One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas…

One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas.

How he got into my pajamas I don’t know.

With transcripts containing more Groucho-like conversations, the second Motion for Discovery certainly explains the reason such are often called a motion to compel – without some relief, it appears John Keker will be compelled to try the Case of the Misplaced Modifiers, USA v Scruggs, in a courtroom version of You Bet Your Life

ybylife.jpg

Will Keker say the secret word for his client Richard F. “Dickie” Scruggs?

How will Judge Biggers rule when evidence of the serious matters before the Court begs questions that sound more like the quiz show favorite – Who was buried in Grant’s Tomb?

Is this who done it turning into a what was it – or does the evidence just make it seem that way?

USA v Scruggs, Scruggs, and Backstrom centers on conversation among a group of individuals with differing roles and status and a range of ages that spanned two generations. You bet your life, the elephant of miscommunication is always in the room – and five men are doing just that.

With or without pajamas, the elephant will be in the courtroom, too – sitting on misplaced modifiers, undefined figures of speech, pronouns with no clear antecedents without the cushion of context. Not even Groucho could make that up!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *