Proofreading Miers’s Questionnaire Answers: Questions 15 and 16 (Or: A Clear Case of Misprepresentation)
I am finally getting a chance to browse through Harriet Miers’s questionnaire answers. Here’s what jumped out at me from her answers to Questions 15 (“Legal Career”) and 16 (“Litigation”). You may have seen these in other places; then again, you may not have. In any event, these are all things I noticed on my own.
He contended that, although the two forged the checks in question were separately cashed at different banks in San Antonio, the interstate transportation of the checks did not occur until the San Antonio Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank forwarded them in the same envelope across state lines to the Detroit Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank.
. . . .
The United States acknowledged the circuit split (and, in fact, noting that the Seventh Circuit had joined the Fifth and Eighth Circuits, see United States v. Dilts, 501 F.2d 531 (7th Cir. 1974)), but argued, among other things, that “[i]t is not certain that, in view of the decisions in three other circuits to the contrary, the Ninth Circuit now would adhere to its ruling in Gilinsky.” Id. at 3 n.2.
Among other issues that were raised in the course of discovery were activities and conduct that allegedly constituted Pioneer Nuclear’s involvement in the purported unlawful antitrust conspiracy; activities and conduct of domestic codefendants and trade organizations; activities and conduct of foreign defendants in alleged international cartel; as well as an analysis of free market factors explaining an increase in the price of uranium and the definition of the relevant market.
. . . .
I engaged in settlement negotiations on behalf of Pioneer and settled on the basis that all claims against Pioneer Nuclear were dismissed without it paying any money or providing any other consideration to Westinghouse.
The trial court awarded SunGard $46,247 in damages and interest on its breach of contact counter-claim, and awarded it $1,550,000 in attorney’s fees.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on most claims, except that the district court reversed the directed verdict on the plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the TDCA.
Separately, private plaintiffs sought to bring a class action against Lomas and recover punitive damages, alleging a myriad of claims, involving RICO, fraud, misprepresentation, negligence, intentional wrongdoing, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Lomas
There are plenty more errors, but I’m trying not to get too picky. For example, she needs to decide whether it’s “attorneys’ fees” or “attorney’s fees” — but I didn’t mention that, did I?
Maybe I should apply to be Harriet Miers’s clerk! Ya think she’ll have me?
P.S. I gotta say, though — my main impression after reading about all the cases she has litigated is: thank God I’m not a civil lawyer any more! The issues in these cases are bo-ring!
P.P.S. The rule is: in any post about proofreading or grammar, there must be at least one typo. Your job is to be the first to find it!
But always remember and never forget my certain reply: this blog post is not my application to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
P.P.P.S. The President has breached his contact with the American people.
P.P.P.P.S. I am filing this post under “Humor” in response to See Dubya’s comment below, since he apparently doesn’t get jokes or lighthearted posts unless you tell him they’re jokes or lighthearted posts. (And he’s the same guy who once criticized me for giving a joke away by filing it under “Humor”! Jeez, sometimes you just can’t please these people . . .)
P.P.P.P.P.S. Don’t make me do another P.S.!
P.P.P.P.P.P.S. The “breach of contact” comment was a reference to one of Miers’s mistakes above. Maybe I should have put quotation marks around the word “contact” for the humor-impaired . . .
P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S. Ms. Miers: a spellchecker can be your best friend. My browser and blog software lack one; what’s your excuse?
P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S. Remember: we have all heard about Harriet Miers’s legendary attention to detail, and devotion to perfection in matters of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. If this post has a serious point, it’s that those stories seem highly dubious once you actually read some of her writing.