Dupont Wins Round 2

My understanding is no scientific evidence was produced in the first trial by the plaintiffs. The MS Supremes reversed and Dupont wins round 2. The story does not say but I assume Kathleen Smiley handled the second go round for Glen Strong (Kathleen no longer has a law license). I remember him from my teenage years as a good guy.

One thing that bothered me about the first case is that he testified to eating oysters from the Bay itself. Those reefs were closed then as Shoreline Park was essentially using the Bay for a commode and was thus polluted. I’m not certain I would have overlooked that as a juror.

Dupont and dioxin pollution is another subject matter and perhaps fodder for a future post. Here is the Sun Herald story:

A jury Thursday sided with The DuPont Co. in the retrial of a civil lawsuit brought by a man who said dioxins from a plant on the Mississippi Gulf Coast caused his rare blood cancer. Continue reading “Dupont Wins Round 2”

Judge Acker shoots the bird at Judge Vinson and tries to glue feathers on Scruggs and the Rigsbys

Looks like little Billy Acker really got his robe in a wad when he shot a 65-page Opinion at the truly Honorable Judge Roger Vinson with his middle finger in the air.

The convoluted thinking in his related Order shows Judge Acker’s uncivil contempt of justice that ends with this vengeful kiss-my-ass dare:

In the event either party applies for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to U.S.C. 28 1292 (b), there will be no stay of proceedings in this court unless the Eleventh Circuit orders it. Continue reading “Judge Acker shoots the bird at Judge Vinson and tries to glue feathers on Scruggs and the Rigsbys”

On the outside looking in at “the perspective of honest lawyers”

the honesty of the system in which I work every day is life or death to me. Just as much as my house is. Something that undermines that is just as life-or-death to me as a wind that blows your house away. I can’t live, function, and work in a corrupt legal system…I think there are parts of this you aren’t getting because you don’t understand the perspective of honest lawyers.

Honest and written from the heart – albeit not to me – these comments stand without reference in tribute. USA v Scruggs and the Katrina insurance cases opened a window into the legal system. What those outside sometimes see when looking in has created concern about the integrity of the system as well as the judicial system, and, at times, given rise to questions about the conduct of lawyers relative to these cases.

An honest lawyer is defined by other lawyers as one who follows the rules – and, by extension, a properly functioning judicial system would do likewise. Consequently, once USA v Scruggs was filed, the perspective of honest lawyers was outrage at the idea of another lawyer earwigging or attempting to bribe a judge and insistence the system show no mercy.

In turn, this perspective was reflected in commentary and comments on weblogs, media coverage, calls for reform of the legal and judicial system, and examination of the cases identified with Scruggs – asbestos, tobacco, and Katrina insurance claims are examples that come to mind.

I understand that perspective, I just don’t share it when there is no benefit of doubt or fidelity to innocent Continue reading “On the outside looking in at “the perspective of honest lawyers””