My January 20, 2007 post "What Does Exclusive Mean To You?" has generated an interesting response obtained through confidential sources. When asked to explain the content of the aforementioned blog post Forge Consulting President John T. Bair responded as follows:
"The affidavit that we sign requires that we have significant experience consulting with defendants. Our firm does a qualified assignment practically on every case, and in many cases the defendant or defense counsel whether represented or not consult with us.
We felt comfortable with the declaration. We don't however get, solicit or would take a case from the DOJ. When we have a plaintiff client that has a case against the DOJ, we represent the plaintiff as we always would."
Readers should note the part of the statement that says " we don't get, solicit, or would we take a case from the DOJ"
1. In the context of the DOJ stated purpose for the Declaration (and the list) , if it is to be believed that John T. Bair would not take a case from the DOJ, then what was his intent on signing the Declaration, having acknowledged that he reviewed the Final Rule?
2. Despite his response to the contrary when being called to task, isn't Bair's signing the Declaration a de facto solicitation of the United States Department of Justice? Doesn't signing the Declaration mean that you want to get business from the DOJ or have access to the United States attorneys who control that business so that you can say "I'm on the list!".
3. If, in a United States Attorney's reliance on the Declaration made by John T. Bair, under penalty of perjury, Bair did get a plaintiff case and because he was on the list the United States attorney let him work the case, what would that United States Attorney be expecting as far as Bair's role in a case?
Part of the Declaration that John T. Bair would have to have signed under penalty of perjury, to be on the list, requires an acknowledgement by Bair that he read the Final Rule, published March 6, 2006 in the Federal Register at 71 Fed. Reg. 11158-11160. From the March 6, 2006 Final Rule it is abundantly clear what the intent of the DOJ is with respect to this list.
"As is true with any party in litigation, the
United States has the right to select its own experts and consultants,
including annuity brokers, and to engage in frank and confidential
discussions with its experts and consultants." quote from the Final Rule
Unfortunately it appears that John T. Bair, a former Army captain and helicopter pilot, has forgotten what it means to serve the United States. It is clear from the Final Rule that the USDOJ has the list because it wishes United States Attorneys to be able to have frank and confidential discussions with its brokers. To just what extent the USDOJ could rely on John T. Bair from the evidence that I've already presented is a serious question.
The fact that the Declaration must be made under penalty of perjury is a testament to the seriousness of the Declaration. Whether or not John T. Bair did get any business from the DOJ as a result of his Declaration is only relevant to the degree of grave predicament that he finds himself now in.
Stay tuned…
Leave a Reply