Reportedly, President Obama has finally gotten a “round tuit” and nominated “Felicia Collette Adams of Jackson…for U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Mississippi.
Adams, current chief of the Southern District’s civil division, faces U.S. Senate confirmation before she can take the office vacant since Bush appointee James Greenlee retired more than a year ago.
Adams was not available for comment when the announcement was made late Wednesday.
“Felicia Adams has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to justice throughout her career, and I am honored to nominate her to serve the people of Mississippi as U.S. attorney for the Northern District,” said President Obama in a White House news release.
Hmmm. Continue reading “Obama got a round tuit – Nominates Felicia Adams for north Mississippi USA”
Hardly the “breaking news” it was several days ago – and even then not a surprise:
“The government respectfully differs” with Scruggs’ view that he was forced to plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit and that his former counsel was secretly working with the government for another client…”
Although SLABBED was otherwise engaged when Patsy Brumfield broke the story of the Government’s Response in Opposition to Zach Scruggs’ Motion to Vacate, “Unbelievable” was the reaction on bellesouth’s blog and even the blogging lawyer of north Mississippi was taken aback by the government’s mention of polygraph tests:
“Sid Backstrom attempted to corroborate the petitioner’s denials, but failed an FBI polygraph. David Zachary Scruggs also failed an FBI polygraph showing deception when he said he knew nothing about money changing hands”.
Others found it “unbelievable” that the Government’s Response made mention of the polygraph tests. In her day-after story, Patsy Brumfield had comments from Scruggs’ attorney, former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Edward “Chip” Robertson:
“Robertson said he’s surprised they breached a confidentiality agreement about the polygraph, saying its results aren’t reliable or admissible as evidence. (emphasis added)”
Clearly, the Government needed an argument that would likely cause Judge Biggers to flip his wig and deny Zach’s motion. The reliability of the 404(b) “wig” the Government put in Judge Biggers’ “ear” when the case appeared headed to trial was refuted by the recently obtained documentation incorporated into Zach’s motion – and the Government had little choice but to include a related admission in its opposition response: Continue reading “No surprise, little substance – not much thinking evident in Government’s cognitive map – USA opposes Zach Scruggs’ Motion”
The court has reviewed the movant’s request to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, and is of the opinion that a response from the government is appropriate.
September 16th Order of Judge Neil Biggers re: Zach Scruggs’ Motion to Vacate
Patsy Brumfield broke the story yesterday:
Almost a month ago, Scruggs’ attorneys said new evidence and legal developments showed he is innocent of the charges that sent him to prison for 14 months
and cost him his law license and career… (link added by SLABBED)
Thursday, Biggers gave the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oxford 30 days to respond. Biggers has presided over all the proceedings against Zach Scruggs, his father Richard Scruggs and other co-defendants in a scandal that rocked Mississippi’s legal community when it went public in late 2007…
[Zach Scruggs’]… motion tells the court “respectfully” that several of its central rulings in his case “were based on the inaccurate information provided to the court by the government.”
Especially not true, he says, was the government’s story to Biggers that then-Booneville attorney Joey Langston would testify that Zach Scruggs knew about another bribery plot.
A recent sworn statement by Langston, who is in prison because of that scheme, insists Zach Scruggs knew nothing about a plan to bribe a Hinds County judge in another legal-fees lawsuit against Richard Scruggs…
SLABBED notes Judge Biggers set for the date for the government’s response a few days before the release of “The Fall of the House of Zeus”
, Curtis Wilke’s much anticipated book on the downfall of Dick Scruggs.
- Starting with a quick note from Main Justice that makes me wonder why the powers that be seem hell-bent to appoint a new northern district Mississippi US Attorney with some connection to USA v Scruggs:
“U.S. Rep. Travis Childers (D-Miss.) confirmed to the paper that state Sen. Gray Tollison is in the running for the post. Tollison, a member of the state Senate since 1996, is chairman of the committee that considers changes to the state’s criminal laws. He is also the son of Oxford attorney and well known local Democrat Grady F. Tollison, according to the paper.”
Not that Gray isn’t a great guy but his father is not only well-know as a Democrat, the Tollison law firm represented John Jones in the lawsuit that became the undoing of Dick Scruggs as well as representing Jones in conjunction with McIntosh v State Farm, the centerpiece of the Rigsby Qui Tam case.
- Speaking of north Mississippi and USA v Scruggs, the “good neighbor” has shown up in federal court with more hubris than most can muster and a Motion for Return of Property. The “property” [sic] State Farm wants returned – any who wouldn’t – is any evidence of the Company’s wrongdoing in the Scruggs files held by DOJ!
Patsy Brumfield (NEMS360.com) had the story reporting, “In sworn testimony attached to its motion for return of property, two people say they remember seeing the report and a “sticky note” that court copies show has written on it, “Put in wind file – DO NOT Pay Bill. DO Not discuss.” (emphasis added)
One of those who remembers “seeing the report and a “sticky note” is none other than Lecky King, the State Farm employee who wrote the note (duh)! OMG, talk about “legal advocacy” that your mama wouldn’t buy. According to the Motion and Exhibits State Farm filed with the court, the other is Beth Jones – a claim refuted in the Rigsbys’ Response to a Motion State Farm filed in Southern District Mississippi Federal Court:
Jones actually testified that she had no idea whether she had ever seen the original Brian Ford report, did not know from where the sticky note she saw had come, did not know when the note arrived, and did not even know what the note said. In other words, the sum total the sum total of Jones’s testimony is that, at some point in her time with SLF, she saw a piece of paper with a sticky note on it. Yet State Farm attempts to use that testimony as a pretext for further rummaging through SLF’s files after the close of discovery.