Tag: Joey Langston

in perfect harmony – Zach files trio of documents in USA v Scruggs

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”

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”

AUSA Bob Norman loses his grip – throws Tom Dawson under the bus and rolls over Judge Biggers in Government’s Response. Zach’s Reply calls for Government’s backup!

After it took one Court order, one 30 day-extension, and a total of 77 days for the Government to respond to Zach Scruggs’ Motion to Vacate, Judge Biggers ruled on Zach’s Motion for Discovery before the Government filed any Response at all.

However, haste makes waste – and in its haste to produce the one-day-wonder filed today, the waste was former AUSA Tom Dawson who went under the bus as the Government rolled on.

Dawson is co-author of the “impeccably researched” Kings of Torts – a “true story…”.  Zach Scruggs’ Motion for Reconsideration claims:

Only with the publication of these facts in 2009 did Petitioner Zachary Scruggs learn that the Government induced his own attorney to procure a witness that the Government assured the Court and Petitioner would testify against Zachary Scruggs, a witness that created an “insurmountable” challenge to his defense, and undermined his rights to effective counsel and fair trial. The purpose of the requested discovery is to probe those murky depths, to determine whether the Government affirms or denies those facts provided by Mr. Dawson. If the Government now concedes that Mr. Dawson’s account is true, then these questions can be dispatched quite quickly.

Chief among those facts cited by Scruggs is that “Mr. Dawson’s 2009 book further explains that the Government proceeded with nearly a month of secret negotiations, using Mr. Farese to secure Mr. Langston’s plea and agreement to cooperate with the Government, all without notifying the Petitioner, the other defendants, the other joint defense counsel members, or the Court about the conflict the Government had created.

In the Government’s Opposition brief (below in Scribd format), ND Mississippi AUSA Bob Norman refutes the truth of Dawson’s account:

Let us be clear. There were no month-long secret negotiations preceding Joey Langston’s plea. There has been no “adverse testimony” from Mr. Langston. There is therefore no conflict.

By all means, “let’s be clear”- and for clarity we turn to Zach’s Reply (below in Scribd format), filed before the ink was dry on the Government’s Response: Continue reading “AUSA Bob Norman loses his grip – throws Tom Dawson under the bus and rolls over Judge Biggers in Government’s Response. Zach’s Reply calls for Government’s backup!”

Zach files Motion for Reconsideration – will the usual noise from north Mississippi follow?

Here we go! Patsy Brumfield, who isn’t noise, had a short story up on NEMS360.com:

Zach Scruggs wants Senior U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers Jr. to reconsidering allowing him to seek new evidence related to his 2008 conviction.

The new evidence, Scruggs insists in a motion filed Wednesday, did not exist when he pleaded guilty and went to prison for knowing about an illegal conversation between then-New Albany attorney Timothy Balducci and Circuit Judge Henry Lackey.

This text from the Motion is significant and, IMO, should be read before the “lacunae” (a gap or place where something is missing, e.g. in a line of argument) or the discussion of “the new evidence that did not exist” when Zach entered his plea: (The Motion with all Exhibits, 119-pages total, follows below in Scribd format.)

Even with these lacunae, it bears emphasis that after all the facts were put on the table, it became clear to the Government that Petitioner was innocent of any involvement in bribery, and those charges were voluntarily dismissed. At that time, the Government repeatedly represented to this Court orally and in the Factual Basis that “all the facts and circumstances” of this petitioner’s conduct amounted to mere earwigging, not bribery. Plea Hearing Tr. 3/21/208 at 8 (Mr. Sanders), Sentencing Hearing Tr., 7/2/08 at 5 (Mr. Dawson). The purpose of much of the Petitioner’s propounded discovery is to discern what factual basis exists for the Government now to say the opposite.

Amazingly, it was in reading prosecutor Tom Dawson’s book that Zach learned of  “new evidence” giving cause to open Discovery. (I wonder if Judge Biggers learned something new, too, assuming he read the book)

Langston and Farese made a desperate pitch for immunity, offering to testify against Scruggs in the Delaughter case. They argued that the value of Langston’s testimony would cause Scruggs’s collapse in both cases, resulting in guilty pleas. The specter of Scruggs’s own lawyer testifying against him would be insurmountable. (Petition Exh. C., at 188.) Continue reading “Zach files Motion for Reconsideration – will the usual noise from north Mississippi follow?”

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””

Scruggs files a nothing here, move on Motion to Dismiss Young v Scruggs

After reading Eastland’s response for Patterson in the Wilson v Scruggs RICO case, it is difficult to disagree with the legal arguments of the Motion to Dismiss that Dick Scruggs filed in  Young v Scruggs; for example:

Plaintiffs’ pleadings fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. Even if proven, Plaintiff’s allegations could not establish that any predicate acts posed a threat of continued criminal activity, as all of the alleged predicate acts mentioned in Plaintiffs’ Complaint are related to a single, discrete, otherwise lawful transaction.

The Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss provides background and more about the basis for the Motion:

This case relates to Plaintiffs’ demands for money from Defendants Richard F. Scruggs and SMBD, Inc., their employer, under an attorney fee agreement signed in July 1999. Plaintiffs seek damages for Defendants’ decision in July 2005 to charge Plaintiffs with responsibility for satisfying a portion of a federal court judgment rendered against Defendants. Plaintiffs also seek damages for the residual effect of Defendants’ payment of certain legal fees to a law firm which represented Defendants in another litigated matter.

Plaintiffs pursue their quests for money under a variety of legal theories, including RICO, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. This Court should dismiss some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims. First, Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently serve process on Richard Scruggs. Second, Plaintiffs have failed to state a RICO claim upon which relief can be granted. With dismissal of the RICO claims, this Court should decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Even if this Court does retain jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs’ claims related to the July 2005 decision to allocate responsibility to Plaintiffs for satisfying a portion of the federal court judgment. Continue reading “Scruggs files a nothing here, move on Motion to Dismiss Young v Scruggs”

Eastland stands behind Motion to Dismiss – Greer files cross-claim for Patterson in Wilson v Scruggs

Big football weekend here in the land of the slabbed; but, no sports channel was covering the settlement game – and one is definitely playing in Wilson v Scruggs.

Almost simultaneously with their settlement with Team Scruggs, Team Wilson filed a weak response to co-defendant Steve Patterson’s Motion to Dismiss – an obvious incentive to settle.

Apparently, it was also incentive for Eastland to stick with the playbook while co-counsel Greer went with the legal equivalent of wild Rebel and filed across-claim for Patterson that suggests there is still more to learn about the money paid Ed Peters:

Patterson’s only involvement in the circumstances surrounding this action was Continue reading “Eastland stands behind Motion to Dismiss – Greer files cross-claim for Patterson in Wilson v Scruggs”

I tawt I taw a puddy tat – but there’s nobody here but Joey Langston

Judge Bobby DeLaughter’s devolution into USA v DeLaughter began when Joey Langston punched his ticket to the best plea agreement ever by confessing to the crime of bribery-by-flattery of Judge Delaughter.

SLABBED reported on the benefit of Langston plea agreement when two of his alleged co-flatters reported to prison for their role in USA v Scruggs.

Langston was sentenced last December for a Jan. 15 report, but the U.S. Attorney’s Office got Judge Michael Mills to delay his imprisonment until March 16 so he could continue helping with some investigations. However, prosecutors apparently renewed their request, sources say, and asked the court to postpone Langston’s report a few more weeks to keep him close as he apparently continues to cooperate with their investigations into the DeLaughter case and perhaps others.

However, that post was written on March 23 and it also reported the absence of the standard Letter to Report in Langston’s case docket – notable because he should have reported seven days earlier on the 16th and, according to information on the docket tonight, he reported on the 16th of April – and that’s Loony Tunes because a few weeks ago the BOP inmate locator showed him in transit.

It’s also Loony Tunes that there was a Motion to postpone his reporting but no Order when the Daily Journal checked on the afternoon of the 16th of March or when I sylvester2checked checked the 23rd; but, it’s on there now and dated the 11th of March with a note that the entries for both the Motion and the Order were modified on the 30th of March with no indication of how – and that’s when it struck me that Langston was popping up like Sylvester,  the Loony Tunes cat.

Sufferin’ succotash, Continue reading “I tawt I taw a puddy tat – but there’s nobody here but Joey Langston”

SLABBED Daily – April 16

An afternoon edition!  The MRGO documents are slow reading; but, I’m almost done.  Plus, we’ll be seeing more of Sop with the 15th deadline behind him.

Daily news has been a little slow – or so it seems with the Daily Journal just now picking up the story of Balducci’s handwritten Answer to Wilson v Scruggs.  Of course, the delay could be the website redesign that has produced urls that could choke tiny url.

Balducci’s most recent admission is that he conspired with Scruggs and others to influence Hinds Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter in another legal-fees lawsuit, Wilson v. Scruggs…While DeLaughter denies it’s true, Scruggs admitted his part just a few days before DeLaughter was indicted in the matter. But Balducci takes it a step further…

Doesn’t he always take things a step further?  Speaking of taking things further, Y’all Politics posted a flash on the State’s attempt to claim the legal fees MCI paid to Joey Langston Continue reading “SLABBED Daily – April 16”

Patterson, Balducci, Langston – guess who’s special?

This is reporting week for Patterson and Balducci according to the Letter to Report on the docket of each.  Patterson will be confined in Montgomery and Balducci in Estill, South Carolina.

Langston, on the other hand, was initially scheduled to report in January until the USA filed a motion to delay reporting.

On December 16, 2008, JOSEPH C. LANGSTON was sentenced by the Court to three years in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons. He was permitted to execute a voluntary surrender form and has been ordered to report to the Bureau of Prisons before 2:00 p.m. on January 15, 2009.  JOSEPH C. LANGSTON is a crucial witness in an ongoing government investigation. It would be most helpful to have him available for personal conferences and telephone calls here in the Northern District of Mississippi. Accordingly, JOSEPH C. LANGSTON’s plea of guilty is final and his sentence has been imposed. The government simply asks that he be kept available to government investigators until further order of the Court.

Judge Mills granted the Motion and set March 21st as Langston’s reporting date.  Patsy Brumfield at the Journal picks up from there with Langston gets another prison reprieve.

Disgraced Booneville ex-attorney Joey Langston can remain out of federal prison a few more weeks to help investigators make at least one case, officials tell the Daily Journal today. Langston was scheduled to turn himself in to a Montgomery, Ala., prison today for his January 2008 guilty plea in the scheme to bribe Judge Bobby DeLaughter of Hinds County. Langston was sentenced last December for a Jan. 15 report, but the U.S. Attorney’s Office got Judge Michael Mills to delay his imprisonment until March 16 so he could continue helping with some investigations. However, prosecutors apparently renewed their request, sources say, and asked the court to postpone Langston’s report a few more weeks to keep him close as he apparently continues to cooperate with their investigations into the DeLaughter case and perhaps others.

Amazing! Even more amazing is Langston’s docket has no Letter to Report from David Crews, Clerk of the Northern District Court.  Someone must have known Langston had been assigned to Montgomery and passed the information on to Patsy.  I have no such logical explanation for her  departure from fact in the most recent favorable press for Langston from the Journal, Billy Crews, CEO: Booneville law firm reflects old, new family ties. Continue reading “Patterson, Balducci, Langston – guess who’s special?”