duck, duck, goose – Balducci taps Delaughter

Balducci, who was questioned as part of the unrelated Eaton v. Frisby lawsuit, is expected to testify against DeLaughter, who goes on trial Aug. 17 in U.S. District Court in Oxford on corruption charges. DeLaughter has insisted he is innocent, following the law in his rulings.

The sweet potato king is back in the news – exactly how seems to be the question:

Contacted for comment about the deposition, DeLaughter’s attorney, Thomas Durkin of Chicago, remarked, “I find it very curious how a sealed document ended up in the hands of the press, and it’s more proof to me that money is the root of all evil. People will do a lot of things and say a lot of things to protect their money. Someone is obviously attempting to poison the jury venire.”

Even more curious than a sealed document ending up in the hands of the press is the difference between the babbling Balducci in the recorded conversations of Scruggs I and the standard-English speaking witness he became as a witness.

And, then, there’s the matter of the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Government Misconduct Occurring Before the Grand Jury.

“Following the hearings conducted by this Court last week, the government provided the defendants with the grand jury testimonies of Timothy Balducci and FBI Special Agent William Delaney,” Graves wrote.

“The grand jury testimonies are patently false and misleading in material respects and undoubtedly led to the erroneous indictment of Defendant Zach Scruggs.”

However, the most curious of all is that no one seems to have noticed Balducci was the “door prize” at Scruggs law – last one out the door got stuck with him.

A careful reading of the transcripts of the recorded conversations – including the one made November 1 when Balducci was wired – will show that neither his phone calls or visits were particularly welcome.

Which brings us to the reliability of anything he offers as testimony.  A wanna-be who spins a good story, perhaps, but a second-hand rose when it comes to information.  The Clarion Ledger story makes that clear and the traditional word to describe the evidence Balducci offers is hearsay.

I’m not suggesting no wrong was done.  After all, Dick Scruggs has admitted to attempting to corruptly flatter Judge Delaughter.  Beyond that you have the integrity-poor trio of Langston, Balducci, and Peters – and as Judge Delaughter might write, all vieing for bragging rights.

Balducci, a rival for the outcast of Poker Flat with most everyone but the USA, described his actions as “obviously the worst thing that I’ve ever done, and the greatest moral and ethical failure of my life to do that, but I did it. I did it” – but without telling just which “worst thing” he regretted.

Was it his eager-to-impress-the-Judge- with-his-importance fund raising campaign for Judge Lackey?  Maybe it was his equally- eager- to-curry- favor with Judge Lackey offer of a bribe  in the otherwise unrelated Minor case – the only documented bribe in either Scruggs I or II? Or, was it what he as a claimed trusted confidant was told by Langston, Peters, and the seemingly otherwise clueless Patterson?

Maybe the worst thing he did was create his own reality.  Some people think they’re the Virgin Mary and others believe they know where all the bodies are buried.  Meanwhile they’re digging fast as they can, hoping no one catches them with the shovel.

How can Lady Justice weigh the issues in this case when one side of the scale holds a barrel of crabs, each trying to climb out by standing on the others?

Again, I’m not suggesting no wrong was done – only that there is a need to look further.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *