From the Daily Mail:
“A woman who was among the first to file a lawsuit in connection to the Flint, Michigan water crisis was identified as one of two victims of a fatal shooting that happened earlier this week.
She was identified Thursday, the same day the death of a Flint Water Treatment Plant foreman who was wanted for questioning in connection with the crisis was pronounced dead….”
Sasha Avonna Bell, 19, was suing 3 government officials and 6 companies for allegedly causing her toddler to suffer from lead poisoning.
From Mlive: “….Bell was found dead April 19 in the 2600 block of Ridgecrest Drive at the Ridgecrest Village Townhouses. Sacorya Renee Reed was also found shot to death in the home.
Cory M. Stern, Bells attorney, is/was handling Sasha’s case and was one of 64 lawsuits filed on behalf of 144 children by Stern's firm, New York-based Levy Konigsberg, and Flint-based Robinson Carter & Crawford.
Also, “...On Thursday, it was revealed that a Flint Water Treatment Plant foreman was found dead on April 16 in his Otter Lake home.
The foreman, Matthew McFarland, was 43. He had been questioned by investigators looking into Flint's water crisis. The cause of his death is unknown...”
- See more at: www.detroitnewstime.com/…
The lawsuit named six companies that had various responsibilities with respect to the treatment, monitoring, and safety of the Flint water prior to and during the Flint water crisis, according to her attorneys. The case also named three individual government, or former government, employees who played significant roles in the alleged misconduct that led to the alleged poisoning of thousands of children in Flint, her attorneys claim.
From Mlive:
“….The Bell case, however, played an important role in determining the future of the more than five dozen other lawsuits that were filed.
Initially, Bell's case and the others were filed in Genesee Circuit Court. However, they were transferred to U.S. District Court on a motion from one of the defendants, engineering company Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam.
However, Ann Arbor U.S. District Judge John Corbett O'Meara ruled April 13 that Bell's case should return to the state court claiming it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
Stern said the case will continue and a representative will be appointed for Bell's child.
The ruling also forced the other 63 cases to be returned to state court.
Flint police say they have a person in custody in connection to the slayings of Bell and Reed. No charges have yet been filedOne of the companies named in the lawsuit was an engineering company from Texas (LAN) Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc….”
From its Linkedin Description:
“...(LAN) is a full-service consulting firm offering planning, engineering and program management services. Founded in 1935, LAN has grown from its humble beginnings as a small Houston firm to a national leader in the heavy civil infrastructure engineering industry. A division of LEO A DALY, an international architecture/engineering firm, LAN has access to the expertise of nearly 800 professionals in 31 offices across the country...”
Unfortunately, we don’t know the the names of the other companies named in the lawsuit or the Government officials where named in the lawsuit at this time.
Thats all the info there is at this time.
But I have a couple questions.
1. Who would DIRECTLY benefit from either one of the above named, deaths?
2. Who are the other Flint officials named in the lawsuit?
3. What are the names of the other 5 companies named in the lawsuit?
4. Does anybody with law experience know how, returning the lawsuit to the state jurisdiction will affect the lawsuit? Is it better or worse for the defendants named?
5. Is it time for the Feds or other investigators to get involved for the safety of the others who have ongoing lawsuits? How can it be determined if others may be in danger?
Why do you suppose the corporate-owned media has not given this any face time?
Update: Esquire seems to think the lawsuit against Snyder is brilliant and shows a pattern of racketeering and RICO violations: www.esquire.com/…
Here is some legal jargon on RICO and whether it is viable or shows proximate cause: ricoact.com/… any lawyers in the audience?
RICO: “….
“…. is difficult to determine whether injuries are proximately caused by a RICO violation. One thing is certain, RICO plaintiffs must do more than merely demonstrate monetary loss. In considering Holmes, the Sixth Circuit stated that “[plaintiffs] employ flawed logic in their insistence that an ‘actual monetary loss’ equates with a ‘direct injury.’ . . . The [Holmes] Court held that RICO contains a proximate cause requirement . . . . This requirement forces the plaintiff to demonstrate a direct relationship between the injury suffered and the alleged injurious conduct. Thus, the concept of direct injury refers to the relationship between the injury and the defendants’ action, not the plaintiff’s pocketbook.” Firestone v. Galbreath, 976 F.2d 279, 285 (6th Cir. 1992)….”
The fact that the people in Flint were continuing to be charged for their water on the insistence that it was ’fine’ and in many cases OVERCHARGED for toxic water may come into play.