Wednesday, November 7, 2018

MY OPINION: JUDGE JOSEPH R. GOODWIN'S APRIL 11, 2018 ETHICON MDL 02327 PRETRIAL ORDER 293 = LEGAL RAPE


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

Lana C. Keeton
Med Device Expert LLC
Legal Consultant  .  Medical Device Expert
© 2005 - 2018 Lana C. Keeton All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Volume 1 Issue 14 October 31, 2018

MY OPINION: PRETRIAL ORDER 293 = LEGAL RAPE

PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY STEERING COMMITTEE
MAKES PELVIC SURGICAL MESH REMOVAL A REQUIREMENT TO BE PAID FROM THE PELVIC MESH SETTLEMENT FUNDS OF ETHICON/JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
MDL 02327 U.S. DISTRICT COURT, S.D. W.VA. under the authority of
JUDGE JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, PRETRIAL ORDER 293, APRIL 11, 2018

PELVIC SURGICAL MESH REMOVAL IS A STRAWMAN
It is a COLLABORATION of Plaintiff & Corporate Defense Attorneys
to qualify to MOVE MONEY to THEMSELVES through a
IRS 468B QUALIFIED SETTLEMENT FUND.

Synthetic Polypropylene Pelvic Surgical Mesh is a permanently implanted medical device. It is NOT intended to be REMOVED.

PELVIC SURGICAL MESH REMOVAL IS A STRAWMAN!
30 REASONS WHY!
  1. No informed consent exists for any Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson pelvic surgical mesh to be implanted into any human.
  2. Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson pelvic surgical mesh implants are fraudulently on the market because Ethicon/J&J would only pay Dr. Ulf Ulmsten for clinical trials he performed pursuant to a written contract. Dr. Ulmsten signed the contract on February 13, 1997 agreeing all clinical trials would have good outcomes.
  3. There is no Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson protocol for removal of the pelvic surgical mesh in the instructions for use (IFU).
  4. There is no protocol for locating the Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson permanently implanted pelvic surgical mesh inside the body in the instructions for use (IFU).
  5. There is no known protocol recommended for pelvic surgical mesh removal by professional medical societies.
  6. Any and all pelvic surgical mesh removals are fishing expeditions and consequently, experimental surgical procedures.
  7. There are only a handful of qualified skilled surgeons in the U.S. who will attempt to do the surgical removal of pelvic mesh. Women travel from other countries for pelvic surgical mesh removal surgery in the U.S. because pelvic surgical mesh removal surgery is unavailable in their own countries.
  8. Insurance Companies deny coverage because the surgical mesh removal procedures are experimental.
  9. If the mesh injured patient does have insurance, will it pay for removal?
  10. Does the surgeon, if able to remove pelvic surgical mesh, accept that insurance?
  11. Mayo Clinic has a stated policy they will not treat pelvic mesh injuries if the woman patient is engaged in a lawsuit.
  12. The success and/or failure of pelvic surgical mesh removal depends on the skill of the surgeon and the overall health of each patient. Pelvic surgical mesh removal does not leave the patient uninjured because every time mesh is removed, it includes removing the patient’s own pelvic tissue which has grown into the interstices of the pelvic surgical mesh. Removing pelvic surgical mesh from the vagina is like cutting gum from hair.
  13. The constant inflammation from ongoing internal scarring is a permanent injury.
  14. Constant inflammation leads to autoimmune and other serious, potentially fatal diseases.
  15. Inflammation never ends as macrophages try to remove the polypropylene foreign body from the body.
  16. Macrophages develop into foreign body giant cells that try to digest and/or eject the pelvic surgical mesh from the body. It is impossible because of the size of the mesh itself.

  1. Small particles fall off the discontinuous loops of the edges of the pelvic surgical mesh. The particles are moved through the body in an effort to expel them from the body, exiting through the skin of all parts of the body.
  2. Most surgeons are not qualified to surgically remove surgical mesh.
  3. Most surgeons will not attempt surgical removal of mesh.
  4. As the native pelvic tissue weakens with the age of the patient, the surgical mesh does not weaken. Surgical mesh consequently moves through the body without any deterrent from the body’s own tissues.
  5. Deadly, life threatening infections from biofilms on the polypropylene surgical mesh that are antibiotic resistant, kill women over time.
  6. PTSD post traumatic stress disorder
  7. Inability to urinate
  8. Inability to defecate
  9. Inability to have sex
  10. Can not work
  11. Can not walk
  12. PAINFUL in office trimmings of delicate pelvic tissue to remove pieces & parts of pelvic surgical mesh without anesthesia are recommended by the Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson so pelvic surgical mesh removals will not be counted as a surgical procedure in the hospital.
  13. ANY pelvic surgical mesh removal removes healthy pelvic and/or vaginal tissue that has grown into the interstices of the mesh causing additional injury(ies) to the already existing injury(ies) from initial implantation.
  14.  The FINANCIAL COSTS of pelvic surgical mesh implantation is relatively low compared to the exorbitant costs of pelvic surgical mesh removal, frequently leaving the mesh injured patient in financial ruin.
“What Are Section 468B Funds?

Section 468B Funds exist as a temporary vehicle, or way station, in the handling of settlement proceeds: defendants obtain a binding release from liability by making a tax-deductible payment into a court or government-approved Fund; and claimants,1 who have no tax consequence as a result of this payment into a Fund, can then take as much time as they need to sort out important issues of their own such as allocating settlement shares, resolving liens (which sometimes involve complex pay-back and set-aside issues as to Medicaid and Medicare), and deciding on a form of distribution that will best serve each claimant’s unique needs (whether cash or structured settlements or special needs trusts to preserve eligibility for certain government benefits).

“The procedure for creating and using a 468B Fund is as follows:

•Either litigating party petitions the court to order that a 468B Fund be established;
•The Fund is established, and the court appoints an administrator to oversee it;
•Each settling defendant pays an agreed amount into the Fund and is then released from liability pursuant to a settlement agreement which includes the Fund as a party and which must be approved by the court;
•With claimants’ consent, the Fund assumes the liability of all settled claims, and its administrator then proceeds to settle in an individualized way with each claimant; and
•Subject to court approval, the Fund’s proceeds are distributed pursuant to these individualized settlements, and the Fund is then dissolved.

In some respects, Section 468B operates like interpleader. That is, the interpleader “plaintiff” turns a disputed asset over to the court and lets everyone else fight over it, provided he or she is let off the hook. Similarly, the 468B defendant turns an agreed settlement amount over to a court-approved Fund and gets a binding release that is expressly approved by the Fund’s establishing authority. Section 468B also operates as a novation in that settling plaintiffs expressly agree: (i) to accept a sum certain in exchange for global release of all settling defendants; and (ii) to look solely to the 468B Fund (rather than to defendants) to satisfy all liability for their asserted claims.”     Link to quote:
https://www.terralex.org/publication/pce6e1842dc/section-468b-settlement-fundswhat-they-are-and-when-and-how-to-use-them

MY OPINION: THIS IS QUITE SIMPLY LEGAL RAPE.



THE LEGAL CARTEL: BUSTED [repeated]   Volume 1 Issue 11 September 25, 2018

William Levin, Levin Simes in San Francisco, Co-lead Counsel in the American

Medical Systems MDL02325 in the Southern District of West Virginia under the authority of

Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, responded below to my “Open Letter to Henry Gilbert Garrard III”.

If Mr. Levin never says another word, it does not prevent Mr. Levin and Ms. Amy Eskin from

both being subpoenaed to elaborate on his statement to me:  

“We are co-lead: in the AMS MDL and have our own thoughts about his
 (Henry Garrard III) conduct which are that it’s worse than you think.


I saw your e mail about Henry and you make great points and, through no fault of your own, you don’t know the half of it.  We are co lead:in the AMS MDL and have our own thoughts about his conduct which are that it’s worse than you think. Feel free to call if you want at 415 606-2646 Sent from my iPad          
                 
OPEN LETTER TO HENRY GILBERT GARRARD III,
CEO & CFO OF BLASINGAME, BURCH, GARRARD & ASHLEY PC,  
WHO IS THE EPITOME OF “UNEQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW”Volume 1 Issue 10 September 11, 2018
Dear Henry,
A Reminder:
Willful blindness (also referred to as deliberate ignorance, willful ignorance, and conscious avoidance) is a criminal state of mind that translates to putting your head in the sand.”

You are not a “Plaintiff’s Attorney”. You are, and have been a “Defense Attorney” since

the 1970’s when you represented Pittsburgh Corning’s lethal asbestos products in Multidistrict

Litigation. At that time, you filed motions Pittsburgh Corning had the right to have a trial against

every single plaintiff. Almost 500 plaintiffs died while waiting for trial due to your inhumane

motion practice.                                             

Now based on the false evidence proffered through your leadership in Johnson &

Johnson/ Ethicon MDL 02327, not only is surgery to remove a Permanent Mesh Implant the

basis for settlement but 13,000 women do not have the right to a trial against Ethicon/Johnson&

Johnson, a violation of their 7th Amendment rights.  “The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII)

to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. This amendment codifies the right

to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact.”

Why is that?
1.      In order for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys to recover under the IRS 468 B Qualified Settlement Funds, allowing Plaintiffs’ attorneys to be paid their 40% + 5% attorney fees immediately and the defendant to take the tax losses immediately.
2.      To further your personal philosophy, “Don’t Kill the Company”.
3.      To reduce the massive settlement amounts Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson would have to pay to an additional 13,000 plaintiffs by a conservative value of $1,456,000,000. [$1.456 billion dollars], preserving cash flow for Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson to pay you and your firm in other MDL’s.
4.      So your firm, Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley P.C., would be able to recover millions of dollars when it sued the same Defendant, Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson, in other MDL’s, Ethicon Physiomesh and Johnson & Johnson Talc, which offered a greater opportunity of financial benefit to you and your firm personally.
a.       You are once more on various Plaintiff’s Steering Committees suing Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson.
b.      Johnson & Johnson talc cases have less plaintiffs and the jury verdicts have been substantially greater than those paid in transvaginal mesh cases.

You facilitated the violation of the right to due process as a co-lead counsel “Plaintiff’s

Attorney” to 13,000 mesh injured women plaintiffs. Judge Joseph Goodwin issued Pretrial Order

293 April 11, 2018 dismissing without prejudice 13,000 mesh injured women. No trials. No

motions. Just one objection from the Kline Specter law firm. None of the 13,000 Mesh Injured

Women even have a case in the court system anymore. Or an attorney.

Henry, are you really a “Plaintiff’s Attorney”? You hide behind that thick Southern drawl

and that beard and your always secret closed meetings. But you are not invisible. And you are

not invincible. Based on personal knowledge, I know you are a common thief and a liar. You are

a predator and a parasite. You are a blight on the legal system and the thousands of asbestos

injured mesothelioma and mesh injured plaintiffs over decades. No remorse. No conscience.

You pretend to be a “Plaintiff’s Attorney” just as your co-counsel below pretend to be

“Plaintiff’s Attorneys”, when your actions and their actions scream “Defense Attorney”:

-          Gary B. Blasingame and Josh Wages at your firm, Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley P.C.
-          Bryan Aylstock and Douglas Kreis and Neil Overholtz at Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz (AWKO)
-          Fred Thompson and Joseph Rice and Jonathan Orent at Motley Rice

Why do I say that?
Simple. A permanently implanted defective piece of surgical mesh has to be surgically

removed in order for you, the “Plaintiffs Attorney”, to prosecute lawsuits for your clients… for

synthetic surgical mesh kits for Stress Urinary Incontinence or Pelvic Organ Prolapse repair you

and all of your co-counsel have personal knowledge are defective , whether implanted in a

human or sitting on a shelf.

There are consequences to a criminal state of mind under the legal theory:
“Willful Blindness: A Substitute for Knowledge?
Willful blindness (also referred to as deliberate ignorance, willful ignorance, and conscious avoidance) is a criminal state of mind that translates to putting your
head in the sand. Lawyers call it the “ostrich instruction,” and despite its arguable justification, it is a well-established aspect of federal criminal law. As determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, criminally-culpable “willful blindness” exists where:
·         The defendant subjectively believed that there was a high probability that an illegal activity took place, and
·         The defendant took deliberate action to avoid learning about the illegal activity.
When these two requirements are satisfied, willful blindness can – in some jurisdictions – substitute for actual knowledge.”

So how do I arrive at this conclusion?

Very simple. I read the docket history on pacer.gov for the various Transvaginal Mesh

MDL’s in the Southern District of West Virginia, in particular, Ethicon MDL 02327.  The

Plaintiff’s Steering Committee had a “back room” meeting and made an agreement with Defense

Attorney, Christy D. Jones, to file a Proposed Inactive Docket Order to place 13,000 “Non-

Revision” plaintiffs on the inactive docket.

Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 5045 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 158700
“Proposed Inactive Docket Order”
“The Court has been advised by counsel that in the cases listed on the attached Exhibit A, the plaintiff(s) and Ethicon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson and where named, Ethicon LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Ethicon”)1 because of prior agreements have agreed to a mutual stay of activity. The Court therefore finds it unnecessary to conduct further proceedings or to keep these cases on the active docket.”

Then Judge Goodwin summarily dismissed them without prejudice BECAUSE the

Plaintiff’s Steering Committee agreed to it with Christy Jones. Again. No motions. No

objections. No trials. No advance notice to the Plaintiffs themselves. Except for the brave

members of the Law Firm, Kline Specter, Philadelphia, PA who had the audacity to actually

fight for the 13,000.  Other than that just Pretrial Order No. 293, April 11, 2018 in Ethicon MDL

02327 signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin at: Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 5592 Filed

04/11/18 Page 1 of 408 PageID #: 170182

So Henry, whether you are eventually criminally prosecuted or removed by your peers

because they realize their own willful blindness to your major conflicts of interest from your

leadership positions in the various Ethicon/ Johnson & Johnson Multidistrict Litigations, the

death and destruction you have caused to hundreds of thousands of asbestos injured

mesothelioma cancer plaintiffs or hundreds of thousands of transvaginal and hernia mesh

plaintiffs as a “Defense Attorney” , you will never be remembered as a “Plaintiffs Attorney”

LANA C. KEETON
“FIGHTING UNEQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW”

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


Volume 1 Issue 14, October 31, 2018
© 2005-2018 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