Federal Judge Reeves Describes Contents of Angela Ford’s Incomplete Accounting – Denies Discovery to Stan Chesley.

 

Currently Angela Ford has her second appeal to the 6th. Circuit seeking to avoid having to provide more information in her accounting to the Federal Court. The U.S. Attorney has been seeking this information for some eleven months. Stan Chesley filed a motion in the Federal action seeking a private viewing of the accounting so that he could determine if his civil rights were violated by the KBA Bar Counsel.

 

As we understand the procedure, the U.S. Attorney is still seeking this information for their own purposes. The new filing by Angela Ford (Dec. 1, 2012) argues that the Federal District Court has no jurisdiction to view her private financial records re: her distribution in the Fen Phen case.

 

The issue as to whether or not Ford must give a full accounting to the Government will ultimately be determined by the 6th. Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Judge Reeves said in his interlocutory order responding to Chesley’s motion:

\

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

NORTHERN DIVISION

(at Covington)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

V.

WILLIAM J. GALLION, et al.,

Defendants.

))))))))))

Criminal Action No. 2: 07-39-DCR

 

ORDER

*** *** *** ***

On July 11, 2011, Angela Ford, by counsel, filed a document captioned “Accounting

Filed with the Court under Seal.” [Record No. 1289] The information provided in this document

was actually less than its heading would indicate.

 

The document contains four paragraphs in which Ford’s counsel, Kenyon Meyer of the firm Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP: (i) incorporates information previously filed in the record of this proceeding; (ii) acknowledges that certain sums collected in the state action captioned Abbott, et al., v. Chesley, et al., Commonwealth of Kentucky, Boone Circuit Court, Civil Action No. 05-CI-00436, are being held in escrow for the benefit of the Abbott plaintiffs; and (iii) identifies the generic names of five banks where remaining funds are located. No other account information is provided.

 

Additionally, counsel for Ford acknowledges that a portion of the funds paid to his client

by the Abbott plaintiffs have been paid to third parties (including, but not limited to other

attorneys) pursuant to fee agreements.

 

No fee agreements have been submitted and the identities of attorneys who may have received compensation pursuant to the referenced fee agreements have not been identified.*

 

While movant Chesley might speculate that this indicates – or in some way proves – some sinister action by Ford taken in conjunction with former counsel for the Kentucky Bar Association, the Court does not engage in such rank speculation. *

 

Quite simply, the document which is the subject of the current motion does not provide any further information and former counsel for the KBA has not been identified or referenced in any way.

 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification [Record No. 1326] is DENIED.

 

This 10th day of January, 2012.

/U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves/

(*emphasis added by LawReader

 

 

Comments are closed.