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]
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.
A few months ago, I began getting email messages about this case. The most recent came today and, I suspect but don’t know for certain, the NEMS360.com report on the upcoming hearing of Zach Scruggs’ Motion to Vacate prompted this latest message.
In the event it did not, I’ll confess that Judge Biggers’ decision had everything to do with my decision to toss my plans for the evening and dig a little deeper into Ken Nowlin’s Motion to Vacate his guilt plea. Why? Because there’s little comparison between Nowlin and Scruggs; yet, both have filed motions to vacate their agreements to plead guilty before a north Mississippi federal court.
Nowlin was the big fish in the little pond of Ecru, Mississippi – population 947 in the 2000 Census. Scruggs, on the other hand, is the son of the biggest fish in the pond – an award winning catch for the federal prosecutors working for the U.S. Attorney of the northern district of Mississippi.
Nowlin served almost 15 months and paid nearly $276,000 in restitution after pleading guilty three years ago to one count of a 53-count federal indictment, which accused him of a conspiracy to corruptly accept some $827,000 in insurance commissions. (NEMS360.com)
However, Nowlin, like Scruggs, claims he was pressured to plead guilty; albeit under different circumstances: Continue reading “Nowlin’s Motion to Vacate – another view of the “just-us” system of North Mississippi”
Patsy Brumfield broke the story on NEMS360.com – although I doubt she wants credit for the typo indicating the hearing was set for August and not April.
SLABBED will take a pass; check back with NEMS360 a little later; and rely on Judge Biggers’ order for the details:
Upon due consideration, the court is of the opinion that all issues involved in said motion should be heard. The court will receive evidence if requested.
It is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties shall appear for a hearing on movant’s motion on Monday, April 25, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3 West of the United States Courthouse in Oxford, Mississippi.
Short – and, in this case, “sweet”.