BREAKING NEWS: Y’all Come, door’s open! – Biggers’ Order responds to Zach Scruggs’ Motion for Depositions

As folks here say, Judge Biggers “just outdid himself “with this Order!

In resolving the issues raised by the petitioner, the court is going to consider evidence in open court from live witnesses in accordance with the Rules of Evidence.The petitioner has presented to the court the names of witnesses he wants to depose, and the government has responded as to why some of the potential witnesses are not relevant to issues in the upcoming hearing. The court will not pre-judge what testimony potential witnesses may give and therefore will not disallow the petitioner to call some witnesses and allow him to call other witnesses; but the court will take up any objections made to questions of witnesses as they may come up from either party in open court based on the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Oxford is definitely the place to be on the 24th of April. Expect standing-room-only if you’re planning to attend the Hearing on Zach Scruggs’ Motion to Vacate! Dick Scruggs, Sid Backstrom, Steve Patterson, Tim Balducci, Judge Lackey, Tom Dawson, Bob Norman, Anthony Farese, and Dick Scruggs, Sid Backstrom, Steve Patterson, Tim Balducci, Judge Lackey, Tom Dawson, Bob Norman, Anthony Farese, and FBI Agent William Dulaney will all be there with Zach.

10 thoughts on “BREAKING NEWS: Y’all Come, door’s open! – Biggers’ Order responds to Zach Scruggs’ Motion for Depositions”

  1. There isn’t any good reason not to allow depositions in this case!

    Rule 6. Discovery (under Section 2255 Proceedings)
    (a) Leave of Court Required. A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or Civil Procedure, or in accordance with the practices and principles of law. If necessary for effective discovery, the judge must appoint an attorney for a moving party who qualifies to have counsel appointed under 18 U.S.C.

  2. One good one, Belle, Judge Biggers wants everyone there! All considered, particular the Bench Memo filed in the trio, I consider this Order a significant indication of his insistence to do what he said when he ordered the hearing – hear “all issues” raised in Zach’s motion – and not allow the Government to narrow matters before his Court.

  3. I hope so, Nowdy. Judge Biggers said he would let evidence in but then rejects discovery. And then he adds he will take up objections (hint hint hint) to questions for witnesses. AND the fact that Tom Freeland (NMC) happens to be Judge Biggers’s biggest fan . AND the fact that NMC et al. are over there congratulating themselves as we speak!

  4. Congratulating themselves for what?

    How hard is it for a lawyer to understand “jurisdiction” and when all is said and done, that’s the issue (or rather is the Government’s lack of same). The “fat lady” already sang on that at the 5th Circuit with encore at USSC.

  5. The question is will Judge Biggers? He doesn’t seem like they type who would subject himself to the humiliation – but, hey, my brother didn’t clerk for him and no one has seen me out-about-town with him so what do I know (other than Judge Lackey took everyone for a ride, and we’re not talking about riding in parades in honor of my daddy’s former law partner).

    1. NMC has done some great bloggiong on Scruggs but his Carnac like abilities diminish greatly the further away from the Oxford Court house the subject matter, which explains why he stopped blogging on the policyholder cases down here, a subject that time has proven his prognostications misinformed to the point of outright ignorance. In this biz you’re only as good as your sources and when it comes to Judge Biggers NMC knows his man, not so much about the doings away from BF inland Mississippi.

      If he wants to whip out predictions in total and unzip I’m happy to go toe to toe with the man. No one in this world is Carnac except maybe our own Carnac and that guy isn’t NMC.

      I don’t much give a crap about Zach Scruggs and unlike NMC’s daddy’s former law partner I don’t have it in for them either. You guys want to cheerlead Zach have at it. IMHO the latest volley indicates it clearly disturbs the parties to the rat fuck that was the Dickie Scruggs prosecution.

      sop

  6. So how is Zach, through the witnesses HE wants to call (but didn’t want to call before his plea of GUILTY to “misprison of a felony”), going to DENY knowledge of Balducci’s PROHIBITED EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS with Judge Lackey regarding the Jones case? There is a dangerous game being played here. What happens if the testimony doesn’t go as Zach hopes it will? Will he then take the stand? THEN what happens? Ashton O’Dwyer.

  7. One thing’s for sure…Biggers wants to make this forum bigger, and he ain’t no lackey for the Government !!!

  8. What should really disturb “the parties”, Sop, is their discussion is based on a very narrow understanding of the “jurisdictional bars” in place.

    There are at least three – and the first one, alone, should overturn the entire Scruggs I case. There was no basis for a federal 666 Judicial Bribery case – and the 5th Circuit established that when it overturned the related conviction of Paul Minor, et al.

    The second, which should not even be considered in light of the first, is the bar the USSC established in Skilling that limited “honest services fraud” in a way such that even if there were federal jurisdiction in the case, which there is not, Zach no longer committed a “crime” as defined by the Statue.

    The last, and only one discussed by “the parties”, is the bar requiring an “overt” act of concealment before misprison can be charged. An “overt act” is more than just not telling – duh!

    IOW, Judge Biggers would have to leap over three jurisdictional bars (2 set @ 5th Circuit and 1 @ USSC)before he could reach any of the other issues. Pretty high hurdles!

Leave a Reply

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