Sun Herald seeks Scruggs fan letters
The Sun Herald of Biloxi, according to this story, has filed a motion in federal court to get copies of the letters people are writing to ask for leniency for Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sid Backstrom, at their upcoming sentencing. This is a great idea, I wish I had thought of it myself. Here's a copy of the motion. I'm curious to see how many of the letters take a tone like "Hey, what's the big deal about a little earwigging?"
Please tell me how Frank Trapp can represent Backstrom of SKG fame and also Rimkus? How can this not be a conflict of interest?
I would love to know who thinks Scruggs should get leniency. This should by good to see how they justify the undermining and corruption of our legal system and how they can ignore the most gross violation of ethics and morals in placing personal self-interest, especially since there was no need for the additional money, above the interests of his clients.
Scuggs is nothing more than an "ambulance chaser" who made it big. He is a reprehensible lawyer who has shafted his now-former clients. He deserves not one bit of leniency. Nor do his co-conspirators as they are just as guilty.
Conflicts can be waived, Pat, provided all the parties are fully informed. Do you think Dickie got any members of the Federalist Society to write their fellow member Judge Biggers, Xerac? Given Dickie's opposition to everything the Society stands for it would be difficult for him to pull off, unless Trent Lott has been able to round up a few for him. It would be interesting to cross check the letters, after they are released to the Sun Herald, against Federalist Society membership rolls. I would think a letter from a fellow member would cut more ice with Judge Biggers than just about anything else, but it would take some heavy trading (but Lott's new specialty is influence peddling) to bring one or two to the fore.
Who are his co-conspirators? Do the co-conspirators include the entire bar of Miss. who condoned Scruggs - even praised - his methods? Are you saying that anyone associated with Katrina litigation knew of the bribe? Are you saying that even though Scruggs' payments to the Rigsbys was public knowledge, some attorney associated with the cases should have had the wisdom to say that Jim Hood was wrong - that Trent Lott was wrong and so on and so on. Why did you not say it was wrong, XERAC?
David--Judge Biggers ruled, motion well taken, granted, newspaper can examine the info at the clerkâs office on Wed June 25th.
I have said from the beginning that this "earwigging" business is more dangerous than the bribe. Not to say the Bribe was not bad, but with a bribe money or something of value changes hands and you have a chance of catching it. The presence of money of any amount has to be explained, laundered or whatever you want to say. (Ask a drug dealer). It creates a trail whether by check or spending it. So with a bribe you have a chance to catch, but this earwigging scheme where you hire or pay a friend of the judge to talk to him about case "off the record" so to speak is almost impossible to catch unless you have an honest Judge, who turns in his "former" boss or friend or mentor. That to me is a worse problem than the bribe so no lawyer should say its just a little earwigging.
Interested, I'm talking about those who are also being sentenced. And why should I have to come out and say anything is wrong? I and plenty of others have said what Hood did was wrong. As for the Mississippi Bar, I'm not sure how they can even be considered co-conspirators but if you want to stretch things go ahead.
So now that you had a nice self-righteous rant I hope you feel better.
David, is there any way for all of them to be posted in some kind of pdf format?