By Joel Thurtell
I take back what I said about Matty’s lawyers.
Please, Matty, do not — repeat DO NOT! — fire your team of excellent litigators.
They are absolutely super jurists and deserve to be retained.
Hope Matty believes me.
I’d hate to see him sack such a sterling squad of solicitors after the coup they managed to pull in the bait shop case.
Matty’s lawyers actually did the heavy lifting for the opposing side.
The federal government was arguing that Matty was full of what my Uncle Charlie used to call brown mud when he (Matty, not Uncle Charlie) claimed his Ambassador Bridge is a “federal instrumentality.”
I know, it’s a weird locution.
I keep thinking Matty’s “federal instrumentrality” must have a seat in the orchestra pit.
What kind of “federal instrumenality” do you play, Matty?
Oboe?
Bassoon?
French horn?
I know: the left-handed sludge pump.
“Instrumentality,” indeed.
Why did it take years of litigation to finally produce an opinion that says what any damned fool knows — a bridge is not a musical instrument.
A bridge is not any other kind of instrument, such as a gauge or a meter.
Hey, speaking of meters, I have a suggestion for all the journalists who have tried to cover this story. Incidentally, this story has been going on for years, but the press seem to have discovered it only recently.
Back to meters: There is a chapter in my forthcoming journalism textbook, SHOESTRING REPORTER, which should be helpful to every serious journalist, even those like JOTR writer Luke Warm who have multiple Ph.D’s.
The chapter is entitled, “How to Build a Bullshit Meter,” and it gives step-by-step instructions and even a schematic diagram for a high-resolution, ultra-sensitive, state-of-the-fart crap-o-meter.
Any journalist or legal scholar equipped with my patented merde detector would have known from the get-go that a bridge cannot be an instrument, no matter how abstractly and obtusely the argument is made.
But back to Matty’s team of legal eagles. Why do I think they’re so great?
This is one group of lawyers who don’t deal out bullshit.
They go right to the nitty-gritty.
They hefted all the heavy plumbing material the government needed to toss Matty’s “federal instrumentality” into the crapper and flush it straight to the waste water treatment plant, which happens to be within scenting distance of his Ambassador Bridge. (Travelers over the proposed Detroit River International Crossing bridge, if it ever is built, will get a real handsome whiff of the air exuded by the largest single-unit waste water plant in North America, literally in sight of the planned span.)
During the course of the litigation involving Matty’s near shutdown of a bait business, the federal government made 20 “admissions” regarding the chances that Matty’s beloved bridge might be a government. If the list had been a plank, Matty would have walked right off the end for a dunk in the Detroit River.
No, the bridge does not belong to the federal government; no, the federal government does not appoint bridge officers; no, the federal government does not share profits in the bridge; no, the federal government is not liable for actions taken by the bridge.
And so on. You get the gist — there is no connection between the federal government and the Ambassador Bridge.
The federal government does not play in Matty’s band.
Who do you think put these “admissions” in the lawsuit?
You’d think it would have come from the government lawyers, since their case would be bolstered by any evidence that Matty was not blowing the federal horn and the feds are not instrumentatalating on his.
But you guessed it: The “admissions” were placed in the court record by Matty’s team of incredibly astute lawyers.
I mean, they must be shrewd, right, because they work for Matty.
What other reason could a lawyer have for working for Matty other than submitting (I hope) outrageous bills to the Matster?
U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland was puzzled by the way this information appeared in the record. He thought that because it supports the government cause and eviscerates Matty’s claim, maybe it would logically have been submitted by the government side.
Toward the end of his June 29, 2010 opinion, Judge Cleland expressed his puzzlement that the bridge company would present the government case:
These admissions further support, in greater detail, the Government’s motion. The court is unclear as to why these statements would be submitted by DIBC and not the Government, they have nonetheless become part of the record before the court on summary judgment. Considering this evidence, in addition to the evidence submitted by the Government, leaves the court with only one possible conclusion: judgment must be entered in favor of the Government as a matter of law.
Great job, Team Moroun! Better get that invoice to Matty before he reads this.
I’ve edited a bit for brevity. Referring to Matty as “DIBC” for “Detroit International Bridge Company,” the judge continued:
DIBC has identified no factual dispute for trial. Not only has DIBC submitted no evidence that contradicts the Government’s position, the evidence it did submit supports the Government’s motion. The court will grant the Government’s motion for summary judgment, declare that DIBC is not a federal instrumentality, and enjoin DIBC from claiming such status and potentially subjecting the United States to liability for DIBC’s actions.
So I say once again, nice job, you litigitative geniuses of the Ambassador Bridge Symphony Orchestra.
With lawyers like you, the government could afford to lay off a few of its own.
Drop me a line at joelthurtell@gmail.com
