“Once many people believe something and enjoy a significant amount of communal reinforcement, they get very selective about the type of data they pay attention to in the future”.
Fact is seemingly irrelevant to the Patsy Brumfield-wannabes-but-can’t who, like wolves at the sight of the full moon, prefer howlin’ and jowlin’ “communal reinforcement” to informed discussion.
In addition to the Complaint filed by Scruggs and the response filed by his former attorney Anthony Farese, the members of the Committee on Professional Responsibility for the Mississippi Bar Association had an Ethics Opinion drafted by former Bar President Cham Trotter (linked here and below in Scribd’ format).
Read Trotter’s Ethics Opinion, take a look at his attached Curriculum Vitae and see if you, like the Bar Committee, find “No ‘clear and convincing’ evidence” of “inadequate representation”.
The engine failure of a small aircraft that left Ocean Springs Airport on Saturday afternoon led to an emergency landing…the plane was not even 100 feet in the air before experiencing engine failure that led pilot Christopher Ryan Loepke to land the aircraft on North 12th Street…the plane’s wings struck trees and power lines on its descent, but did not injure any residents in the neighborhood or damage any cars or houses. It crash-landed in the entrance to a residential driveway on North 12th Street.
Loepke and passengers Scott Walker, Dax Pitalo and Roy “Trey” O’Bryant III all were taken to Ocean Springs Hospital with injuries. Hospital officials said Loepke, Pitalo and Bryant were treated and released Saturday. Walker, former Ocean Springs mayoral candidate, was admitted to the hospital but was in good condition Saturday night.
Walker’s father, Bill Walker, executive director of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, said his son sustained back injuries in the crash and was undergoing medical tests at the hospital Saturday. Walker, a partner at Maxwell and Walker Consulting Group, formerly worked for Sens. Trent Lott and Thad Cochran.
Leopke made a great landing and SLABBED wishes all a speedy recovery.
“Meet Chris Dodd, Hollywood’s new man in Washington.”
Yes, the new chairman and chief executive officer of the Motion Picture Association of America is the same Chris Dodd who, as the US Senator from Connecticut, had his name has been mentioned so frequently on SLABBED the listing of related posts cover four pages of search results! Although those pasts date to the early days of SLABBED in 2007, it was two years ago yesterday that Sop made it official with $enator Chri$ Dodd You Sanctimonious SumBitch, Welcome to Slabbed.
The choice stirred some controversy. He’s barred by law from lobbying Congress for the next 22 months, and Dodd told the Connecticut Mirror in August four months before leaving the Senate that he would do “no lobbying, no lobbying.”
Yet the MPAA job is considered one of Washington’s plum lobbying positions.
Dodd said he won’t actually be lobbying, and…[the chairman and chief executive officer]… of Fox Filmed Entertainment…[Jim”]…Gianopulos noted that the individual film companies are well represented in Washington on their own.
“We were looking for leadership, direction and consensus-building,” he said.
History suggests the answer to “why” Dodd would want the position probably has a lot to do with his wife: Continue reading →
The bottom line to the Government’s Response claims Nowlin’s “proposed amendment differs in both time and type from the allegations set forth in the original pleading…[and]…is, therefore, timebarred…the existing record conclusively establishes the petitioner’s guilt, no evidentiary hearing is required“.
Nooooo doubt about it – the Government doesn’t want its relationship with attorney Tony Farese before the Court in either Nowlin v USA or USA v (Zach) Scruggs. In fact, the Reply filed by Nowlin’s current attorney, SuperLawyer Cynthia Stewart, noted “…[the Government’s Response]…brings into question whether the Government has read Petitioner’s § 2255″.
Stewart took care of business in Nowlin’s Reply(in Scribd’ format below). Her emphatic page-one claim – “‘The letter Mr. Massey was referring to is what this case is all about . . .’ ¶ 9 (emphasis added)” – scored a 3rd grade reading level on the Flesch-Kincaid scale, meaning ” It should be easily understood by 8 to 9 year olds”!
Reading the Government’s Response and Nowlin’s Reply from my behaviorist perspective suggests there is an underlying problem of the Government viewing Nowlin’s situation with the thinking of a criminal as opposed to its role as a guardian of justice for all. Such biased thinking is the very essence of north Mississippi’s “just us” system. Continue reading →
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.
Maybe the Rule of Law will also sing “in perfect harmony” after the Court considers the trio of documents filed in USA v Scruggs this morning. Patsy Brumfield reports on one – Petitioner’s Memorandum In Reply to the Government’s Response to Motion of David Zachary Scruggs for Depositions(linked here and in Scribd’ format below) – in Scruggs offers more reasons to question key players under oath.
Scruggs’ new filing insists that advance testimony will help sort out issues for the court, especially from former Circuit Judge Henry Lackey, ex-Booneville attorney Joey Langston and FBI Agent William Dulaney…In today’s motion, which responds to a government motion last week, Scruggs says prosecutors “cannot substitute (their) spin for evidence developed under the crucible of cross-examination of witnesses under oath.
Since the two other briefs filed today lend context to the Scruggs’ Reply, SLABBED looks to these before introducing the arguments set forth in the Reply.
In Petitioner’s Bench Memorandum Regarding Procedural Default(linked here and in Scribd’ format below) Scruggs’ attorney, former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Edward “Chip” Robertson, notes “the Government seems to be laboring under confusion regarding this Court’s jurisdiction to hear the entirety of the issues raised in the Section 2255 Petition” before clearing the confusion with citations of applicable law: (emphasis added)
…the Government has repeatedly attempted to narrow the scope of the Court-ordered hearing, most recently to avoid discovery about the truth behind the three issues raised in the Petition. In case there is any doubt about the proper scope of the hearing and the proper scope of necessary and appropriate discovery, Petitioner submits this bench memorandum concisely explaining the law of procedural default.
This Court has three different and independent bases for jurisdiction over this Petition.
Prosecutors say Zach Scruggs’ request to take sworn statements from 11 key judicial-bribery case witnesses is “reckless, speculative and legally ineffective.”
Their motion filed late Friday argues that the only people the court should subpoena for live testimony should be Scruggs’ four original co-defendants in the 2007 judicial bribery case that rocked Mississippi’s legal community…
Here’s the trick – the Government wants to substitute affidavits given to counter Zach’s Bar Complaint against his former attorney, Anthony Farese, for the depositions Zach requested in his Motion for Depositions. While the names may be the same – Langston, Dawson, Sanders, and Norman – Zach’s Motion goes much further than his complaint against Farese. Not only that, the Government tosses in the affidavits of Oxford attorney Kenneth Coghlan and former Langston law partner Ron Michaels – both supporting Farese in the matter before the Bar, to make the slight of hand trick more believable to Judge Biggers.
However, there are far more significant issues before the Court than those addressed in Zach’s Bar Complaint against Farese – and the Government’s response ignores those issues all but in total. For example, the Government’s position is Judge Lackey should be given a free pass (another one!): Continue reading →
Let’s just say that I look forward to reading Zach’s Rebuttal. The Government’s Response sidesteps the issue of Farese’s dual representation while appearing to address it and glosses over the role of their lackey, Judge Lackey. More importantly, unless I missed the reference, the missing November 19th recording and FBI reports are not addressed at all. In a word, the Government’s response was “cute”. Bottom line, fluff is better than snarky but neither are a substitute for justice.