Comments on: NMC: Jones, Funderburg v. Scruggs: Judge rules no to arbitration AT THIS TIME

By: nah

nah — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:17:18 +0000

In my view, this ruling very significantly undermines the criminal case. Where’s the motive? Why would anyone bribe a judge to do what the law requires anyway? If your best argument against these very succesful attorneys is that they are “idiots,” as a poster above comments, that’s pretty weak.

By: . . . and your little dog, too

. . . and your little dog, too — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:38:59 +0000

Jones, Funderburg … Tollison’s client, who were suing Scruggs and his fellow Katrina groupies.

Thanks, NMC for that clarification .

By: nmisscommenter

nmisscommenter — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:36:48 +0000

You’re right, Around Town.

By: Around Town

Around Town — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:32:25 +0000

Not to mention the criminal ramifications. All I can think is “idiots.”

By: Around Town

Around Town — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:31:11 +0000

This ruling certainly sucked the wind out of Scruggs, et. al. To think, the case would be headed to arbitration (their preferred method of resolution) save the sanctions hearing which arose from the attempted bribe of Judge Lackey in which they tried to have him enter an order sending the case to arbitration. Wow.

By: nmisscommenter

nmisscommenter — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:07:42 +0000

Kinda/sorta, NAAS– there was some backpedaling about whether the motion to continue filed in the criminal case changed the judge’s ruling, and the judge made clear he’d hear legal arguments before the 24th of Feb. The soft delay seemed responsive to the argument by the Scruggs lawyer that Scruggs not be forced to make the decision of whether to testify or assert the fifth amendment while facing the criminal prosecution.

By: Not At All Surprised

Not At All Surprised — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:02:03 +0000

IMHO, it looks like the court deferred the decision on arbitration pending the outcome of the criminal case, at which time he could grant the motion for sanctions and, as a sanction, make the finding that the defendants have waived the arbitration clause.

By: jim

jim — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:42:42 +0000

Well Lotus it will be most interesting to say the least. Balducci = buried bodies, P.L. Blake = another damn graveyard. I just wonder if Dickie and/or P.L. find their lost memory regarding their agreement?

By: nmisscommenter

nmisscommenter — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:30:52 +0000

Jones, Funderburg– Tollison’s client, who were suing Scruggs and his fellow Katrina groupies.

By: . . . and your little dog, too

. . . and your little dog, too — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:29:08 +0000

Really basic question: Who are the plaintiffs in this excerpt:

" "That Plaintiffs failed to initiate arbitration as required by AAA rules " "

Thanks,
LD