Judge Acker hammers Scruggs, Rigsby sisters for contempt
Wow. Judge Acker found Scruggs and the Rigsby sisters jointly and severally liable for civil contempt and a fine of $65,000 in the Renfroe v. Rigsby case, relating to failure to promptly return the stolen State Farm claims files to Renfroe's counsel. Here's the order, and here's his opinion. More comments to come later when the day job allows, but as for now, let me say this opinion is extremely well-written with the care and writing flair typical of Judge Acker's opinions -- plus, anyone who calls Jim Hood "a so-called 'law enforcement official' " is my kind of judge.
"Wow. Judge Acker found Scruggs and the Rigsby sisters jointly and severally liable for civil contempt and a fine of $65,000 in the Renfroe v. Rigsby case, relating to failure to promptly return the stolen State Farm claims files to...
Scruggs and Rigsby joined at the hip like Siamese Twins? Scruggs and Rigsby needing a marriage license because they were in bed together? Judge Acker rocks!!!
I'm still reading the order---Seems Judge Acker didn't want to be misunderstood on anything he wrote! He's pretty clear on everything.
Great work by Judge Acker! I would have loved being able to see Jim Hood's face when he first read this.
It's amazing what a few years at Yale can do for a jurist's writing style. All who know him say Acker is the original renaissance man, and a cat with claws.
Rules to live by:
1) Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
2) Never tick off a federal judge.
It's pretty simple, people.
I knew that alligator with the bright pink lipstick would not keep his snout clean until his sentencing date. Beware Rigsbies, when it comes to money, you might get bit. Specially if you'z in the bed with the gator. Time for a little southern bull!
What a wonderfly written opinion and order. Acker is the kind of judge I like to practice before - He tells it like it is. As judges must, he falls over to praise Vinson at the beginning, but rakes him over the coals as well throughout the opinion. Great way to start my day.
If as the Judge claims, that "General Hood was not a bona fide law enforcement official, but rather was a co-conspirator with, and an aider and abetter of, Scruggs," is correct.
If that's the case, when do you anticipate that this so called "law enforcement official" will be indicted?
This judge has definitely gone off the deep end. It he doesn't site any law in this opinion at all. Contempt charges were dismissed with prejudice which means res judicata -- this matter has been adjudicated as to all claims and causes litigated in this matter. The 11th Circuit is going to slap this down faster than you can say, Boo.
Belle, thank goodness you showed up, I was worried there wouldn't be enough controversy in the comments.
If Belle is right, the civil judgments rendered against OJ Simpson should have been "slapped down" (a legal term) as well.
Having been out of the loop for several days, I see have returned at a wonderful time -- wonderful for this blog, wonderful for the law, and wonderful for me, seeing as how I am so entertained when I get to see Bellesouth blathering on about things she has absolutely no idea about (i.e., the law). Thanks, Judge Acker, for a breakfast better than pancakes with whipped cream.
Just wanted to say thanks, David. I'm sorry to say that the local papers and local network stations missed this entire story. Anita at Sun Herald got it and the Clarion Ledger (Jackson paper) is just now posting this story but it took a non-Clarion Ledger writer to do it. Can't thank you enough for being on top of this so that folks can actually see and know what is going on.
Alton, please. We all believe as Belle, OJ was innocent of all charges (Criminal & Civil).....as is Scruggs.
Belle:
Do you understand the difference between criminal and civil?
Ok, somebody tell me how can you file civil contempt charges on someone who is not a party to the case before it?
This is from Judge Vinson's order:
"Renfroe originally sought both criminal and civil contempt. Acker originally declined civil contempt because Renfroe “must show that the injunction is currently being violated. At that time, the documents had been returned as required. Compensatory civil contempt was pre-mature because the validity of the injunction was being challenged in the 11th Circuit Court."
Under the title of "The Court has no personal jurisdiction over Scruggs," Judge Vinson wrote:
Courts do not write legislation for members of the public at large, they frame decrees and judgments binding on the parties before them. A court may not enter an injunction against a person who has not been made a party to the case before it."
You would think you cannot enter a compensatory civil contempt order either.
So then we have Judge Acker's ruling and if someone can tell me what this means I'll be amazed:
"Scruggs argues that he cannot be held in civil contempt because he not only was not subject to the injunction, just as he contended in US v. Scruggs, the separate criminal case, but that he did not violate the injunction as he also contended in US v. Scruggs. . . . The court finds no reason to alter its findings that it had the power to impose an injunction that by its terms reached Scruggs and had jurisdiction to enforce that injunction. It is a truism that Scruggs could not be in contempt of a conduct that had no jurisdiction over him. Scruggs has not only preserved his earlier jurisdictional argument, but now interposes as an alleged absolute defense akin to res judicata, the result in US v. Scruggs in which the Honorable Judge Vinson sitting on this court by special designation found that Scruggs was not subject to this courts injunction and if subject to it did not violate it."
Here's how it works, Belle. You get a subpoena to appear in court. You're not a party. You come to Court and while you're on the stand you whip out a slingshot and shoot hickory nuts at everyone in the courtroom. You're not a party. But guess what? If the Judge tells you to stop and you don't stop you'll be held in contempt EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE NOT A PARTY!
Belle, you also missed this as to why Judge Acker said Scruggs could be held in contempt, that Scruggs acted as both an agent and a lawyer for the Rigsby sisters but that Judge Vinson had not conducted any Evidentiary Hearing. Acker then goes on to state that if Vinson had he would have seen the depth of the relationship between the two but Vinson had relied solely on the fact that Scruggs had not been officially listed as an Attorney-of-record on the Renfroe case. However, Scruggs was paying the bills, was acting as an attorney for them, was acting as an agent for them, etc (see page 10 of the opinion).
There was a crooked man and he walked a crooked mile,
He found a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile.
He bought a crooked cat, which caught a crooked mouse.
And they all lived together in a little crooked house
(a/k/a - "The Magic Jurisdiction")
David, you are obviously a lawyer. Can you tell me how Judge Senter can bring this contempt on a person whom he does not have personal jurisdiction and how can he order civil contempt when Judge Vinson ordered the criminal contempt charge dismissed WITH predjudice an adjudication on the merits, and final disposition, barring the right to bring or maintain an action on the same claim or cause. It is res judicata as to every matter litigated.
I see there are those here that are just charmed to death, but Judge Acker did not/does not have personal jurisdiction over the Scruggs no matter how hard he stomps his feet. Just because he is a judge he cannot order anyone he wants to do something because he said so. They have to be a party before his court -- Dickie was not.
How come Judge Acker does not cite any law at all!?
Belle:
You do NOT have to be a party to be subject to the Court's orders. Being a lawyer for a party is quite enough.
And are you still wrestling with the civil v criminal distinction?
Belle, you obviously missed how new evidence came to light that changed things, as was stated in Acker's opinion, starting on page 10. Please read that and then tell us how no principle of law was cited.
He is trying to appeal Judge Vinson's order without appealing it. He is just throwing a hissy fit and everyone else seems to know it. I am sure Judge Vinson doesn't take kindly to this man trying to overrule his ruling and I don't know what the law states about doing something like that since he didn't state ONE law in the whole opinion except for the one about interloctory appeal and then denied some right as to THAT! The case was dismissed with prejudice. Either appeal or not, but don't throw a hissy fit. Even judges are bound by the law.
Belle:
Criminal vs civil. Two different things.
Go ask a lawyer. He or she will tell you this.
My week is now complete, thank you Judge Acker!
And thank you, Belle. As a non-lawyer, and without citing any law, let me commend you on YOUR "hissy fit" ... You are the BEST!
Gonna be a GREAT Weekend, see y'all on Monday! :)
Claimsguy, we have a lawyer in the house and he hasn't come running to Acker's defense. These contempt charges were brought in on the same claim and cause. Dismissed with prejudice barring bringing ANY action based on the same claim or cause.
None are so blind as those who will not see.
Thirdsouth, Scruggs in Mississippi was never before Judge Acker's court in Alabama.
Belle:
Ask your lawyer friend if the burden of proof on criminal charges is the same as civil.
When he or she says "no", then ask him or her which carries the higher burden.
Then contemplate your res judicata argument in light of that information.
Belle you said "Scruggs in Mississippi was never before Judge Acker's court in Alabama."
While that is true the order was regarding the documents. Now ask yourself, did Scruggs have possession of those documents at any time....and was Scruggs aware of the judges order?
The obvious answer is... dada da. Yes on both counts. So therefore he is now involved in the alabama case to some extent. I'm not lawyer and I'm definately not a genius but even I can figure that much out.
As far Judge Vinson's order, that only pertained to criminal charges, civil is an entirely seperate matter. I hate to bring up OJ again but wasn't be acquitted of criminal charges (similar to dismissed with prejudice) and later found to be responsible in the civil trial? Same thing here as it was there in that they are seperate matters.
Belle, is it your contention that Acker decided not to rule on the CIVIL Contempt, which Vinson did not rule on either and whose ruling did not cover as it ONLY applied to the Criminal Contempt, without any reference to any law or legal principal? That is obviously not the case. And Acker refers to what was previously discussed and felt that it no purpose would be served in repeating everything (see the first full paragraph on page 2 of the opinion).
Dear Bellesouth: Did you draft AG Hood's statement that appeared in the Clarion-Ledger story? The one that said he was going to file a motion in the case to get Acker to back down? And also the one that said the Alabama Commission on Judicial Performance was going to do something about Judge Acker? Or was it your buddy Courtney Schloemer? Anyway, since you and Hood are so close, perhaps you could tell him that the Alabama Commission on Judicial Performance doesn't discipline federal judges. And also, could you ask him how he's going to file a motion in a case in which he isn't a party? Thanks in advance. I really look forward to the answers to these questions that have perturbed me all day.
Count on southern bull to stir the soup and make life interesting for all. As they say in Mississippi, there are some folks that can't hear, some folks that don't wanna hear, some folks that can hear but act like they don't understand, some folks that are stubborn and some folks that are just plain stooooooopid. Ain't life great! Enjoy the week-end. Hat's off to the little General and the alligator head with lipstick and a puny body! Look-out Rigsbees.....that gator will bite if you try to feed him!
Belle, one correction about your last comment, Scruggs in fact did appear in court in the Renfroe case, he was at the show cause hearing and gave testimony under oath, I may have posted a transcript of this at some time. If he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, why would he have bothered to appear? He was not acting as defense counsel to the Rigsbys, but he certainly said his attorney-client relationship with them was still in effect.
I think it's best to admit that Scruggs was not giving the documents to Hood for any law enforcement purpose, because Hood had his own copies. He gave them to Hood only so Renfroe's lawyers couldn't get them, and he testified at the show cause hearing that he did it because he believed they would violate the protective order and tell State Farm what was in the documents, which in all likelihood was nothing special. Just more psy-ops by Scruggs, trying to turn a big pile of paper into a mysterious force to tantalize the media and keep the pressure on State Farm. Life is so much easier when you are the "confidential informant" of a state Attorney General.
Belle, regardless of you other questionable observations and comments, you still believe like the rest of us, that Scruggs is guilty as charged?
Slam Dunk David!
Snake Farm didn't cave as Dickie expected, and he bet the ranch it would. Big Tobacco caving intoxicated him and he did what a lot of drunks do, ran off the road and was killed. He didn't give a damn if thousands perished with him but he has this defense: "I was drunk." And drunk on power is more lethal than drunk on alcohol or drugs because, once intoxicated, there's no sobering up. Add dishonesty to the mix, and you've got the equivalent of a seventeen-year-old juvenile delinquent drunk behind the wheel of a shiny new Corvette. It's all so simple looking back.
"Claimsguy, we have a lawyer in the house and he hasn't come running to Acker's defense."
On the flip side, Belle, has this lawyer come running to attack Acker? Has this lawyer come running to criticize Acker's order?
David, it doesn't matter why he gave the documents to Hood -- it wasn't against the law to do it.
Claimsguy -- burden of proof - criminal -- beyond a reasonable doubt.
burden of proof -- civil -- preponderance of the evidence.
"Claimsguy -- burden of proof - criminal -- beyond a reasonable doubt.
burden of proof -- civil -- preponderance of the evidence."
Belle, glad you know the difference. Now do you know realize because a CRIMINAL case is dismissed with prejudice does not preclude a CIVIL case from being brought forth? There are plenty of examples, with the O.J. Simpson cases being the most prominent, where a CRIMINAL case was dismissed with prejudice but a CIVIL case was not only brought forth but where the plaintiffs won.
Xerac, cite me some law.
"Xerac, cite me some law."
Belle, a very disingenuous statement on your part. On the thread of 06.June.08 I posted a link which I know you read and you never rebutted, which can lead one to the conclusion that you acknowledge Acker cited plenty of law:
He refers to his memorandum opinion of 2007 in which he cites a lot of law:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/scruggs1.pdf
Xerac, that was after he filed the injunction. The court can not enjoin parties via an injunction. The parties were not parties to Renfroe v. Rigsbys before the injunction. The cited law states: (“The decree is also objectionable because it enjoins persons not parties to the suit.”); (court lacks jurisdiction to issue preliminary or permanent injunction against non-party);(“[A] court’s in personam order can bind only persons who have placed themselves or been brought within the court’s power.”)(“Courts do not write legislation for members of the public at large; they frame decrees and judgments binding on the parties before them. For that reason, courts of equity have long observed the general rule that a court may not enter an injunction against a person who has not been made a party to the case before it.”) If one is not bound by an injunction, it naturally follows that he cannot be held in contempt for violating that injunction.
That was based upon evidence known at the time. New information came to light and Judge Acker ruled on the Civil Contempt charge based upon the new information. Remember, neither Judge Acker nor Judge Vinson had rendered any ruling prior on the Civil Contempt charge.
Xerac, the new information did not change Acker's jurisdiction. "[C]ourts of equity have long observed the general rule that a court may not enter an injunction against a person who has not been made a party to the case before it."
Actually, it did. It made Scruggs a party to the case.
The court can't make Scruggs a party to the case just because it wants to. There was a ruling. Because the three very special federal prosecutors couldn't read the law where it said it only had 30 days to appeal, they lost the appeal. The order stands.
The ruling applied only to the Criminal Contempt charge. As Acker points out, things changed as it pertained to the Civil Contempt charge and it was on this that Acker ruled Scruggs was a party, based upon new information. Acker didn't just make it up.
But the civil contempt still comes from the same injunction which can't be imposed on a non-party, "court lacks jurisdiction to issue preliminary or permanent injunction against non-party."
Belle, from what I ascertained from Acker's ruling, he deems that Scruggs was and is indeed a party. I guess we'll all see how this plays out.
He cannot make him a party by an injunction.
Belle,
"He cannot make him a party by an injunction.:
Cite me some law.
Dustin, if you read the thread, you'd find:
And the fact that Judge Vinson found Scurggs was not directly before the court and dismissed the criminal contempt case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Scruggs also drives Mr. Rossmiller nuts and obviously Judge Acker too, but the federal judge appointed by the 11th Circuit found:
A. This court has no personal jurisdiction over Scruggs
For jurisdictional purposes, the undisputed facts are that Scruggs was not a party, nor was he an attorney-of-record or at any time make an appearance in, the Renfroe case. Subject to exceptions discussed infra, it is axiomatic that courts only have power and jurisdiction to enjoin parties before the court. See Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107, 117, 17 S. Ct. 262, 41 L. Ed. 648 (1897) (“The decree is also objectionable because it enjoins persons not parties to the suit.â€); Infant Formula Antitrust Litigation, MDL 878 v. Abbott Laboratories, 72 F.3d 842, 842-43 (11th Cir. 1995) (court lacks jurisdiction to issue preliminary or permanent injunction against non-party); Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Reinert & Duree, P.C., 191 F.3d 297, 302 (2d Cir. 1999) (“[A] court’s in personam order can bind only persons who have placed themselves or been brought within the court’s power.â€) (citations omitted); Additive Controls & Measurement Systems, Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc., 96 F.3d 1390, 1394 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Courts do not write legislation for members of the public at large; they frame decrees and judgments binding on the parties before them. For that reason, courts of equity have long observed the general rule that a court may not enter an injunction against a person who has not been made a party to the case before it.â€) (citing cases); see also 11A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2956, at 335 (2d ed. 1995). If one is not bound by an injunction, it naturally follows that he cannot be held in contempt for violating that injunction. [emphasis mine]
Now I call that citing the law. I would think it would be pretty hard to argue with that. In fact, you really cannot based on the law, so that is why Judge Acker had his little temper tantrum and you will notice he did not base his decision on any law because there isn’t any to base it on. Based on Judge Vinson’s ruling, I can’t understand how he still thinks he can impose sanctions against Scruggs or the Rigsbys. So-called Judge Acker and his very special so-called federal prosecutors missed their deadline to appeal so Judge Acker issued his order instead. Is that legal?
I guess when the shoe is on the other foot it really does hurt. Illegal activities, sounds like something Scruggs and the Rigsby sisters would do. I guess turn about is fair play.
Aw, come on, Dustin, I cited you some law.