Folks, at the true extent of Bobby Jindal’s sand berm boondoggle comes to light Team Jindy is circling the wagons as hard questions are being asked. My last post on this topic was linked over at TigerDroppings.com and it stimulated an interesting discussion. This much is clear after reading some of the commentary. If Bobby Jindal passes gas and says it smells like lavender there is a segment of the populace that will buy in no questions asked. There is not much any of the rest of us a do for that group except show some patience and understanding. Meantime lets add some color about how the sand berm scheme came about and what some of the participants are saying now.
First off let’s begin with Dutch company Van Oord, a huge dredging company that had an angle on making some money off the oil spill in building some massive berms to “shorten the coastline”. I’ve embedded their May 4, 2010 power point presentation to Scribd:
[scribd id=35125073 key=key-ip7frn6drt4rw2nqr1g mode=slideshow]
Next up is Kyle Graham, a Jindal political hack who did a Powerpoint presentation pushing the sand berms on June 16th where he credited Van Oord on page 16: Continue reading “As the berms turn part three: Jindal's "Dutch Treat" not working out. Dutch dredging company Van Oord says Jindal is all wet.”
Members of Congress would be well-advised to follow Sandra Bullock’s lead and consider the source – and source of funding – of opposition to Congressman Taylor’s HR 1264.Bullock, according to the story appearing in today’s Sun Herald, “wants her parts of a video promoting Gulf Coast restoration removed until she learns whether oil companies influenced it”:
[Bullock’s]…statement Thursday came after the website DeSmogBlog called the campaign an industry push to get support for drilling and taxpayer money to repair wetland damage caused by the BP oil spill. Women of the Storm, a New Orleans group that produced the video, lists America’s Wetland Foundation as a partner. The foundation lists BP and other oil companies as sponsors on its website.
After reading the article about Bullock’s stand, I found a related email message about Congressman Taylor’s latest “Dear Colleague” letter:
The lobbyists for a few environmental groups have contacted your offices in opposition to H.R. 1264 the Multiple Peril Insurance Act.
Their statements are not only misguided, they are offensive. It is offensive to suggest that no one living within 30 miles of a coastline should be able to buy reasonably-priced insurance that would pay claims promptly and fairly simply because there are some ecologically sensitive coastal areas that should not be developed.
My bill does not subsidize development for anyone, anywhere, not in sensitive areas or any areas. Continue reading “National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Realtors, and American Bankers Association all support H.R. 1264!”
Believe me folks, State Farm won’t be pressing the Wall Street Journal to pick this story up – but that’s not to say State Farm’s Motion to Withdraw isn’t breaking news, only that some may have forgotten the history of discovery in the Rigsbys’ qui tam case.
Nowadays, there’s too much evidence on the table and the latest installment of the State Farm-created “Sticky Note Caper” in filed northern Mississippi federal court proved no more effective than “dickin” around with oiled silk paper.
The “Sticky Note Caper” actually began with a Court in Washington, D.C. before it moved to Kentucky. Oxford, where State Farm’s Motion to Withdraw Motion for Return of Property was filed with hubris in USA v Scruggs, however, should be the last stop. The Motion to Withdraw summarizes this short-lived attempt to play State Farm’s Scruggs sideshow” in a three-ring circus:
On July 20, 2010, State Farm filed its motion pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the United States to return property that State Farm believed may have been seized by searching agents while executing search warrant(s) issued in No. 3:07-mc-24 in this district.
State Farm’s motion was primarily seeking the recovery of the original of a document, to wit, an engineering report and “sticky note.” State Farm had reason to
believe that the papers may have been in the possession of Scruggs Law Firm, P.A., and seized during the execution of search warrant(s) on the premises of Scruggs Law Firm.
On July 27, 2010, the United States filed its response to State Farm’s motion, and in its response the United States asserted that: Continue reading “State Farm stops "dickin" around in Oxford, files Motion to Withdraw (a Rigsby qui tam update)”