In early June, I wrote an article entitled, “Lawsuit Claims BP and Court Colluded to Keep Monopoly on Oil Containment Tech,”[1] where I detailed many of the claims made by Ron Johnson who sued BP for antitrust and negligence in regards to the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill. Johnson’s initial claims against BP were concerning enough. However, during the course of Johnson’s lawsuit and appeals process, Johnson began experiencing what he describes as clear corruption of the higher courts and collusion between these institutions and BP.
The court affair began when Johnson sued BP for negligence and antitrust for refusing to at least attempt to use his technology, the SAK-J5 and the S.O.C.K., equipment which had been tested at Ohmsett with an oil containment and recovery success rate of 100%, even after other methods had proven inadequate and BP was relying on toxic Corexit to simply hide the oil from public view. During the course of his subsequent lawsuit and appeals, Johnson claims that he experienced numerous instances of collusion between BP and the courts such as the Clerk’s Offices’ refusal to enter default against BP even after Federal court rules clearly deemed that this judgment was to be entered, attempts by the court to accommodate BP at every conceivable opportunity, tampering with confidential documents, and the denial of suits that were never signed by judges, just to name a few.
I encourage the reader to access my previous article in order to understand the background of this case.
But if the allegations made by Johnson regarding the behavior of the courts were not serious enough as revealed one month ago, Johnson is making still more claims regarding BP and US court collusion.
The additional allegations “begin” with Johnson’s filing of a Motion to Expedite due to the fact that, according to him, his case had laid dormant for over three months, with no communication or contact of any kind related to the suit. This was, he claims, despite the fact that other cases which were not of a criminal nature were placed on the court’s docket for January, 2012. Thus, Johnson filed the Motion in February, 2012, beginning the process of granting or denying his Motion which Johnson states should only have taken seven days. However, Johnson received a denial of his Motion by the court on June 1, 2012, a full three and a half months after the original Motion had been filed.
