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 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”

Breaking News: Government Responds to Scruggs’ Motion for Depositions UPDATED

Start reading and I’ll catch up with comments:

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.

[scribd id=50562648 key=key-28j6a3u2omnu884l80vb mode=list]

BREAKING NEWS Judge Biggers wants to know! – Order sets date for Government to respond to Zach’s Motion for Depositions

As short and to the point as he is known to be, Judge Biggers got the week off to a fast start with his Monday morning Order on Zach Scruggs’ Motion for Depositions:

“Upon due consideration, the court orders that the government respond to the defendant’s motion for depositions by Friday, March 11, 2011”.

My “friendship circle” includes an attorney who admits that north Mississippi Federal District Judge Neil Biggers is as hard as they come – but he really likes Biggers.  I recently asked if he thought Biggers had been fair in his treatment of Zach and the Scruggs defendants.  His answer was a “qualified yes” – qualified by “based on the information the Government gave him”.

It’s without question at this point that the Government withheld certain evidence from the Scruggs defendants and Judge Biggers  – and that Biggers, in turn, made decisions based on – incomplete and/or inaccurate information.

In other words, the Government needs to cut the “snark” from its replies and make the admissions necessary to come clean with Judge Biggers.  IMO, those admissions include misrepresenting Zach as “arrogant” (“haughty) when “indignant” (“resentful”) was and is the appropriate word.