Tom Peters got the general idea; but, Harry Truman’s If you can’t convince ’em, confuse ’em seems to be more appropriate as we start the week with a little beef, a lot of Scruggs, and a thought or two about the meaning of flood.
- One beef was settled when the Facilities Group paid sub-contractors for work on the failed beef plant. The Clarion-Ledger ran the story in Sunday’s paper; but, there’s more to the cow than that – Jim Hood’s lawsuit and USA v Moultrie.
- Big day tomorrow for Jones v Scruggs, the fee dispute related to the agreement between Jones and the other member firms of SKG. Speaking of confusion, it’s up to Judge Coleman to clear things up – and that’s going to be a challenge because Judge Lackey really muded it up when he demanded money so he could decide if he’d been bribed – duh. Maybe we’ll learn what really happened – although that would be a first as I can’t recall a bigger one-sided story than USA v Scruggs.
- The big qui of the week is in Judge Senter’s court – the Rigsby sister’s Qui Tam and who the Judge intended to disqualify. It seems the confusion in this case began when Judge Walker broke the seal last August. I found an interesting quote justifying his decision in the August 8 issue of the Insurance Journal.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Walker in Gulfport, Miss., ordered the case unsealed Monday, even though the federal government had argued that its disclosure would “compromise (its) ability to conduct an adequate civil investigation of this case.”
“The government gives no explanation for how the investigation would be compromised by unsealing the case,” Walker wrote in a one-page order.
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said he would not comment on the suit or the judge’s ruling.
Confusion about Qui Tam is not all that unusual – otherwise State Farm would not have asked for a Summary Judgment before Discovery. It looks like someone needs to get Tony Dewitt to make the Qui Tam presentation he made to the Missouri Bar – it would help if they read his paper, too.
- The flood of misinformation about the Rigsby sister’s Qui Tam reminded me to look up the definition of flood after thinking more about the 5th Circuit’s decision in Sher. It seems someone at the 5th Circuit should have done the same – preferably someone who knew how to read a dictionary and didn’t stop reading at the colon.
Water covering previously dry area: A very large amount of water that has overflowed from a source such as a river or broken pipe onto a previously dry area.
Given the opinion “a flood is a flood” it seems citing the full definition would have cause the Court to rule for Sher – just type the word and let Encarta do the work because a “pipe is a pipe” and insurance covers water damage from broken pipes.
It was Churchill, I believe, who attributed the endless repetition of history, in part, to want of clarity – I couldn’t agree more.