Patsy Brumfield – Anybody seen Tim Balducci?UPDATED

The Daily Journal’s Patsy Brumfield has been at the top of her game of late and now she’s looking for Tim Balducci

Timothy Balducci, who turned informant in the Scruggs I judicial bribery case, apparently isn’t in U.S. Bureau of Prisons custody any more.

What that means, I don’t know, but he’s not scheduled to get out of prison until December 2010… Continue reading “Patsy Brumfield – Anybody seen Tim Balducci?UPDATED”

Whitfield Appeal provides timely review of law re: judicial bribery, USA v Minor

Alan over at Y’all recently reported Judge Wingate’s largely unreported denial of Paul Minor co-defendant John Whitfield’s motion for release pending Appeal, adding this link to the Order.  Wingate hung his hat – or flipped his lid – guided by Rule 9(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure:

The applicable provision in the instant case, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b )(1), says that the defendant in this case shall be detained unless this court is able to find that the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact…this court is not persuaded that the defendant has submitted any substantial question of law which would result in reversal or a new trial on all counts for which the defendant has been sentenced to prison. Therefore, the motion of the defendant to be released pending appeal is denied.

Earlier this week Whitfield filed an Appeal at the 5th Circuit and SLABBED was among the media outlets receiving a copy of the Appeal brief from his new counsel.

A review of the Appeal provides the opportunity to explore the basis for his appeal in the context of related information about applicable law, cases currently in litigation with similar issues, and the circumstances surrounding Mr. Whitfield’s relationship with Paul Minor and subsequent conviction.

In its review of Mr. Whitfield’s Motion for Release, the District Court applied the wrong standard in two instances, resulting in a flawed ruling that is clearly erroneous. Continue reading “Whitfield Appeal provides timely review of law re: judicial bribery, USA v Minor”

Same circus, new act – still playing in Federal Court

The jury for the  Windpool circus taking place in federal court in Hattiesburg,  Association Casualty Ins. Co., et. al. v. Allstate Ins. Co., et. al saw a new act today.  sf-windpool-3

The lawsuit against the Windpool Board was filed in September 2006 – and today State Farm suddenly remembered it wasn’t on the Windpool Board after all!  Imagine that!

John Corlew must be trying one hell of a case for State Farm to start calling, “George!” and filing a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law with supporting Memorandum.

As set forth more fully in the accompanying brief, the facts and inferences pointso strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of State Farm that no reasonable juror could conclude that State Farm was a member of the MWUA Board of Directors.

Because State Farm was not a member of the MWUA Board during the relevant time period, State Farm, as a matter of law, cannot be held directly liable for the Plaintiffs’ claims. Continue reading “Same circus, new act – still playing in Federal Court”