Tag: Dick Scruggs

Comment bump | SRHS Retirees meet your new State Judge: “One need only briefly peruse the state court record to recognize the manifest dereliction of judicial function”

And best of all new Singing River Hospital Trustee Scott Taylor could likely give us all manner of background since he was there. If I were in your shoes I’d be preparing for the worst because that is very likely what is coming. The following is via Nunn Yabidnez on “What is Singing River Health System and the Jackson County Board of Supervisors Hiding? A comment bump“:

Well, this is going from “interesting” to downright weird. L. Breland Hilburn is now (at least until someone files a motion that gets granted) the special judge over the SRHS mess. For those who don’t know, which is likely most folks, Judge Hilburn was involved in the Scruggs-Wilson-Luckey love triangle. He gave Scruggs and Co. an “interesting” midnight-hour order that attempted to keep the tobacco money out of the reach of Luckey and Wilson, who had attempted an end run by going to federal court in Texas. The Texas court punted the whole thing back to MS fed court, which basically laughed at Hilburn’s order. Why does this matter? Who knows, but new SRHS Trustee Scott Taylor was the guy advising Scruggs that Luckey and Wilson owed Scruggs money, etc., and Hilburn seemed to be awfully sympathetic to Scruggs’ positions. And perhaps even more interesting, after his retirement from the bench, Judge Hilburn has been associated with the Eaves firm in Jackson, a _plaintiff’s_- with-a-capital-P firm (John Arthur Eaves Sr. and Jr., the latter also having all sorts of interesting facets, including a stepson who recently bit the head off of a live mouse, hamster or gerbil). And Pope Mallette and Cal Mayo, of Oxford and Scruggs’ attorneys in the Wilson v. Scruggs litigation, are repping at some of the Plaintiffs in the SRHS mess. Plus, Mike Moore was looking to get into the SRHS mess, too. Sure, MS is a fairly small legal pond, so there will be overlap, but this is getting a bit ridiculous. What remains to be seen is just what these plaintiffs/mass tort guys (and Mayo-Mallette) see as the payday in suing SRHS and the pension plan for being, basically, broke.

A post from the old “folo.us” site (long defunct, and Tom Freeland of FOLO-turned-NorthMSCommentator died earlier this year) talked about Hilburn’s role in Wilson v. Scruggs. I am not saying the content is correct or incorrect, but am simply quoting it in its entirety. The links to the various opinions/orders cited are dead, but if anyone is interested in them, I’m sure they are available elsewhere. Here it is:

“Sic ‘em
March 22nd, 2008

Well dang, boys and girls, NMC’s balky scanner is still holding up my next addition to our Bobby DeLaughter file, but never fear, I’ve got another yarn to share with you, and before it’s over, that name will briefly appear.

Lately I’ve been corresponding with a national reporter who, for both papers and magazines, has covered Dickie Scruggs for some years now. Yesterday as we were speculating about where all this goes next, he told me a story going back to the days before Luckey and Wilson became separate cases. With his permission, I’ll share it (now augmented with some further research of my own), since he rather expects the FBI may — or at least should – be looking into the questions it raises about Dickie Scruggs’s influence over yet another judge . . . Continue reading “Comment bump | SRHS Retirees meet your new State Judge: “One need only briefly peruse the state court record to recognize the manifest dereliction of judicial function””

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.

Slight of hand – Government playing trick on Judge Biggers with Response to Zach Scruggs’ Motion for Depositions

Hopefully, Judge Biggers will catch the slight of hand trick when he reads the Government’s Response to Zach Scruggs’ Motion for Depositions – admittedly, I missed it on my first read and only read it again after catching Patsy Brumfield’s story on NEMS360.com this morning: Feds insist Scruggs request ‘reckless’ to question key figures under oath.

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 “Slight of hand – Government playing trick on Judge Biggers with Response to Zach Scruggs’ Motion for Depositions”

Zach Scruggs files the mother of all motions – Motion for Deposition of all Scruggs defendants and key players UPDATED

Update: Patsy Brumfield reports on Zach’s motion in the Sunday edition of NEMS360 – What may they say, if Zach Scruggs questions key players?

Skipping the legal argument of Zach’s Motion for Depositions (below in Scribd format) and going straight to what everyone has always wanted to know:

“The following states the name of each person whose deposition is requested, along with illustrative (but not exhaustive) information explaining the discoverable information that person is likely to provide. For the sake of brevity, each entry incorporates the knowledge stated for prior witnesses”.

Sidney Backstrom:

Mr. Backstrom was a co-defendant in this case, who worked in the Scruggs Law Firm across the hall from the Petitioner. Mr. Backstrom has discoverable knowledge concerning the Scruggs Katrina Group and their assessment of the Jones case, whether Petitioner ever knew about an alleged bribery scheme or whether there was any such bribery scheme. This Court has previously suggested that Mr. Backstrom would surely have discussed a bribery scheme with Petitioner (see Petition, D.E. 303 at 33), and Mr. Backstrom will put such speculation to rest. Specifically, Mr. Backstrom can provide context to the November recording, testifying as to whether Petitioner was present during key moments. Mr. Backstrom is also a witness regarding the existence of certain alleged conversations and emails, about which Timothy Balducci has testified falsely.

Mr. Backstrom can also testify to whether Petitioner ever did anything to join the conspiracy, in support thereof, or to conceal the same, along with the state of mind of the Petitioner regarding Judge Lackey’s order compelling arbitration. Mr. Backstrom also has knowledge of exculpatory discussions he had with federal authorities concerning Petitioner both before and after he became a cooperating witness, as well as about the existence or absence of any documentation of such discussions, which should have been disclosed to Petitioner. Mr. Backstrom will also impeach testimony and representations previously given to this Court by both Government witnesses and the Government itself. Mr. Backstrom presently resides in Texas, outside the civil subpoena power of this Court, making a deposition the only practicable way to get his testimony for this Court…(citations omitted)

Richard Scruggs

Mr. Scruggs was the primary defendant in this case, and has discoverable knowledge about the foregoing issues. Mr. Scruggs is also in the best position to testify about who created the alleged bribery scheme, when, and how, and most importantly, whether Petitioner was ever told about that alleged bribery scheme. In addition, Mr. Scruggs knows whether Petitioner was ever informed about the $40,000 and $10,000 payments to Mr. Balducci, or whether Petitioner was informed that the legal work assigned to Mr. Balducci on a Hurricane Katrina case was a mere sham, as the Government alleges, to provide cover for reimbursing the alleged bribery funds.

Mr. Scruggs can also testify to whether Petitioner ever did anything to join the conspiracy, in support thereof, or to conceal the same. This testimony will also serve to impeach testimony and representations previously given to this Court by both Government witnesses and the Government itself. Mr. Scruggs resides in a Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky, outside the civil subpoena power of this Court, making a deposition the only practicable way to get his testimony for this Court…(citations omitted)

Zach also seeks to depose Steven Patterson,Timothy Balducci, Judge Henry Lackey, William Delaney, Joseph Langston, Anthony Farese, Tom Dawson, Judge David Sanders, and Robert Norman – specifics below the jump. Continue reading “Zach Scruggs files the mother of all motions – Motion for Deposition of all Scruggs defendants and key players UPDATED”

Scruggs: the movie – Wow! northern MS just-us justice up on the big screen!

NEMS360 reports, “Longtime Hollywood insider Sam Haskell….has bought the television and film rights to Curtis Wilkie’s book, “The Fall of the House of Zeus”.

The project, said Haskell publicist Nathan Wells, “has the potential to spur a TV-film industry along in Mississippi, which has been one of Haskell’s goals since returning to Mississippi full time.”

“But for both Wilkie and Haskell, the book and the prospective movie also mean a chance to tell parts of the story that most press accounts could not…The story “has to be about redemption,” he added. “We all make mistakes; this was in the public eye in a way that created a perfect storm for misunderstanding.”

Redemption. Mistakes. Perfect storm for misunderstanding – ohdeargod, those words didn’t sit well with north Mississippi’s black- cloud just-us justice crowd.  Late afternoon, however, Zach Scruggs rained on their parade – and redemption, mistakes, misunderstanding took on a different meaning.

“You know Lackey much better than I, but I don’t believe he was taken aback one whit. If anything, I think he expected Balducci’s Of Counsel “assurances.” Look at the other judges and officers who signed on before Lackey … he didn’t want to be excluded.”

However, the really different meaning to Judge Lackey’s role comes when it’s viewed in light of the Government’s lack of jurisdiction to make a federal case out of the state judges’ position – meaning the Government had no “color of official right” to lend to Lackey.  It was this “color” that made a bribe of what otherwise have been Lackey’s extortion of money from Scruggs.  Without jurisdiction, the government was not just without “color” to lend Lackey, it was also without the authority to obtain a wire tap order and Judge Biggers without the authority to issue same –  and, folks, this “really different meaning” is going to make a great movie! Continue reading “Scruggs: the movie – Wow! northern MS just-us justice up on the big screen!”

No surprise, little substance – not much thinking evident in Government’s cognitive map – USA opposes Zach Scruggs’ Motion

Hardly the “breaking news” it was several days ago – and even then not a surprise:

“The government respectfully differs” with Scruggs’ view that he was forced to plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit and that his former counsel was secretly working with the government for another client…”

Although SLABBED was otherwise engaged when Patsy Brumfield broke the story of the Government’s Response in Opposition to Zach Scruggs’ Motion to Vacate, “Unbelievable” was the reaction on bellesouth’s blog and even the blogging lawyer of north Mississippi was taken aback by the government’s mention of polygraph tests:

“Sid Backstrom attempted to corroborate the petitioner’s denials, but failed an FBI polygraph.  David Zachary Scruggs also failed an FBI polygraph showing deception when he said he knew nothing about money changing hands”.

Others found it “unbelievable” that the Government’s Response made mention of the polygraph tests.  In her day-after story, Patsy Brumfield had comments from Scruggs’ attorney, former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Edward “Chip” Robertson:

“Robertson said he’s surprised they breached a confidentiality agreement about the polygraph, saying its results aren’t reliable or admissible as evidence. (emphasis added)”

Clearly, the Government needed an argument that would likely cause Judge Biggers to flip his wig and deny Zach’s motion.  The reliability of the 404(b) “wig” the Government put in Judge Biggers’ “ear” when the case appeared headed to trial was refuted by the recently obtained documentation incorporated into Zach’s motion – and the Government had little choice but to include a related admission in its opposition response: Continue reading “No surprise, little substance – not much thinking evident in Government’s cognitive map – USA opposes Zach Scruggs’ Motion”

Absolutely amazing – What you can learn reading Wilkie’s “Fall of the House of Zeus”

In an interview with Tupelo journalist Patsy Brumfield appearing on Sunday’s NEMS360.com, “Zeus” author Curtis Wilke said,

“There were any number of subplots in the book that could be developed into bigger stories. I chose to concentrate on the Johnny Jones suit and the approach to Judge Lackey in order to keep a strong focus on one case. So Scruggs II, as the prosecutors called it, the case that sent Bobby DeLaughter to prison, does not get a full treatment in “Zeus.”

Wilke’s snapshot of Scruggs II, however, is more than sufficient for readers to see the big picture of the case and the influence it had on the outcome of Scruggs I.  A pretty picture it is not but it confirmed what had previously been rumored:  the legal team  representing Scruggs, Scruggs and Backstrom held a “mini-mock trial…to evaluate the strength of the prosecution’s case” – an exercise described on pages 293-294 as producing “unhappy results”:

“the defense…[of the charges related to the bribery of Judge Lackey]…had been overwhelmed  by the introduction of the second case….[the alleged bribery of Judge DeLaughter]…and the suggestion that Scruggs had a history of bribing judges.” (pg. 294)

Allegations of the bribery of Judge DeLaughter first surfaced in the Grand Jury testimony of Tim Balducci:

“Balducci’s information not only imperiled Langston and Peters, it exposed Scruggs to a second charge of bribing a judge.  This opened the door for the government to use the 404(b) provision to show that Scruggs had a predilection for criminal behavior.” (page 264)

However, during a hearing on the Scruggs motion to dismisss Scruggs I charges against Scruggs, Scruggs and Backstrom, attorney John Keker had a brief opportunity to cross-examine Balducci and “pounced on inconsistencies”: Continue reading “Absolutely amazing – What you can learn reading Wilkie’s “Fall of the House of Zeus””

On the outside looking in at

The release of Curtis Wilke’s book on the “rise and ruin” of Dick Scruggs, “The Fall of the House of Zeus”, has reopened discussion of a subject I addressed in a June 5, 2008 post,  On the outside looking in at “the perspective of honest lawyers”.

As someone who is two-plus years older and still not a lawyer, I remain on the “outside looking in” – although, definitely, both “older and wiser” on “the perspective of honest lawyers” in terms of the anger they feel at Dick Scruggs for tarnishing their profession.  Like all growth, growing “older and wiser” was painful at times.  However, the aches and pains of aging paled to the heartache I felt while gaining wisdom from the anger of  “honest lawyers”.

Simply stated, not all who make the claim are “honest lawyers” but the truly honest are easily identified.  “Honest lawyers” also express anger toward the system of justice that failed in so many ways.  They rage and rail about the “good ole boy network” that closed rank to protect Judge Lackey and remained silent about the government’s conduct.  Honest lawyers seek no advantage and decry a system that viewed Grady Tollison’s contact with Judge Lackey with a closed eye.  Honest lawyers trade on their skill, have no connections to tout, and never ever toot their own horn in public.

Consequently, the belief expressed in my closing statement is one I believe even more today than when I hit “publish”:

To the whatever extent honest lawyers have not been honest people – fair and just in their treatment of all involved in USA v Scruggs and the Katrina insurance cases – they have corrupted the legal system as much, if not more, than those they blame.

My archived post follows: Continue reading “On the outside looking in at”

Tollison was green (with envy), Judge Lackey went whacky – Curtis Wilke’s “Zeus” a Scruggs tell-all

“[Wilke’s]… story is particularly tough on Oxford plaintiffs lawyer Grady Tollison, portrayed as jealous of Scruggs, who horns in on Tollison’s perceived primacy on the Square.And on Lackey, who delights in the federal yoke when he’s doing the FBI’s bidding to snare Scruggs, but turns eccentric and bitter as the story winds down, despite the accolades that come his way for his role.”
Not that “green Grady” and “whacky Lackey” weren’t obvious to those following USA v Scruggs; but, good for Curtis Wilke who lets it out in his Scruggs tell-all,  Fall of the House of Zeus – and good for Daily Journal reporter Pasty Brumfield who gets the word out in her review,  lending credibility to the opinion of Washington (state) attorney Steve Eugster:
“It seems we may have a situation where a trial judge engaged in earwigging with the attorney(s) for the plaintiff in the Jones v. Scruggs case. Evidence of the earwigging is found in the fact of the very unusual ore tenus motion whereby the judge entered an order sealing the file of the case from all the world open to be unsealed in the sole discretion of the attorney who filed the case.” Continue reading “Tollison was green (with envy), Judge Lackey went whacky – Curtis Wilke’s “Zeus” a Scruggs tell-all”

You bet your sweet a$$ “a response is in order” – Judge Biggers orders USA response to Zach Scruggs’ motion to vacate

The court has reviewed the movant’s request to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, and is of the opinion that a response from the government is appropriate.

September 16th Order of Judge Neil Biggers re: Zach Scruggs’ Motion to Vacate

Patsy Brumfield broke the story yesterday:

Almost a month ago, Scruggs’ attorneys said new evidence and legal developments showed he is innocent of the charges that sent him to prison for 14 months and cost him his law license and career… (link added by SLABBED)
Thursday, Biggers gave the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oxford 30 days to respond.   Biggers has presided over all the proceedings against Zach Scruggs, his father Richard Scruggs and other co-defendants in a scandal that rocked Mississippi’s legal community when it went public in late 2007…

[Zach Scruggs’]… motion tells the court “respectfully” that several of its central rulings in his case “were based on the inaccurate information provided to the court by the government.”

Especially not true, he says, was the government’s story to Biggers that then-Booneville attorney Joey Langston would testify that Zach Scruggs knew about another bribery plot.

A recent sworn statement by Langston, who is in prison because of that scheme, insists Zach Scruggs knew nothing about a plan to bribe a Hinds County judge in another legal-fees lawsuit against Richard Scruggs…

SLABBED notes Judge Biggers set for the date for the government’s response a few days before the release of “The Fall of the House of Zeus”, Curtis Wilke’s much anticipated book on the downfall of Dick Scruggs.