START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Three Reasons the Court Should Reject Halliburton's Plea Agreement,


Business  (tags: energy, destruction, environment, habitatdestruction, nature, water, pollution, oceans, wildlife, ecosystems, business, corporate, dishonesty, cover-up, energy, ethics, government, law, lies, money, society, oil, usa )

JL
- 340 days ago - citizenvox.org
Today, a federal judge will decide whether to approve a plea agreement that calls for Halliburton Energy Services to pay a trivial $200,000 fine for destroying evidence after BP's 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The judge should reject the deal.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

JL A. (275)
Monday September 23, 2013, 7:33 pm
September19
Three reasons the court should reject Halliburton’s plea agreement

By: Allison Fisher

Today, a federal judge will decide whether to approve a plea agreement that calls for Halliburton Energy Services to pay a trivial $200,000 fine for destroying evidence after BP’s 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The judge should reject the deal.

Here’s why:

1) The misdemeanor charge does not reflect the seriousness of the offense.

Halliburton concedes that employees twice erased computer simulations that undercut the company’s argument about the causes of the disaster.

Destruction of evidence can lead to multiple felony counts, including obstruction of justice. The evidence that was intentionally deleted is material to the cause of the Macondo well blowout, which led to an explosion that killed 11 men and the worst oil spill disaster in U.S. history. In response the plea agreement between the Department of Justice and Halliburton Energy Services Inc., Southwestern Law School professor, Kelly Strader said, “Given the scale of the harm caused by the oil spill, it seems surprising that the government would accept a plea to a relatively minor charge.”

Though the joint memorandum submitted by the U.S. government and Halliburton Energy Services Inc. cites a decision by the Southern District of Texas in which the court opines that a court may not reject a plea proposed under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) on the grounds that it fails to charge a sufficiently severe crime and goes on to suggest that a court must “defer to the government’s position except under extraordinary circumstances,” a body of case law exists that challenges the constraints, imposed by corporate plea agreements, on judges’ sentencing functions and their ability to administer justice and protect the public interest.

2) The fine associated with the charged offense is paltry and will not deter future criminal conduct for the corporation or other corporate actors.

In response to the Halliburton plea agreement, Robert Weisberg, law professor and director of Stanford Law School’s criminal justice center, asserted, “One might read this as a deterrent in the reverse sense, in that it strongly encourages future corporate defendants to admit guilt, make separate unconditional payouts and cooperate like crazy, with the ‘carrot’ being a mere misdemeanor conviction.”

Moreover, the joint parties’ argument supporting the sentencing agreement points out that the appropriate assessment of fines, for the charged misdemeanor, should also consider additional factors, including “in the case of organizational defendants, the size of the organization and any measures taken by it to discipline responsible employees and to prevent a recurrence.”

To this end, as reported by The Washington Post, Halliburton will pay the maximum fine for a misdemeanor, but the $200,000 is equal to just under four minutes’ revenue for the company. And according to a Halliburton official, the employee who instructed two colleagues to destroy computer simulations that would have been evidence in the investigation of the oil spill has retained his anonymity and continues to work for the company.

3) The agreement does not accurately depict the history or characteristics of the defendant

In defending the charged offense, the joint parties cite the fact that Halliburton Energy Services Inc. has not been subject to any criminal actions over the past 10 years. This information is intended to demonstrate that the plea agreement reflects, as recommended in Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the consideration of the history and characteristics of the defendant in determining appropriate sentencing. This is a myopic view of the parties’ focus on the corporation’s conduct, because it fails to consider the corporation’s history that is most germane to this case. The National Oil Spill Commission investigation into the BP disaster found that the Halliburton cement used to seal the bottom of BP’s wild Gulf well in April 2010 was unstable, that it was used despite multiple failed tests in the weeks leading up to the massive well blowout, that Halliburton knew about the problems, and that it used the cement mixture anyway.

Further, the joint parties note in several places throughout the memo that Halliburton Energy Services Inc. has provided full and exceptional cooperation in the Deepwater Horizon Task Force’s investigation of the events surrounding the blowout of the Macondo well on April 20, 2010, and the ensuing oil spill. This point is a substantial overstatement.

Halliburton has been far from cooperative. For example, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier, who is presiding over the civil case to assign liability for the accident, ordered Halliburton in 2010 to turn over to federal investigators samples of the cement the company used to try to seal the Macondo oil well before it exploded. But Halliburton did not turn over the test results on those samples until Aug. 1, 2011 – 16 months after the accident.

Even by the government’s own accounting of efforts to recover the evidence deleted, Halliburton’s cooperation cannot be characterized as exceptional. The memo states that while Halliburton “undertook substantial efforts to forensically recover” the deleted computer models, its efforts “ultimately were unsuccessful.” Following this substantial but failed effort and pursuant to court order, “a consulting company with technology expertise eventually recreated the models” based on the same inputs that a Halliburton “employee certified he believed were used in May/June 2010”.

The government also seems to attribute the bargain-basement plea agreement to the fact that Halliburton disclosed the offense to investigators as soon as it learned about it. The evidence was destroyed more than three years ago. One has to wonder why it took so long – after multiple government, industry and private investigations – for this indiscretion to come to the attention of Halliburton senior executives.

One should further wonder if the cementing technology director, who ordered two employees to run and then destroy the simulations, was directed to run those tests by his boss or by those running internal investigations into the well blowout. If so, shouldn’t those parties have wondered, after three years, why they never got those reports? If this plea agreement is accepted, these are the kinds of questions the public will never know the answers to.
 

Kit B. (276)
Monday September 23, 2013, 7:42 pm

Thanks J L I'm trying to shake some cobwebs lost to think about this case. And...it could set a precedent of the low expectations the courts have for major corporations that ignore the law.
This case is gloss over the deeper and uglier problem that Halliburton represents, corporations that ignore the law because they believe themselves to be above the law. I sure am not an attorney but it seems there are some cases where deleted information on a large scale was allowed to be considered incriminating. Not the unknown information but the act of deleting. Once or twice, an accident, massive numbers of files, intentional. Halliburton isn't even facing a public embarrassment.
 

JL A. (275)
Monday September 23, 2013, 8:51 pm
Reminds me of the erased tape from the Oval Office in Nixon's impeachment case...I'll see if I can think of/find others you may be thinking about
 

JL A. (275)
Monday September 23, 2013, 9:05 pm
http://www.economica.ca/ew06_4p2.htm
Explains the legal issues.
Some PA cases related to alleged defective products:
http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/spoliation-of-evidence-in-pennsylvania-courts.html
A downloading case:
http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/2008/09/articles/case-summaries/defendants-brazen-destruction-of-evidence-warrants-default-judgment/
FL cases:
http://www.akerman.com/documents/DeconstructingDamages.pdf
Summary of CA law in this area:
http://california-discovery-law.com/spoliation.pdf
 

Sherri G. (111)
Monday September 23, 2013, 11:35 pm
Halliburton is raping the planet everyday from oil to gas fracking to tar sands and more. A $200,000 fine is a joke. The legal system was bought by these crooks. America must stop all those corporations exploiting this planet with no consideration for future generations. TY JL Noted and Signed
 

cathie S. (153)
Monday September 23, 2013, 11:36 pm
noted n shared tyvm
 

Terry V. (30)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 2:57 am
thank you :(
 

Jonathan Harper (0)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 4:22 am
Noted
 

. (0)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 7:17 am
Very good reasons, JL. Thanks for sharing.
 

JL A. (275)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 8:05 am
You are welcome Sherri, Cathie, Terry and Laura.
You cannot currently send a star to Sherri or Laura because you have done so within the last day.
 

Micheael Kirkbym (85)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 10:15 am
Haliburton - arch nemesis of all that is decent; right up there with the Koch Bros.; ALEC and all the rest of the corporate crooks.
 

JL A. (275)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 10:32 am
You cannot currently send a star to Michael because you have done so within the last day.
 

Kathleen R. (138)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 1:36 pm
noted
 

Roger Garin-michaud (61)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 2:22 pm
noted, thanks
 

JL A. (275)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 4:12 pm
You are welcome Roger
 

S J. (116)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 4:45 pm
I hope you can get corrupt people and companies response and accountability for what they did. I am on your side. Here, we can't do anything with the PTTCG for the oil spill last month yet.

Thanks JL
 

Kit B. (276)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 7:24 pm

I had read a few articles about this when the case first went to court, and then when Halliburton made the comments that they would pay but admit no guilt. This company reminds me of old King Pellinore. The throne is lost, and he is wandering but still expects to be treated as a king. Halliburton considers themselves above the law. We need a court to knock them down a few pegs.
 

Elle B. (81)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 7:49 pm
Thank-you JL . . . just really tired tonight . . . so many greedy, creepy,mindless, heartless azz-heads who think so highly of themselves when there is nothing worthy about them--not a thing . . . Halliburton the Corrupt-- is the epitome of the Greed Mongers' Kingdom ... nothing new since the Bard said it all so well...

“Out of my sight! Thou dost infect mine eyes.” ― William Shakespeare, Richard III

“There's small choice in rotten apples.” ― William Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew

“Hell is empty and all the devils are here.” ― William Shakespeare, The Tempest

“I can see he's not in your good books,' said the messenger. 'No, and if he were I would burn my library.”
― William Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing
 

Ray M. (0)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 7:53 pm
A true travesty of justice. The rich and powerful always get away with murder and corporate crime.
 

BnKatieNOMESPLE D. (81)
Tuesday September 24, 2013, 9:31 pm
We agree Thank You
 

Louise D. (38)
Wednesday September 25, 2013, 7:56 am
This is a bit like being on the naughty step rather than being any form of punishment. Haliburton has a long history of thinking ethics is somewhere in England - would you expect less from a company that had Dick as its head?
 

JL A. (275)
Wednesday September 25, 2013, 8:00 am
Thanks for reminding everyone of the Cheney connection Louise.
 

Louise D. (38)
Wednesday September 25, 2013, 8:24 am
Actually I was just going for the cheap Dick head joke as well >::)
 

Winn Adams (191)
Wednesday September 25, 2013, 11:59 am
Thanks
 

Carol D. (109)
Wednesday September 25, 2013, 12:35 pm
Noted
 

JL A. (275)
Wednesday September 25, 2013, 2:06 pm
You are welcome Winn.
 

Mitchell D. (130)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 10:28 am
It seems to me, sadly, that accepting this plea bargain is just what the court will do, not that I would not mind being surprised, from the viewpoint (not mine) that the country ought not do anything that would interfere with the continuing accumulation of wealth, by the few; as to do so would be bad for business.
You know: Business ubber alles!
 

JL A. (275)
Thursday September 26, 2013, 10:57 am
Update:
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18218-halliburton-slap-drug-offenders-prison

"As Ring of Fire radio reported:

Oil giant Halliburton pled guilty on Thursday to destroying evidence related to the 2010 BP oil spill. However, unlike the other companies involved in the oil spill, Halliburton, the company responsible for cementing the well, was not charged with a crime related to the causes of the disaster.

Halliburton agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor count of unauthorized destruction of evidence. US District Judge Jane Triche-Milazzo in New Orleans accepted Halliburton’s plea agreement, and charged the company with the maximum-allowable fine of $200,000 and a 3-year probation term.

The company also agreed to make a $55 million contribution to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation."
_______________
You were right Mitchell, sorry it is too soon to send you a star.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.