Tag: Zach Scruggs

gotta be the full moon – the howlin’ and jowlin’ “media narrative” about the dismissal of the Farese bar complaint filed by Zach Scruggs

“Once many people believe something and enjoy a significant amount of communal reinforcement, they get very selective about the type of data they pay attention to in the future”.

Fact is seemingly irrelevant to the Patsy Brumfield-wannabes-but-can’t who, like wolves at the sight of the full moon, prefer howlin’ and jowlin’ “communal reinforcement” to informed discussion.

In addition to the Complaint filed by Scruggs and the response filed by his former attorney Anthony Farese, the members of the Committee on Professional Responsibility for the Mississippi Bar Association had an Ethics Opinion drafted by former Bar President Cham Trotter (linked here and below in Scribd’ format).

Read Trotter’s Ethics Opinion, take a look at his attached Curriculum Vitae and see if you, like the Bar Committee, find “No ‘clear and convincing’ evidence” of “inadequate representation”.

SLABBED reports, you decide.

[scribd id=51273134 key=key-2aumxnexgzmv11mc0u47 mode=list]

BREAKING NEWS: Y’all Come, door’s open! – Biggers’ Order responds to Zach Scruggs’ Motion for Depositions

As folks here say, Judge Biggers “just outdid himself “with this Order!

In resolving the issues raised by the petitioner, the court is going to consider evidence in open court from live witnesses in accordance with the Rules of Evidence.The petitioner has presented to the court the names of witnesses he wants to depose, and the government has responded as to why some of the potential witnesses are not relevant to issues in the upcoming hearing. The court will not pre-judge what testimony potential witnesses may give and therefore will not disallow the petitioner to call some witnesses and allow him to call other witnesses; but the court will take up any objections made to questions of witnesses as they may come up from either party in open court based on the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Oxford is definitely the place to be on the 24th of April. Expect standing-room-only if you’re planning to attend the Hearing on Zach Scruggs’ Motion to Vacate! Dick Scruggs, Sid Backstrom, Steve Patterson, Tim Balducci, Judge Lackey, Tom Dawson, Bob Norman, Anthony Farese, and Dick Scruggs, Sid Backstrom, Steve Patterson, Tim Balducci, Judge Lackey, Tom Dawson, Bob Norman, Anthony Farese, and FBI Agent William Dulaney will all be there with Zach.

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”

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?”

“Will the April 25th hearing become the trial that never happened”?

Bullseye! Patsy Brumfield hit dead center with Zach Scruggs hearing could unveil additional information for NEMS360.com. A look at the transcript of Zach’s plea hearing indicates Zach’s Motion to Vacate, like Brumfield’s take on the case,  is right on target.

I didn’ t conspire to bribe Judge Lackey in connection with an arbitration order, and I would have stopped it had I known.

However, I did have some knowledge that Tim Balducci had a close personal relationship with Judge Lackey, and that he used that personal relationship to have improper ex parte contacts with the judge regarding the order. Such improper contacts, left unchecked, can – – and in this case did – – deprive the people of the state of Mississippi of fair and honest services.

Nowadays, two significant events make Zach’s “crime” what it was at the time – an ethical violation. The first of these events was Continue reading ““Will the April 25th hearing become the trial that never happened”?”