NMC over at folo unearthed some very interesting filings in US. v Scruggs. The three “so-called” special federal prosecutors appointed by “so-called” Judge Acker to prosecute Scruggs for criminal contempt were confused about the timing for appeal of Judge Vinson’s order. Criminal appeals have to be within 30 days, other appeals have 60 days to file.
. . . a little over two weeks after thirty days, the special prosecutors filed a motion for more time to file a notice of appeal, saying they had inadvertently misunderstood the rules. The motion is Exhibit B to Judge Acker’s order (found here).
Scruggs’s lawyers (Keker’s firm) fired back with a forceful and blunt response that this wasn’t allowed, and Judge Vinson almost immediately agreed, ruling that there was no basis to extend the time for a notice of appeal.
Well, Judge Acker apparently liked the description of the facts about Scruggs’s behavior in the special prosecution’s motion (although he does admit Judge Vinson was correct in overruling it), and so Judge Acker attached the motion as an exhibit to his opinion from yesterday.
Scruggs’ response is very telling about what happened. The special three called for evidentiary hearings in Continue reading “There was more going on before Judge Acker threw his temper tantrum”
Patsy Brumfield can take care of herself. However, after writing countless words about people I don’t know, it didn’t seem right not to do a sentence paragraph or two about one that I do – if for no other reason that to point out she’s more than just a reporter whose stepped in the biggest bunch of bull Mike Moore had ever heard.
By title, she’s the news editor of the Daily Journal – living a good distance from where she grew up but by no means as far as she could go. We lose so many of our best and brightest to bigger and better opportunities in other states that we often fail to celebrate the talents of those who chose to live among us. Continue reading “Patsy Brumfield – the real deal”
This post title is a quote from today’s Sun Herald given by Mike Moore in response to an allegation made by Judge Henry Lackey that parrots an often repeated State Farm PR talking point regarding Jim Hood being pressured by Mike Moore on behalf of Dickie Scruggs to drop his criminal investigation of State Farm. I’m unsure how Judge Lackey would know such things but perhaps it does illuminate how the man thinks and operates. My blog partner Nowdy has covered Judge Lackey’s sometimes confusing testimony here and here for those interested. Here is today’s story:
Attorney General Jim Hood denies his predecessor delivered a warning that a wealthy lawyer would fund an opponent in last year’s election if Hood didn’t cooperate in Hurricane Katrina litigation.
The allegation was made by Lafayette County Circuit Judge Henry Lackey, who is at the center of a judicial bribery scandal that toppled some of the most powerful attorneys in Mississippi. Continue reading ““That’s the Biggest Bunch of Bull I’ve Ever Heard””
Some people like money, some people like power. People that like power go into politics. Me, I like money and money rents power so I get the best of both worlds. -Quote from a highly successful coast businessman to young Sop many years ago.
Early on the “Jim Hood is a crook campaign” struck me as a partisan political affair because no evidence has been produced against Mr Hood except guilt by association. One thing I’ve learned is that politicians of all stripes taking campaign ca$h from less than reputable characters is hardly new. It’s equally clear the goals of the parties to such transaction are manifestly differing; a politician lives to be re elected and ca$h is the mothers milk of that endeavor. Donors expect their contributions to result in access though not necessarily for help in committing a crime certainly to further their interests. While I’ll grant when the scandal hits the fan such arrangement do not look good it is also equally true that such arrangements do not imply a conspiracy between the parties in furtherance of criminal activities. In fact the more likely implication is simply the politician needed money and was willing to take it from whomever was willing to contribute. Continue reading “Laws Against Judicial Bribery and Jim Hood Redux”
Any meme suggesting Judge Henry Lackey may be something other than a pillar of judicial integrity is more likely a different schema of Judge Lackey.
A schema (pl. schemata) is a mental structure that represents some aspect of the world… People use schemata to organize current knowledge and provide a framework for future understanding…
However, schemata can influence and hamper the uptake of new information (proactive interference), such as when existing stereotypes, giving rise to limited or biased discourses and expectations (prejudices), may lead an individual to ‘see’ or ‘remember’ something that has not happened because it is more believable in terms of his/her schema:
Schema is a theory of learning – therefore, schemata are either taught or caught. In the case of Judge Lackey as the hero of USA v Scruggs, the schema was both taught and caught.
New information that falls within an individual’s schema is easily remembered and incorporated into their world view. However, when new information is perceived that does not fit a schema, many things can happen. The most common reaction is to simply ignore or quickly forget the new information. This can happen on a deep level — frequently an individual does not become conscious of or even perceive the new information. However, when the new information cannot be ignored, existing schemata must be changed. Continue reading “Schema of Judge Lackey trumps any meme about his conduct”
Here’s an “aha moment” to start the week. HB1108 – a bill making judicial bribery illegal in the State – according to the Sun Herald is on it’s way to the Governor.
As he stood at the podium Thursday to present a House bill making bribing a judge a felony, Senate Judiciary Chairman Joey Fillingane wasn’t sure what the current law said.
After Sen. David Jordan, D-Greenwood, asked the question, Fillingane, R-Sumrall, said he thought it was a misdemeanor to bribe a judge and decided to look it up.
But he found there were no state laws against judicial bribery.
Thinking back to the right wing based non stop Jim Hood bashing in the aftermath of the Judicial Bribery scandal revelations, it should come as no surprise that the often repeated calls for a state prosecution never asked a basic but very important question. Is bribing a judge against the law in Mississippi? Evidently it was not. Continue reading “Laws Against Judicial bribery, Justice and Jim Hood”
If Scruggs made his cases on a three legged stool: the law, politics, and public relations, how many legs are on the stool making this case?