Tag: US Department of Justice

I would like to acknowledge the fact there are lots of rumors swirling around about Slabbed

I may have even started one or two of ’em myself. That said I would like to repeat the following statement, which I have now published three times:

I have not been subpoenaed by Team Horn nor do I expect to receive one.

That said I do appreciate the fact the US Department of Justice thought enough of Slabbed’s coverage of the scandal in Jefferson Parish to come visit with me for a spell earlier this month.

But there are some hints floating about regarding a few of those rumors and I would like to point them out.  First is this snippet from Jason Berry’s post, A Corner Piece of the Commenter Puzzle:

The company is called Affinity Dynamics and its founder is an interesting guy who wears many hats… political consultant, writer, journalist….Glenn Smith. I don’t know exactly what role AD played in the process to hunt the commenter down but I do know they were aware of the exact date and times the commenter was logging in from the hotel as well as the fact that he was using a Yahoo email address to do so. I am not suggesting that AD or Mr. Smith did anything illicit….let me restate that….I am not suggesting that Affinity Dynamics or Glenn Smith did anything illegal. But I am stating that they had a lot of information about this man that should have been privy only to Advanced Publications/Nola.com. I am also stating that they were assisting Heebe’s team in the effort to track the man down.

I actually made contact with Mr. Smith via email and he was very polite but stated that he could not comment about the matter due to the pending federal investigation. Fair enough.

As far as I know the mystery IH commenter circa February, 2011 was quarry for Fred Heebe but not Team Horn with DoJ OIG.  Am I missing something here about Smith’s pending investigation?  Let’s revisit Gordon Russell’s article on the Fred Heebe internet commenter witch hunt to add more color: Continue reading “I would like to acknowledge the fact there are lots of rumors swirling around about Slabbed”

Post-hearing briefs filed in Heebe-River Birch v USA

No time at the moment to do more than get these up for the SLABBED-nation to read.  Have it at! The USA’s brief follows and the Heebe-Ward-River Birch brief is below the jump.

[scribd id=51480856 key=key-vkt9glrlfdnlxtjekf9 mode=list] Continue reading “Post-hearing briefs filed in Heebe-River Birch v USA”

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”

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.

Zach Scruggs files the mother of all motions – Motion for Deposition of all Scruggs defendants and key players UPDATED

Update: Patsy Brumfield reports on Zach’s motion in the Sunday edition of NEMS360 – What may they say, if Zach Scruggs questions key players?

Skipping the legal argument of Zach’s Motion for Depositions (below in Scribd format) and going straight to what everyone has always wanted to know:

“The following states the name of each person whose deposition is requested, along with illustrative (but not exhaustive) information explaining the discoverable information that person is likely to provide. For the sake of brevity, each entry incorporates the knowledge stated for prior witnesses”.

Sidney Backstrom:

Mr. Backstrom was a co-defendant in this case, who worked in the Scruggs Law Firm across the hall from the Petitioner. Mr. Backstrom has discoverable knowledge concerning the Scruggs Katrina Group and their assessment of the Jones case, whether Petitioner ever knew about an alleged bribery scheme or whether there was any such bribery scheme. This Court has previously suggested that Mr. Backstrom would surely have discussed a bribery scheme with Petitioner (see Petition, D.E. 303 at 33), and Mr. Backstrom will put such speculation to rest. Specifically, Mr. Backstrom can provide context to the November recording, testifying as to whether Petitioner was present during key moments. Mr. Backstrom is also a witness regarding the existence of certain alleged conversations and emails, about which Timothy Balducci has testified falsely.

Mr. Backstrom can also testify to whether Petitioner ever did anything to join the conspiracy, in support thereof, or to conceal the same, along with the state of mind of the Petitioner regarding Judge Lackey’s order compelling arbitration. Mr. Backstrom also has knowledge of exculpatory discussions he had with federal authorities concerning Petitioner both before and after he became a cooperating witness, as well as about the existence or absence of any documentation of such discussions, which should have been disclosed to Petitioner. Mr. Backstrom will also impeach testimony and representations previously given to this Court by both Government witnesses and the Government itself. Mr. Backstrom presently resides in Texas, outside the civil subpoena power of this Court, making a deposition the only practicable way to get his testimony for this Court…(citations omitted)

Richard Scruggs

Mr. Scruggs was the primary defendant in this case, and has discoverable knowledge about the foregoing issues. Mr. Scruggs is also in the best position to testify about who created the alleged bribery scheme, when, and how, and most importantly, whether Petitioner was ever told about that alleged bribery scheme. In addition, Mr. Scruggs knows whether Petitioner was ever informed about the $40,000 and $10,000 payments to Mr. Balducci, or whether Petitioner was informed that the legal work assigned to Mr. Balducci on a Hurricane Katrina case was a mere sham, as the Government alleges, to provide cover for reimbursing the alleged bribery funds.

Mr. Scruggs can also testify to whether Petitioner ever did anything to join the conspiracy, in support thereof, or to conceal the same. This testimony will also serve to impeach testimony and representations previously given to this Court by both Government witnesses and the Government itself. Mr. Scruggs resides in a Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky, outside the civil subpoena power of this Court, making a deposition the only practicable way to get his testimony for this Court…(citations omitted)

Zach also seeks to depose Steven Patterson,Timothy Balducci, Judge Henry Lackey, William Delaney, Joseph Langston, Anthony Farese, Tom Dawson, Judge David Sanders, and Robert Norman – specifics below the jump. Continue reading “Zach Scruggs files the mother of all motions – Motion for Deposition of all Scruggs defendants and key players UPDATED”

Tall tales and coverying a$$ – former US Attorney (mis)speaks about Scruggs case in presentation to Memphis Rotary

Coffee in hand, I found an email message waiting for me to wake up and get going this morning – and Former U.S. Attorney Greenlee Discusses Big Cases did ever more get me going.  Going straight to my bookcase to confirm that Greenlee was trying to cover his a$$ when he told tall tales to the Memphis Rotary Club:

Circuit Court judge, Henry L. Lackey, came to see…[him]…without an appointment to say there had been an attempt to bribe him with $40,000 by a young lawyer working for Scruggs.

Greenlee’s a$$ is certainly exposed; but, before that discussion, let’s take a look at what I found in my bookcase.

“During the first week of April 2007, John Hailman, Chief of the Criminal Division, came into First Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Dawson’s office and closed the door.  Hailman had been contacted by Judge Henry Lackey and, at the Judge’s request, had a lengthy meeting with him earlier in the day”.  (Kings of Torts, page 123)

“On the morning of April 11, two weeks after his meeting with Balducci, the judge telephoned his old friend John Hailman, a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Oxford and told him, “John, something’s come up and I really need to see you”. (The Fall of the House of Zeus, page 149)

Clearly, Judge Lackey did not contact Greenlee and when he came to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, he came after making arrangements to meet with John Hailman.

Tall tale, part two – there was no $40,000 to mention.  Returning to my bookcase, we find:

Balducci sought rulings in favor of Scruggs, and, during the same conversation, he offered an “of counsel” position to the judge in Balducci’s firm when the judge stepped down from the bench. (Kings of Torts, pages 123 -124)

It was some five months later before money was mentioned – and, even then, it was the Government that brought the subject up and Judge Lackey who decided the amount.  In part, that aspect of the case is the reason Greenlee needs to cover his a$$.

As tantalizing as Judge Lackey’s report must have been, a competent U.S. Attorney would have known immediately there was no federal jurisdiction.  In other words, Greenlee had no authority to conduct an investigation, much less offer Judge Lackey the protection of official right to commit extortion by asking Balducci for $40,000 in exchange for a favorable ruling. Continue reading “Tall tales and coverying a$$ – former US Attorney (mis)speaks about Scruggs case in presentation to Memphis Rotary”

Ut-oh, Judge Ginger “plans to visit River Birch lanfill office to resolve records dispute” (update: links reset)

Were the SLABBED-nation to elect a homecoming queen, I’m certain it wouldn’t be federal district judge Helen “Ginger” Berrigan – and, after reviewing her background, I’m equally certain she wouldn’t care.

… Judge Berrigan is the author of Louisiana Criminal Trial Practice…Prior to her appointment as a federal judge, she was a criminal defense attorney. She was a staff attorney to the Governor’s Pardon, Parole and Rehabilitation Commission and press secretary to Civil Rights Leader, Charles Evers…In addition to her experience as a journalist and lawyer, she has served on the boards or as a member of several legal organizations, including the…American Civil Liberties Union…

Her expertise and experience in criminal law and her involvement in the Civil Rights movement and ACLU provide context for understanding her decisions in Heebe v USA, including the order scheduling her upcoming visit to the River Birch landfill office, reported in Richard Rainey’s story for the Times-Picayune:

District Judge Ginger Berrigan stated in a court Order that she plans to inspect the third floor of the building at 2000 Belle Chasse Highway in Gretna, where authorities collected reams of documents and computer files as part of their 14-month investigation of River Birch. She set the visit for Feb. 4. 

It’s not an action a federal judge takes often… Continue reading “Ut-oh, Judge Ginger “plans to visit River Birch lanfill office to resolve records dispute” (update: links reset)”

You bet your sweet a$$ “a response is in order” – Judge Biggers orders USA response to Zach Scruggs’ motion to vacate

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.