folo

UPDATED BELOW

What/whether this has to do with Trent Lott’s sudden retirement two days ago I can’t say, but late yesterday some of his close kin sho’ly got themselves heavy-duty indicted (pdf). Along with three alleged co-conspirators, they’re accused of bribing a Mississippi judge (who, having received an “overture” in late March, promptly tipped off the Feds and apparently wore a wire thereafter).

Trent’s brother-in-law Dickie Scruggs, due to his success in asbestos and tobacco cases, is probably Miss’ippi’s best-known and richest lawyer, not counting his friend John Grisham — and he’s also a big Clinton supporter. In fact, until yesterday, he was set to host Bill Clinton for a fundraiser at his home. But no doubt that’s off now that he’s joined his son and law partner Zach; Sidney A. Backstrom, another Scruggs firm lawyer; Timothy R. Balducci, an attorney in New Albany, MS; and former State Auditor Steven A. Patterson, a non-lawyer working for Balducci’s firm, as honorees themselves — of a 6-count, 13-page indictment.

The co-operating witness, Circuit Judge Henry L. Lackey, has been presiding over a wrangle between law firms over $26.5 million in fees to be divvied up after State Farm settled some Katrina claims. Dickie an’ them allegedly gave Judge Lackey either $40,000 or $50,000 (the indictment is unclear about his receipt of the final $10,000) to rule in favor of The Scruggs Law Firm, the name defendant in that case.

The indictment says the alleged conspiracy began “between on or about March 15 and March 28, 2007,” when the fivesome met at Dickie’s office in Oxford to discuss how they could influence the outcome of the fee-dispute case. Phone calls and visits from Tim Balducci to Judge Lackey ensued; between September 27 and November 1, he visited Lackey’s chambers in Calhoun County three times to deliver cash (which Dickie reimbursed, allegedly phonying-up some paperwork to look like he was compensating Balducci for work on a different case). Returning from the last meeting with a court order, according to the indictment, Balducci told Zach Scruggs and Backstrom, “We paid for this ruling; let’s be sure it says what we want it to say.” (Um, ya think Backstrom’s turned? Me too.)

I must say, Balducci’s (alleged) talk gives the indictment great tang. Have a taste:

On or about May 9, 2007, TIMOTHY R. BALDUCCI had a conversation with Judge Lackey wherein BALDUCCI stated that “my relationship with Dick [Scruggs] is such that he and I can talk very private [sic] about these kinds of matters and I have the fullest confidence that if the court, you know, is inclined to rule . . . in favor . . . everything will be good . . .” “The only person in the world outside of you and me that has discussed this is me and Dick [Scruggs].” “. . . We, uh, like I say, it ain’t but three people in the world that know anything about this . . . and two of them are sitting here and the other one . . . the other one, uh, being Scruggs. . . he and I, um, how shall I say, for over the last five or six years there, there are bodies buried that, that you know, that [Scruggs] and I know where. . . where are, and, and, my, my trust is his, mine in him and his in mine, in me, I’m sure are the same.”

Classic, huh? And, man, if he doesn’t go down for bribery and conspiracy, the Mississippi Bar may be self-respecting enough to pull his ticket on grounds of grammar.

Meanwhile, recall that, as Scott Horton noted, the last Federal investigator interested in Dickie Scruggs suddenly found himself reassigned.

His new duty station was Guantanamo, where his accountancy skills were unlikely to be of much use, but from which he was not likely to be heard again.

When Alberto Gonzales was Attorney General, tapes and transcripts too could always disappear if they needed to, but maybe that’s no longer quite the case? Hide ‘n’ watch.

Anyhow, Max Follmer at HufPo and Peter Lattman at the Wall Street Journal have more. Last evening emptywheel wrote:

Now, as bmaz pointed out on yesterday’s thread on Scruggs, Scruggs was due to hold a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton — so it’s not like Scruggs espouses the same politics as his brother-in-law, and it adds this to a long list of cases in which Trial Lawyers who support Democrats get into legal trouble. Also note, this is not the Paul Minor case, as I suggested it might be yesterday. This has to do with Scruggs’ efforts to help a lot of Katrina victims get their money from State Farm.

I have no idea if there’s merit to the charges — with this DOJ, who knows?

Well, I feel sure emptywheel hadn’t at that point seen Balducci’s (obviously transcribed-from-a-wire) May 9 speech. But whether Dickie Scruggs walked right into this or no, her “with this DOJ, who knows?” point is by far the loudest-ringing shame here.

Stand by for updates . . .

lotus

UPDATE: Well, ya getcher ups and yer downs . . . The Jackson Clarion-Ledger‘s latest story provides this interesting bit:

Not long after drawing applause for allowing University of Mississippi officials to use his private jet to fly new football coach Houston Nutt to Oxford, Scruggs turned himself in to authorities Wednesday afternoon.

The paper also says that each defendant is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, converting property, and wire fraud — for which, if convicted on all counts, they’re looking at “up to 75 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines.”

Also:

[Dickie's] success in winning Mississippi’s landmark tobacco settlement led to his portrayal in the film The Insider, starring Russell Crowe and Al Pacino.

Then-Attorney General Mike Moore, who portrayed himself in the movie, hired Scruggs to handle the litigation on the state’s behalf – a move later criticized by some because Scruggs and other lawyers received millions in legal fees.

The local theory seems to be that Balducci, not Backstrom, flipped:

Legal experts say the word-for-word conversations between Balducci and others besides the judge seem to suggest he began to cooperate at a certain point with the government.

I guess if they played their May 9 tape for his edification, he’d have had plenty reason to accept such an invitation, wouldn’t he?

And of course:

At one point, Balducci is quoted as telling the judge: “How shall I say, for over the last five or six years there, there are bodies buried that, that you know, that he (Dickie Scruggs) and I know where … (they) are.”

If Balducci is referring to cases beyond Katrina, it could potentially have an effect on those cases, experts say.

“I assume those cases could be exhumed and used for a basis for further attacks,” said Aaron Condon, professor emeritus at the University of Mississippi School of Law.