The basic point of the letter is that the state of Texas requested $25 million from BP like other Gulf Coast states had received and is upset that BP denied it. The interesting thing about the letter is the third paragraph from the bottom.
No real debate although it has been debated here whether or not BP was guilty of gross negligence. Perry and Abbott are stating that the BP General Counsel has admitted to it and that there were other state attorney generals on the phone call as witnesses. It seems absolutely unbelievable, but I guess stranger things have happened.
There are many exceptions to the hearsay rules. Generally speaking, hearsay isn’t allowed because you cannot test its accuracy. However, lots of the exceptions apply to things which we see as being inherently accurate, and so permit the testimony even though it is hearsay (or define it as not hearsay in some situations).
The example here is a statement against interest. Testimony that would otherwise be hearsay is allowed if it involves the declarant stating something that is damaging about themselves, as the idea is they would not typically lie about that. Hence confessions come in, as would something like this.
Hey, if they admitted negligence, then Obama wouldn’t have had to shake them down for that settlement the right-wingers were talking about. You’re not suggesting Fox News commentators made that whole thing up, are you?
It wouldn’t be necessary to bring in the Perry letter as long as Lynch can be subpoenaed to testify himself. If he denies it under oath, then other witness could be called in rebuttal (whoever was the source of Perry’s information).
There is also an exception/protection for statements made in the process of settlement negotiations which may or may not apply here. If the conference call could be categorized as settlement negotiations, then nothing said in it would be usable in court.
Since BP had not asserted limited liability under the Oil Pollution Act*, it’s immaterial if the statement was made during settlement negotiations, no?
We’re talking about a suit alleging gross negligence, which would be separate and apart from Texas’ claim against BP for voluntary damages. I think.
*Whose idea was it to grant oil companies limited liability, anyway?
I thought that one of the reports early on in this disaster centered around BP execs worrying the rig management about being behind schedule and essentially ordering them to use seawater instead of the drilling mud to speed up the drilling process, a decision which resulted in what the survivors of the rig disaster claim is the cause of the explosion and resultant spill due to seawater not having the requisite mass to withstand a “kick” properly.
