Calhoun County Circuit Judge Joel Laird Monday issued a stinging response to Monsanto attorneys' March 12 petition to the Alabama Supreme Court to stall settlement negotiations in the PCB trial.The Supreme Court had granted the petition to stay the proceeding, but, according to Laird, it is now moot because he ended the negotiation permanently that afternoon.
In a written statement to the Supreme Court, Laird accused Monsanto attorneys of making several false statements in their petition, including their statement that Laird "brought in" sheriff deputies to the courtroom and threatened to jail one or more of the executives from Solutia, Pharmacia and Monsanto who attended the negotiation.
Calhoun County Sheriff Larry Amerson told The Anniston Star that he supplied sheriff deputies to the court that day at the request of Solutia, Pharmacia and Monsanto. Amerson agreed to send the deputies because of the corporate officials' concern about a protest or riot in the courthouse, he said.
Defense attorneys declined to comment for this story.
In his written statement to the Supreme Court, Laird echoed Amerson's description of the deputies' reason for being in the courtroom. The judge said he had personally received a call from Amerson informing him of the companies' request for deputies because of a potential "barrage of media and protestors" and that "a riot may likely break out."
Laird said he did not request or see the need for sheriff deputies in the courtroom.
Regarding the threat of incarceration, Laird told the Supreme Court he has never stated he would "hold anyone in contempt and place anyone into custody unless they settled the case."
Instead, he said he stated to the defendants that he would do those things including incarcerating the chief executive officer of Solutia because they did not comply with his "reasonable order" to engage in bona fide negotiations.
This is the second time that Monsanto attorneys have appealed to the Supreme Court during the Bowie vs. Monsanto case, and it is also the second time that Laird responded with written statements that the attorneys were "less than totally honest" with the Supreme Court.
The previous flap involved trial scheduling and other procedural matters in the case.
