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.
Regarding the first Continue reading “in perfect harmony – Zach files trio of documents in USA v Scruggs”