOODWIN PTO 293 APRIL 11, 2018?

Now I ask:
WILL CORRUPT PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS BE THE
DEATH OF MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION?

Why do I ask this question? Because of various civil lawsuits against Pelvic Mesh Plaintiff’s Attorneys alleging legal malpractice and criminal indictments for fraud against a Urogynecologist and a Medical Funder by the Department of Justice. Serious stuff.

MY PERSONAL OPINION –
THE MASSIVE PELVIC MESH MDL’S HAVE BECOME A DISASTER.
1.      Outright Theft from Plaintiffs by Forced Consent to Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Pretrial Order 293, Ethicon MDL 02327.
2.      Violation of Plaintiff’s Rights to Due Process under the 5th and/or 14th Amendments
3.      Potential Mental Disorders of Plaintiff’s Attorneys in Power over all the Pelvic Mesh MDL’s Non-Steering Committee Plaintiffs Attorneys.
4.      Rampant Willful Blindness, a criminal state of mind as defined by the Supreme Court,  throughout the Multidistrict Litigations in the Federal Court System has drawn the attention of the U.S. House of Representatives, who passed HR 985 in February of 2017.    And the U.S. Senate where Senator Charles Grassley introduced legislation S. 2815 To Increase Transparency and Oversight of 3rd Party Litigation Funding, on May 10, 2018.
And the Department of Justice filing charges on May 24, 2019 against “Wesley Blake Barber, 49, of Detroit, Michigan, the owner of Surgical Assistance Inc. and Medical Funding Consultants LLC, and Christopher Walker, M.D., 49, of Orlando, Florida, and owner of MedSurg Holdings LLC, in an indictment filed in the Eastern District of New York with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, three counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to violate the Travel Act and one count of violating the Travel Act.
5.      Gaslightingis used to manipulate Mesh Injured Plaintiff Clients, who are isolated, warned not to communicate anything to anyone about their lawsuit and easily abused by their own attorney because of their lack of knowledge of the law. Gaslighting is “a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target’s belief.”
Usage: “Sociopaths and narcissists frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but typically also are convincing liars, sometimes charming ones, who consistently deny wrongdoing.”
6.      Outright Theft of Plaintiffs Settlement Money by Attorneys Manipulation and Abuse of  Qualified Settlement Funds under IRS 468 B where there is no forensic accounting.
7.      Double dipping of cases. Are settlements paid by Defendants to Plaintiffs Attorneys, who don’t equitably distribute those IRS 468 B settlement funds to their own Plaintiff Clients, then placing the very same case on the docket again? QSF’s are ripe for Plaintiff Abuse.

It is a tragic state of affairs when trust is placed in the laws of the United States and in our Court System and in attorneys who violate their fiduciary duty to prey on innocent injured Plaintiff Clients. Fortunately some Attorneys are now filing legal malpractice lawsuits against those Attorneys exposing those who abused their very own Plaintiff Clients, in State and Federal
Court.                                                 
DISCLAIMER:
IF YOU RECEIVED THIS, PLEASE UNDERSTAND I RESPECT AND APPRECIATE THE HONEST PELVIC MESH PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS WHO FIGHT EVERY DAY FOR THEIR PLAINTIFF CLIENTS. NONE OF THIS IS DIRECTED AT THEM OR IN ANY WAY IS INTENDED TO INSULT THE HONEST PEOPLE WHO DEDICATE THEIR LIVES TO FIGHTING FOR THEIR CLIENTS.

The Good News is, not all Attorneys are corrupt or willfully blind
to the massive disaster of the Pelvic Mesh MDL’s.

Thank you to:
ADAM SLATER - MAZIE, SLATER, KATZ & FREEMAN LLC, ROSELAND, NJ

Mazie, Slater, Katz and Freeman LLC filed Master Case No.BER-L-11575-14 for lead plaintiff Debbie Gore and approximately 1,450 Proposed Class Members, a verified Class Action Complaint in the Superior court of New Jersey, Bergen County on June 10, 2019 before Judge Rachelle Harz.

It alleges legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against all defendants for their actions in the Pelvic Mesh MDL in New Jersey against numerous law firms and attorneys at those law firms for mismanagement of the basics:
1.      Retainer agreements
2.      Attorney fees
3.      Expenses
4.      Improper sharing of Attorney Fees

Defendant Law Firms:
Nagel Rice, LLP, Roseland, New Jersey; The Potts Law Firm, Houston,Texas and Missouri;
Bailey Peavy Bailey Cowan Heckaman, Houston, Texas; Mesh Litigation Center, Houston, Texas; Steelman McAdams, Houston, Texas; Junell & Associates, Houston, Texas; Burnett Law Firm, Houston, Texas

Defendant Attorneys:
Bruce Nagel, Nagel Rice, LLP;  Robert Solomon, Nagel Rice, LLP; Andrew O’Connor, Nagel Rice, LLP; Derek Potts, The Potts Law Firm; Annie McAdams, Steelman McAdams

These Defendants are alleged to have violated New Jersey’s strict rules of the courts concerning fees and retainer agreements, such as:  
1.      Invalid Retainer Agreements because the defendants either has not signed agreements with local counsel in New Jersey or the women
2.      Attorney’s Fees of 40% which is over New Jersey limits of a firm’s percentage to 33.3%
3.      Improper Sharing of legal fees
4.      Deducting attorney’s fees off the top from the gross recovery while deducting expenses from the plaintiff’s portion of recovery which in effect stole money from the plaintiff
5.      Paying settlement dollars  to unauthorized recipient law firms
6.      Non-retained legal counsel making filings or appearances for plaintiffs
7.      Improper deduction of legal fees and/or expenses from plaintiffs

This is outrageous behavior of these Attorneys and their Law Firms, licensed Officers of the Court, who instead of prosecuting the lawsuits for their Plaintiffs, are simply preying on the Plaintiffs.

Please note:
This information is drawn from the original complaint filed in Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. Errors or omissions are unintentional. Author would appreciate notification if any errors or omissions are noted.

Thank you to:
JAMES MILLER BEGGS of BEGGS LANDERS LAW FIRM PLLC, IRVING, TX

for prosecuting this case:
ALVARADO et al v. CLARK, LOVE & HUTSON, G.P. et al Case #: 4:19-cv-02148 

Texas Southern District Court    Judge: Andrew S Hanen       
Nature of Suit 370 Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud
Cause 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Case Filed: Jun 13, 2019

Defendant
CLAYTON A. CLARK, 440 LOUISIANA STE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77002
Defendant
CLARK, LOVE & HUTSON, G.P., 440 LOUISIANA STE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77002
Defendant
CLAYTON A. CLARK, ESQ., PC, 440 LOUISIANA STE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77002
Defendant
SHELLEY HUTSON, 440 LOUISIANA ST. SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77002
Defendant
HUTSON LAW FIRM, P.C., 440 LOUISIANA ST. SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77002
Defendant
JAMES LEE LAW FIRM, P.C., 743 WEST 18TH
HOUSTON, TX 77008
Defendant
LEE & MURPHY LAW FIRM, G.P., 743 WEST 18TH
HOUSTON, TX 77008
Defendant
JAMES LEE, JR., 440 LOISIANA ST., SUITE 900
HOUSTON, TX 77002                  
Defendant
SCOTT A. LOVE,  440 LOUISIANA SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77002
Defendant
ERIN MURPHY, 440 LOUISIANA ST., SUITE 300
HOUSTON, TX 77002
Defendant
SCOTT A. LOVE, PC, 440 LOUISIANA STREET SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77002

PLAINTIFFS
TAMMY ALVARADO, TAMMY HAGA,
CLARA REDMOND, AMY RUMINSKI
Represented By
JAMES MILLER BEGGS
BEGGS LANDERS LAW FIRM PLLC


Regards,
Lana C. Keeton
© 2005 – 2019 Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Med Device Expert LLC
Legal Consultant . Expert Witness . Device Expert . Patient Advocate
901 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 3-423, Miami Beach, FL 33139

FIGHTING UNEQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW


Facebook:  LANA KEETON  and  L.C. KEETON
Twitter:    @PlaintiffPower1

Volume II Issue 5, June 30, 2019
© 2005-2019 all rights reserved Lana C. Keeton

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
901 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 3-423, Miami Beach, FL 33139
305.671.9331 phone  .  800.509.9917 fax  .  305.342.8002 cell phone

Saturday, April 20, 2019

COPY OF PUBLIC RECORD, THE TRUTH, FILED MARCH 26, 2019, S.D.W.VA.: 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






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
706-354-4000 706-549-3545 fax  hgarrard@bbga.com

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

the Constitution or laws of the United States, and because of my having so exercised the same.

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