Not to beat a dead horse, but as previously noted, NEVER, EVER in my experience as an attorney working in the oil and gas industry did I see a state attorney general's office aiding oil and gas companies in civil litigation matters against landowners over royalty payments. So-called "force pooling" statutes and regulations - which assembly a group of leases to provide a viable exploration sites for wells - have been around for many decades. Cuccinelli's office had no legitimate reason to be advising gas companies on litigation strategy, etc. Absolutely none. Now, as the Virginian Pilot states in a main page editorial, Cuccinelli's bogus explanation is unraveling big time. One can only hope that Terry McAuliffe hammers this message home to residents of Southwest Virginia. Here are editorial highlights:
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's credibility suffered another blow recently, after a southwestern Virginia newspaper unearthed records showing a senior assistant in his office communicated through email dozens of times with attorneys representing energy companies in a lawsuit filed by property owners.
Sharon Pigeon, a senior assistant attorney general, "sent at least 52 emails to lawyers of defendants EQT Production and CNX Gas since lawsuits were filed three years ago," the Bristol Herald Courier reported. Consol Energy, the parent of CNX, has contributed more than $100,000 to Cuccinelli's gubernatorial campaign since last year.
And the details simply magnify the concerns expressed by a federal judge three months ago, when she described the attorney's correspondence with the energy companies' legal counsel as "shocking."
The attorney general previously claimed Pigeon's role was limited to defending the constitutionality of the Virginia Gas and Oil Act. But the latest reporting shows there were few, if any, limits to Pigeon's advice, and a federal judge said she found no indication of advice pertaining to constitutional issues, the Bristol paper reported.
"Instead, Pigeon's emails appear to have focused on such topics as the effect of a jury pool, judicial orders and other case issues, suggest references in court documents. She sent many of those emails months after a senior judge ruled on the constitutional challenges and after the attorney general's office dropped out of the case."
The state inspector general is investigating whether Pigeon inappropriately used state resources, but he cannot investigate whether the attorney general had any direct involvement, or direct knowledge, of her actions unless the governor, or the attorney general himself, or a grand jury, requests he do so.
Cuccinelli's initial bid to explain Pigeon's conduct has boomeranged. His only recourse for trying to salvage credibility on the subject now appears to be to draw the same kind of independent scrutiny that he brought on himself this spring, after revising his incomplete financial disclosure forms.
After 36 years in the legal profession, I find it inconceivable that a senior assistant attorney general would have acted as Ms. Pigeon did without directives from above. There seemingly is no other explanation. Well, there is one: the over $100,000 Cuccinelli received from the parent company of one of the gas company litigants. The man is dirty and a liar, in my view.
No comments:
Post a Comment