Sunday, March 27, 2011
River Birch goes on offense
Posted by Clancy DuBos on Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:56 AM
River Birch landfill and its owners, including Fred Heebe, apparently are tired of taking a beating in the press.
Sources at the company tell Gambit that the firm, which operates one of the largest and most successful landfills in the region, has hired a Texas PR firm to help tell River Birch’s side of the story in response to an ongoing federal criminal investigation and claims by some in Jefferson Parish government that the firm’s contract with Jefferson was not a good deal for the parish. That contract, which never took effect, remains on hold.
River Birch’s efforts appear to be paying off. Last week, The Times-Picayune ran a front-page story tracking the company’s claim that an initial draft of a parish-sponsored audit of the controversial contract actually showed that the contract was a good deal for Jefferson. The final, official audit reached the opposite conclusion — after a December 2010 meeting between the auditors and some parish officials led to “finessing the numbers” by altering the audit’s underlying assumptions.
A preliminary draft of the audit report, which was presented at the December meeting, concluded that the parish would save roughly $1.6 million over the contract’s 25-year term. The final report, which was released in January by the Baton Rouge accounting firm of Postlethwaite & Netterville, said the parish would save at least $9 million if it continued to use its own dump and not River Birch’s.
Parish Attorney Deborah Foshee told the TP that the meeting was not about the numbers at all, but rather an attempt to make sure the assumptions were accurate and valid.
The contract appears to play a key role in what many suspect is a wide-ranging federal investigation into Jefferson Parish politics.
Meanwhile, a source at River Birch tells Gambit that one of Heebe’s other companies, Shadow Lake Management, had former state Wildlife and Fisheries Commissioner Henry Mouton on retainer for years before he joined the commission in 2003. Mouton was indicted on bribery and other charges on Feb. 25.
The indictment alleges that Mouton was bribed while on the commission to lobby against competing landfills after Hurricane Katrina, which struck in August 2005. The indictment doesn’t mention Heebe, or any of his other companies by name, but the clear implication in the document is that Heebe is “co-conspirator A.”
Whether part of a PR offensive or not, the notion that Mouton was routinely on retainer to one of Heebe’s companies long before his appointment to the commission goes to the heart of what will surely be Heebe’s defense if the feds go after the business owner.
Speaking of...
-
For Jefferson Tax Renewals
- Apr 17, 2012
-
Top Broussard aide pleads guilty to federal misprision charge
Tim Whitmer faces up to three years in prison for his role in the Broussard corruption case.
- Mar 22, 2012
-
Mitt, Bath and Beyond
The GOP presidential frontrunner lags behind Rick Santorum among Louisiana voters. He's hoping a Friday appearance at Clearview Mall might close the gap.
- Mar 22, 2012
- More »
Comments (6)
Showing 1-6 of 6
Heebe seems to have his PR ducks in a row, as long as you're talking about his gardens: http://bit.ly/i1EQpe
like
dislike
Mr. Dubos,
Assuming that you are an informed & responsible journalist, SHOW ME THE CONTRACT YOU'VE REFERRED TO.
I DARE YOU!
Mr. Dubos, Aren't you of counsel” to the law firm of Berrigan Litchfield Schonekas, Kyle Schonekas' dad’s law firm?.
Kyle Schonekas firm lists River Birch as one of their clients.
Isn't the Berrigan in the father's firm married to Judge Ginger Berrigan who has the River Birch matter in her court?
Disgusting & embarrassing!
To "Show Me" — I wanted to give you and another anonymous commenter (or are you the same person?) a few answers, because you both seem to connect some dots that are not connected. And, in case anyone else is wondering ...
I am not "employed" in any capacity at the law firm of Berrigan Litchfield Schonekas Mann & Traina, LLC. I am listed on the firm's letterhead as "of counsel" for two reasons: (1) John Litchfield, the lead partner in the firm, is Gambit's lawyer, which is why I have a connection to the firm; and (2) before Katrina, I rented office space at the firm -- but I was never an associate or a member of the firm. I have not done any legal work out of the firm's office since late 2005. I do admit, however, that having my name on the letterhead can suggest to people who do not know what "of counsel" means that I work at the firm, so I'm going to ask Mr. Litchfield to remove my name from the letterhead.
Most important, at no time during my career have I ever done any work for River Birch or its principals in any capacity. Equally important, no one at the Berrigan Litchfield firm has ever represented or advised River Birch or its principals. I double-checked the latter fact with Mr. Litchfield and Mr. Berrigan.
As for Judge Berrigan: Joe Berrigan, one of firm's namesakes, is indeed the husband of U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan, but Joe has been retired from the firm for 12 years. Furthermore, he receives no income or compensation whatsoever from the firm. His name remains on the firm, but that often happens in the law biz when "name partners" retire. Most important, there's no connection whatsoever between Ginger Berrigan and River Birch. If there were, the feds would have raised it as an issue -- and Judge Berrigan would have recused herself.
As for Kyle Schonekas, yes he does represent River Birch. But Kyle is not and has never been part of the Berrigan Litchfield firm. The Schonekas in the letterhead is Kyle's late father -- who has been dead since December 2005. The late Mr. Schonekas never represented River Birch.
I recently wrote a column (Gambit, March 9, "Cat and Mouse") that suggested strongly that River Birch and Fred Heebe are in big trouble as a result of the Henry Mouton indictment. Please check it out.
Hope this clears things up for you.
Wait a second.
You are "of counsel" becausey our boss is a member of the firm and because you rented space at the firm and because you did work at the firm but not for the last *****six**** years?
Why would they make you 'of counsel'? That seems kind of crazy and nonsensical. And pretty unbelievable.
The late Russell Schonekas did represent Carlos Marcello, so let's note that.
But this: "Sources at the company tell Gambit that the firm..." was WHO exactly? Maybe someone you know socially?
Another question is whether you or your wife know the principles here.
but then journalistic ethics don't require you reveal all, do they Clancy? Are you lawyer, journalist, pundit, what?
