Scruggs Nation, Day 51: Counterattack of the Keker Brigade -- Dickie Scruggs was framed

Good day once again to the Scruggs Nation.  A confluence of known and unknown deadlines and responsibilities of varying sorts -- unusually heavy even for my schedule -- robbed me of almost all blogging time yesterday and the night before, and Scruggs Nation posts take considerable prep time and effort.  Thanks for the outpouring of concern and support from across the Scruggs Nation. I have not been abducted, nor have I fallen ill from mysterious radioactive substances slipped into my red Yellowstone mug of decaf with the white moose silhouette.  I'm still trying to go through all the e-mails in my inbox, so I apologize if I haven't gotten back to you.  

First things first, here again are links to the documents on the USA v. Scruggs docket from yesterday and recent days. I've broken this up by sections so you can jump to what interests you most.

-- Bench memorandum to Judge Biggers. The memo analyzes potential conflicts of interest from the recent lawyer switching in the case. Remember that, before Scruggs requested that Kenneth Coghlan join his defense team, Coghlan represented Steve Patterson, who pleaded guilty after Coghlan withdrew as Patterson's attorney.  If Dickie Scruggs were represented by Coghlan, as Scruggs has requested, the memo said, Scruggs

[C]ould later claim in a . . . petition challenging his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, that counsel who represented Patterson "pulled punches" with respect to cross examination of Patterson should he be a government witness a the trial of Scruggs' case.

Moreover, he could also claim that counsel did not make full use of whatever privileged information he received as a result of his temporary representation of Patterson to help exonerate Scruggs. With respect to Patterson, he could latter claim that his impeachment with the use of privileged information adversely affected his ability to obtain a . . . motion for reduction of sentence. Likewise, the duty to provide privileged information to current client Scruggs could adversely affect Patterson whether or not Patterson enters a plea of guilty and testifies on behalf of the government. 

(Originally described the memo as by, not to, Judge Biggers, it's fixed now).

-- Here's a copy of Patterson's plea agreement. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery of an elected state official, and is subject to a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release.  In handwriting on the second page, it says "The government agrees to take the position that the Defendant, as compared with other defendants in this case, was a minor participant with the meaning of  . . . the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual." 

-- Here's the order from Tuesday's hearing where Patterson changed his plea to guilty. (At the end of this post, there is a picture of the scene outside the courthouse from one of this blog's Oxford, Mississippi correspondents).

-- Minute order from yesterday's hearing. Judge Biggers granted Tony Farese's motion to withdraw as counsel for Zach Scruggs, and denied Coghlan's motion to appear for Dickie Scruggs, as he indicated he would do in the bench memorandum.

-- Nathan F. Garrett made a pro hac vice application to appear on behalf of Zach Scruggs, joining Todd P. Graves, who has his own page on Wikipedia (as do the Rigsby sisters, Kerri and Cori, of Katrina fame, in an article the neutrality of which is disputed). Judge Biggers approved the application in this document. Check out this resume, dude is definitely not off the rack.  It's been pointed out to me that I've spent time telling how impressive some of these defense lawyers are without mentioning the background of the prosecutors.  I am aware of the impressive qualities of these lawyers as well, and their day will come. The sun never sets on the Scruggs Nation, and has time, over time, to shine on all.

-- Here is another copy of the unsealed Motion for Continuance of Pretrial Motions Date and Trial Date.

The motion to seal the motion for continuance of the trial date was withdrawn and the trial date reset to March 31.  I think it was a very shrewd move by John Keker to file the motion on Friday and move that it be sealed, and then withdraw the motion to seal -- this increased the effect of and attention to what was in the motion: claims that Dickie Scruggs was framed by Judge Lackey and the feds. 

Keker appears to have a grasp of one fundamental rule of media relations -- bury bad news in the Friday night-Saturday morning cycle when no one is paying attention, and highlight good news by bringing it out early enough in the week to give it good play all week long, when everyone is watching.  Smart. But that's why he gets paid the really, really, really big bucks. How big? Remember the stories about how he was too expensive for the tastes of mega-multi-millionaire baseball player Barry Bonds?  Too expensive for Bonds? That's like saying the food in the buffet line is too rich for an NFL team's offensive linemen.

Now, for reasons that occasionally I have trouble remembering, my chosen fate is to spend virtually all my time around lawyers.  So I am aware of and wary of lawyer spin.  I admire good spin, and try to remember the method, tone and manner of presentation to perhaps use it myself sometime.  What we've got here is some pretty good spin, trying to make the best out of what's available.  However, while you can turn lemons into lemonade, it's hard to make lemonade out of manure.  This is not much of a surprise, they've indicated all along their strategy would include attacking Lackey and making Balducci out to be a freelancing klutz.

Pages 6 and 7 of the motion makes these interpretations of the evidence, designed to show that Dickie Scruggs was a victim of what is portrayed as Lackey's efforts to con Balducci into falsely claiming Scruggs knew what was going on. My comments are offset below each bullet point.

  •  In the May 21, 2007 recorded meeting between Balducci and Lackey, it was the judge who suggested Scruggs was involved, saying "I just want to hear you say it again . . . you and Scruggs are the only ones who know anything about this?"

[Key word is again, which suggests he said it before.  In the indictment, page 5 -- (click here for a copy) -- the government alleges that on May 9, Balducci approached Lackey about a bribe and delivered the now famous "where the bodies are buried" speech, admittedly not on a par with Pericles' funeral oration for eloquence, but it, like Pericles' declamation, could be said to capture the moment in its own unique way.  Didn't I say two days ago that these guys needed to get that book off Amazon, Informers In Your Midst: 10 Telltale Signs from Constantly Asking You To Speak Up To Wearing An FBI Sweatshirt?

Also, what was Balducci's answer? Choices range from the following:

-- "Scruggs involved? Wherever would you get an idea like that?  Heck, I had to go rogue on this operation, he would never approve of dishonesty like this, no sir. I am tired of being a wannabe, I want to deliver the goods here and surprise him with this -- won't tell him it was a bribe, of course, I'll just say I told you you had a nice suit, and it made you think more kindly of us.  By the way, do I act like I have a complex? People keep saying that about me."

-- "How many times do I have to say this, this is not that hard of a concept, get with it."

-- "Hell yes, don't worry, no one else will ever know. Why are you always fixing your tie and straightening your desk? It's like you're expecting someone to come and take your picture."

  • Balducci "says a number of times" he does not want Lackey to do anything improper, saying "you do what you feel comfortable with," and "I don't mean to make you uncomfortable, . . . if it's not something that you feel right about, you do what your heart tells you . . . I've got complete confidence that this is completely fine . . . I would never put . . . you in that position . . . I have complete confidence that it's fine." 

Once more, what's the context? Other interpretations include the following:

-- "Disclaimer. This message has been approved by my legal adviser, 'fine' should be taken for purposes of this communication to mean we won't get caught."

-- "Hey, it's natural to get a little nervous the first time out with bribery, don't sweat it, there's nothing to it!"

-- "It's not going to bother me no matter what you do, you make up your own mind, all we are talking about is whether you wanted a Diet Coke or some tea!"

  • Balducci said that "frankly I think we're right and I think that the law is on our side and I think probably had I never even approached you, we'd have probably had the right result for us on this thing . . . My goal was simply to . . . tell you where, that I had an interest in this thing, and, if I could, to help guide you to where I thought this thing . . . legally could come."

Possible interpretations:

-- "I really don't respect your legal skills and figured you would get it wrong, even though it's soooo simple. So I figured, nothing says 'we're right' like filing a Motion for Me to Pay You Some Cash!"

-- "Don't pay any attention to the fact this is my second improper ex parte visit to your offices to discuss something I have no business sticking my face into, I just wanted to tell you I knew you would make the legally sound decision.  Call me overeager, but when someone deserves praise, I like to deliver the news in person."

-- "Dang, now that I found out you might have ruled for us anyway, I kind of feel like a fool.  Well, a deal's a deal, it's too late now, I said it, thanks for listening, and anyway, the funds have already been appropriated, I don't want to deal with this bookkeeping hassle, you take it anyway."

-- "I think it will make you feel better about accepting a bribe it we both try to pretend you would have ruled for us anyway."

  • On May 9, Balducci asked Lackey whether he thought the Jones-Scruggs agreement required arbitration, and Lackey said, "It does . . . It looks like that's what they agreed to." 

This was the initial meeting, before Lackey went to authorities, so possible other statements by Lackey that were left out of the defense motion include.

-- "However, there are other legal considerations that strongly incline me to rule the other way, such as waiver. No dice, Balducci!"

-- "By it, of course, I am referring to the part of the contract where it says Jones was going to write the briefs in the Katrina cases."

-- "It does[n't] . . . [I'll tell you what, they never agreed to arbitration], It looks like that's what they agreed to!  Why are you here, anyway?"

In real estate, it's location, location, location.  With statements, it's context, context, context. There's more, read it for yourself and see what other interpretations you can think of.  Remember, we don't know all the evidence, we don't know where all this is going, and just remember, Keker could be right.

I know, there's more news to catch up on, I will talk about it as I can find time. I leave you with these excellent posts by Walter Olson at Overlawyered about Joey Langtson (Part I) and (Part II)(read all of it, it is truly great reporting by Walter), and the picture below outside the courthouse after Patterson's guilty plea.

Steve Patterson, center, outside the federal courthouse in Oxford after his sentencing hearing. 

 

Trackbacks (3)
Pings sent to http://www.insurancecoverageblog.com/admin/trackback/56832
Ping sent from Yall Politics on January 17, 2008 4:22 AM
Scruggs Nation, Day 51: Counterattack of the Keker Brigade -- Dickie Scruggs was framed Now, for reasons that occasionally I have trouble remembering, my chosen fate is to spend virtually all my time around lawyers. So I am aware of and wary of...
Ping sent from Overlawyered on January 17, 2008 6:40 AM
As a number of commentators have noted (e.g. Brett Kittredge @ Majority in Mississippi, Alan Lange @ YallPolitics), Booneville attorney Joey Langston, who just entered a guilty plea on charges of judicial corruption, is someone...
Ping sent from Overlawyered on January 17, 2008 6:42 AM
It will evidently involve trying to get wiretap recordings excluded and seizing on a few of the (many, wandering and seemingly inconsistent) things that informant Tim Balducci said in conversation with Judge Lackey, some of...
Written By:Carly On January 17, 2008 6:44 AM

With all the new Scruggs related info flooding the newspapers and blogs, here is a refresher on some old facts.
Scruggs was not aware of the bribe? I wonder how Keker will spin these, apparently recorded, statements.

An article by Jerry Mitchell 11/28/07.

Scruggs arrested on bribery charges | clarionledger.com | The Clarion-Ledger

"On Sept. 21, Balducci agreed to pay Lackey $40,000 in cash in return for a ruling favorable to Scruggs, the indictment claims.

Six days later, Patterson discussed the bribe with Balducci, the indictment claims.

That same day, Balducci delivered $20,000 in cash to Lackey, according to the indictment.

Later that day, Balducci was quoted as telling Patterson by phone, "All is done, all is handled and all is well."

On Oct. 18, Patterson called Balducci to find out what was going on with the order, saying he talked to Scruggs 15 times and Balducci needed to call Scruggs, the indictment claims.

That same day, Balducci delivered $10,000 in cash to Lackey and picked up a $40,000 check from Scruggs to conceal the bribe, the indictment claims.

On Nov. 1, Balducci delivered another $10,000 in cash to Lackey and obtained an amended order favorable to Scruggs, the indictment claims.

Later that day, according to the indictment, Balducci discussed the order with Zach Scruggs and Backstrom saying, "We paid for this ruling; let's be sure it says what we want it to say."

That same day, Balducci discussed an extra $10,000 payment to Lackey with Scruggs, who said he would hire Balducci to prepare jury instructions in an unrelated case, the indictment claims.

Written By:nah On January 17, 2008 7:01 AM

oops again. that bench memorandum is not by judge biggers, its TO judge biggers, by the USA.

Written By:Gavin On January 17, 2008 7:09 AM

I have been looking for the publication of the affidavits filed in support of the search warrant for the Scruggs law office as well as the affidavits supporting the wiretap orders re Balducci. These documents should reveal more of the government's theory and potential evidence than anything released to date.
BTW, the Keker et al. suggestion in the continuance motion of a motion to suppress the wiretapped Balducci conversations seems more of a tactic to get their version of the conversations with Judge Lackey into the public sphere than any serious hope of having that evidence suppressed. While there well may be Franks issues (intentional or misleading statements in the warrant applications) Scruggs would not appear to have "standing" to challenge the admissibility of the Balducci/Lackey conversations because he was not a party (no "reasonable expectation of privacy"). This would be so even if that information was used to support the search of the Scruggs office.

Written By:duckhead On January 17, 2008 7:15 AM

David, you have an impeccable sense of humor. But please remember that your thought process and ability to apply logic and reasoning are far different than those who will serve on a "jury of peers".

After seeing Keker's strategy yesterday, it is my humble opinion that they have a defendable case if they can just keep a straight face without laughing out loud in the courtroom.

I am a non laywer who typically sees things in black and white and probably more representive of who will be on the jury if it ever gets to that point.

Keep the detailed information coming. Keker has a tendency to overlook the damning evidence and focus on the evidence that has a few holes in it.

Go figure.

dh

Written By:Sutpens100 On January 17, 2008 7:23 AM

David, something of a technicality - the "Bench Memo" you post is a brief on the conflict issue filed by the U. S. Attorney & submitted to the judge; it is not the work product of the judge's chambers. It would seem that the concerns expressed in the memo were persuasive to Judge Biggers, however, as he denied Coghlan's request to join the Scruggs team yesterday.

Written By:LB On January 17, 2008 7:26 AM

I guess someone at the Scruggs office read your post on the 15th. My family went to Oxford for the UM-FL game last night and noticed that the dead hanging plants were GONE!

Written By:DeltaNative On January 17, 2008 12:03 PM

- With most profuse apologies to Alfred Tennyson

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All into the valley of Scruggs
Flew the G-six hundred.
"Forward the Keker Brigade!
Gird for the press!" he said.
Into the valley of Scruggs
Flew the G-six hundred.

"Forward, the Keker Brigade!"
Was there a reporter dismay'd?
Not tho' the associates knew
Some one had blunder'd.
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die.
Into the valley of Scruggs
Flew the G-six hundred.

FBI to right of them,
US Attorneys to left of them,
Honest Judges in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with tapes and proof,
In comfort they flew and well,
Into the jaws of the Feds,
Into the mouth of Hell
Flew the G-six hundred.

Flash'd all their spin bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Spinning the jury pool there,
Charging a mint, while
All the world wonder'd.
Plunged in the terrible press
Right thro' the cameras they broke;
But Balducci and Patterson and Langston
Reel'd from the pens' stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not,
Not the G-six hundred.

Bloggers to right of them,
Videos to left of them,
US Marshalls behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with wiretaps and tell,
While sergeants and wannabes fell,
They that had fought tobacco so well
Caught in the jaws of the Feds,
Up from the Coast so well,
All that was left of them,
Left of the G-six hundred.

How will their glory fade?
O the wild mess Scruggs made!
All the world wonder'd.
Never forget the mess Scruggs made!
Say goodbye to the Keker Brigade,
Flying home on Scruggs' G-six hundred.

Written By:Gavin On January 17, 2008 1:11 PM

To clarify a point in my earlier post: Although Scruggs will lack standing to challenge the legality of the wiretap of Balducci's telephone, if material information obtained from the tap was intentionally, knowingly or recklessly withheld from the judge who issued the warrant for the search of the Scruggs office, and if it would have made a difference as to whether the warrant would have been granted, then Keker Brigade may at least have grounds for an evidentiary hearing under Franks v. Delaware.

Written By:JustAByStander On January 17, 2008 2:29 PM

Breaking news: Langston says Ed Peters his money man
1/17/2008 4:02:39 PM



OXFORD â€" Ed Peters, former Hinds County district attorney, is the man Booneville’s Joey Langston said he, Timothy Balducci and Steven Patterson paid to influence Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter in a civil lawsuit.

That information comes from Langston’s court pleading, released today, before Judge Michael P. Mills.


Written By:boogiewoogieman On January 17, 2008 2:34 PM

Latest from Jerry Mitchell at the Clarion Ledger:

"Documents allege Hinds judge e-mailed proposed order to Scruggs’ attorneys."

Link:
http://clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/NEWS/80117036&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

Written By:JustAByStander On January 17, 2008 2:55 PM

Documents allege Hinds judge e-mailed proposed order to Scruggs� attorneys
By Jerry Mitchell • jmitchell@clarionledger.com • January 17, 2008

Read Comments(3)Recommend (62)Print this page E-mail this article
Share this article: Del.icio.us Facebook Digg Reddit Newsvine What’s this?
Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter e-mailed a proposed order involving attorney Dickie Scruggs to one-time District Attorney Ed Peters, who in turn shared it with Scruggs� lawyers, according to federal court documents.

Scruggs is facing a federal indictment in a separate case involving alleged judicial bribery.

Booneville lawyers Joey Langston and Timothy Balducci � who have both pleaded guilty to giving bribes � were representing Scruggs in 2006 in a Hinds County lawsuit in which one of Scruggs� former law partners was seeking about $15 million in attorney fees he said he was owed.

�In at least one instance, Judge DeLaughter e-mailed a rough draft of an opinion he planned to enter to Peters so that Langston and Balducci would be able to see it before any final version was filed,� Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Dawson told U.S. District Judge Michael Mills.

Contacted for comment, DeLaughter would not comment. He previously has denied any wrongdoing, saying he never took a bribe.

Legal experts say a judge sharing such an opinion is contrary to ethical rules.

In January 2006, special master Bobby Sneed made recommendations that led William Roberts Wilson Jr.'s attorneys to seek more than $15 million in fees from the asbestos litigation. Three days after that decision, Scruggs installed Langston as lead counsel, assisted by Balducci. Langston and Balducci have pleaded guilty in separate federal judicial bribery probes involving Scruggs.

Langston hired Peters, who was DeLaughter�s boss when DeLaughter served as assistant district attorney, and Peters was initially paid $50,000 in cash, Dawson said.

Then Scruggs gave $3 million that was split among Langston, Peters and former State Auditor Steve Patterson, who also has pleaded guilty to scheming to bribe a judge, according to court documents.

There is no indication so far that DeLaughter received money.

Langston and Scruggs became aware DeLaughter was interested in a federal judgeship, Dawson said, and based on this knowledge "Scruggs told Langston to let the judge know he would pass his name along with regard to a federal judgeship. Langston then informed Peters, who in turn passed the information to Judge DeLaughter."

Dawson told Mills, "The government would further show that Judge DeLaughter�s name was submitted for federal judgeship and that DeLaughter was so notified."

Scruggs� brother-in-law, U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, did call DeLaughter, but Lott ended up recommending Sul Ozerden. President Bush nominated Ozerden in September 2006, and the Senate confirmed him in April.

In February 2006, DeLaughter ended up rejecting most of Sneed's conclusions, concluding Wilson was owed nothing beyond belated payments by Scruggs totaling nearly $1.5 million.

When both sides in the Wilson-Scruggs case finally met for trial in August 2006, according to the transcript, DeLaughter told lawyers there was nothing left but a "negative balance." Without actual damages, it's impossible for the jury to assess punitive damages, "which leaves us with a trial by jury to determine bragging rights," DeLaughter said.

Both sides settled the case.

DeLaughter has said he was never approached in the case and if he had been, he would have notified the authorities.

On Nov. 28, a federal grand jury indicted Scruggs, his son, Zach Scruggs, and law partner Sidney Backstrom, all of Oxford, and Patterson on bribery charges involving a lawsuit over $26 million in legal fees connected to litigation on behalf of Hurricane Katrina victims.

The father, son and Backstrom have pleaded not guilty to judicial bribery charges. If convicted on all counts, each faces up to 75 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.

Patterson and Langston have each agreed to cooperate with the FBI's continuing investigation and testify, if needed.

To comment on this story, call Jerry Mitchell at (601) 961-7064.

Written By:Jones On January 17, 2008 3:20 PM

I'd like to see some analysis from Rossmiller (or any other lawyer) regarding whether PL Blake's emergence in the Lackey affair means that the government can introduce, under FRE 404(b) ("prior bad acts") all the interesting jobs that Blake allegedly did for Scruggs in the tobacco litigation.

If they can, that will make it that much harder for Scruggs to play the role of innocent victim in this trial. After all, if Scruggs was just looking to get some jury instructions done by Balducci, why did he need to get master newspaper clipper Blake involved?

Written By:Ole Miss Law Student On January 17, 2008 4:10 PM

The current word down here is that Scruggs has flipped and gone State's evidence. 52 people are rumored to be indicted along with one high ranking official. As some of you may know, Scruggs is the brother-in-law of former Senator Trent Lott who recently resigned after being re-elected to a six-year term in 2006.

Written By:MORE COWBELL On January 17, 2008 4:57 PM

I'm taken aback by Jim Greenlee not being front and center before Biggers yesterday. With a $900 hr. lawyer across the aisle, Greenlee sent 3 of his 21 assistant attorneys to hear the motions. Greenlee also now has a staff of 12 FBI agents (all attorneys), plus another 9 IT experts on the case. Is Greenlee up to this task? Undistinguished overall record so far. Oh, and wait till the trial when a famous bookseller shows up to sit in the first row behind The King of Torts.

Written By:Ole Miss Law Student On January 17, 2008 5:25 PM

The current word down here is that Scruggs has flipped and gone State's evidence. 52 people are rumored to be indicted along with one high ranking official. As some of you may know, Scruggs is the brother-in-law of former Senator Trent Lott who recently resigned after being re-elected to a six-year term in 2006.

Written By:observer On January 17, 2008 5:52 PM

I'm betting that Scruggs was listed as an interceptee in the wiretap application, so the good news for him is that he would have standing to challenge the interception order.

The bad news for Scruggs, is that there are few judicial order applications that are vetted more thoroughly by the government than the interception of an attorney's phone. And, to suppress it, Judge Biggers would have to find something that numerous AUSA's, staff attorneys at DOJ/OEO, the Attorney General of the United States, the legal counsel for the FBI, and another federal judge, have missed (I've never seen it happen, but that doesn't mean it can't).

Even more bad news though, seems to be the fact that even if Scruggs got the wiretap thrown out, and a not guilty verdict, he has more federal charges waiting in the wings. How many miracles can one person hope for?

Written By:MORE COWBELL On January 17, 2008 5:55 PM

David, now that you are an honorary Mississippian, who are you picking this Sunday in the NFC Championship game? Ole Miss grad Eli Manning of the Giants, or Southern Miss grad Brett Farve of the Packers. Since you grew up in the tundra, I'm guessing you are a cheesehead?

Written By:Ironic On January 17, 2008 6:14 PM

The SKG web-site appears to finally have been taken down. All that's left is a brief statement, and a link to the new KLG web-site. The new site has the look and feel of the old. One notable exception was that the Rigsby sisters are no longer prominently displayed on the front page.

Ironic

PS- Keker was recently quoted as having no idea why Joey pleaded guilty. The answer is too simple; he was guilty so he admitted it. Sometimes lawyers must get too caught up in their own spin.

Written By:ramalo On January 17, 2008 8:21 PM

Hopefully Judge Delaughter has been truthful in his grand jury testimony as well as in his discussions with federal agents. Walter Nixon (former U S District Judge for the So. Dist. of Miss.) was convicted (in the midst of a bribery investigation)not for taking a bribe, but for lying to the grand jury.

If Judge Delughter (for instance) denied communicating with Ed Peters about the Wilson v Scruggs matter---and if it is established that such communications occured--and if it is proven the substance of the communication (must be material) is as reported by Jerry Mitchell earlier today,then Delaughter is in a major jam. Beside, for you readers who are not lawyers, Peters had no obvious role in that case so at the very least it it would be highly unusual for a judge to e-mail Peters a draft of a proposed findng of fact or order.

Written By:msbarfly On January 18, 2008 5:50 AM

Readers, Newcomers, Fellow-Addcits:

Any knowledge or rational commentary -- excluding by definition all wishful thinking, hoaxes, and/or cruel jokes -- with respect to the following:

1. Just what barrister Hiram Eastland meant by a story about to "unfold" of "profound perspective?"

Reminder: The said esquire who jumped out early with various and sundry crowings about how excited the unified defense team was after seeing the USA's first production of discovery!

2. Whether master jimmy hood (one arm tied securely behind his back with a federal injunction and the other limply stuck in a sling fashioned by the Good Judge Acker) punted to local DAs because he didn't get an invitation to the federal party, at least not as a co-host?

3. Whether "law student's" post last night was a hoax? In case you didn't see it, Dickie flipping and 52 other indictments being prepared as we speak. Sorry, but it sounds like a cruel joke to me....not that I doubt for a nanosecond 50, 75, 100, or more are up to the old eyeballs in deep doo-doo, but "52"...

This msbarfly staying tuned...

Written By:jim On January 18, 2008 6:39 AM

Great questions raised Jones. My thoughts exactly. If they can ever start tracing the Scruggs/Blake doings there is no telling where this will go.

Written By:jim On January 18, 2008 10:26 AM

I have been hearing that 50 or more may by involved.

Written By:Unindicted MS Lawyer On January 18, 2008 2:06 PM

I've heard that 50-ish number as well; however, it was referring to target letters, not indictments.

Written By:msbarfly On January 19, 2008 9:21 AM

David, I missed the part about you being under the weather. My bad. Have you ever had a decadron shot? It's the legal steroid...will give you a couple of day's worth of enough energy to burn the candles at both ends while simultaneously duping the body into thinking it is well (and, alas, merely postponing the inevitable).

Get well soon, man. We could use a little candlelight down here about now.


Post A Comment / Question






Remember personal info?