The January 2nd motion to continue from Scruggs (linked here, in a discussion of the motions deadline in the case for tomorrow) lists motions that they may be filing. Here’s what they said they were thinking about a few weeks ago:
- A motion to suppress. This is an effort to have the court rule that materials seized at the Scruggs firm and “all wiretapped materials” should not be admitted. This motion can’t reach conversations that don’t involve Dickie or Zach Scruggs or Sidney Backstrom, I don’t think. The basis is (according to Scruggs) that the affidavit to get the warrants was false because it omitted exculpatory evidence. This motion will require an evidentiary hearing.
- Motion to dismiss the indictment based on “outrageous government conduct” involving the nondisclosure of exculpatory evidence.
- Severance motions, that is motions for separate trials of Scruggs (father and son) and Backstrom.
- Motions about the accuracy and reliability of the tape recordings.
- Motions to dismiss counts 2, 3, and 4 of the indictment on the theory that the bribery of a state court judge does not meet the crime charged because of the lack of involvement of federal funds. This, says the motion to continue, may require an evidentiary hearing about the nature and extent of the federal funding in the 3rd Circuit Court district of Mississippi.
- Conspiracy-related motions about both admissibility of statements by co-conspirators (for instance– Langston, Balducci, and Patterson) and issues relating to whether the Scruggs and Backstrom can be liable for conduct by their alleged co-conspirators (the same trio).
- Motions relating to jury selection and voir dire considering the publicity about the case.
Lordy what a ball of snakes!
#2 has to take the cake for Big Gonads Of The Week.
Seems to me the Outrageous Conduct is the reason all these folks are racking up the billable hours in the first place.
There is no doubt that SOMEONE has been outrageous, Bustednuckles. The dispute here is about WHO!
I agree Busted, about #2. I can’t imagine that’s going to go anywhere. I wonder if he has to prove #2 first to get anywhere with the rest.
Thats what I was mulling over myself bellesouth, I just didn’t articulate my thoughts very well.
If, IF, they could get some traction with #2 it would go a long way towards pushing a lot of other issues to the edge of the slippery slope.
Proving Outrageous Conduct against the government is betting big with a two seven off suit hand.
Get ‘em to blink hard enough and you take some of the pressure off.
Of course, IANAL, I AAIM*, YMMV.
*I Am An Ignorant Mechanic
Oklahoma 1999
by Dean Starkman, Columbia Journalism Review
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/oklahoma_1999.php
The adjusting firm was E.A. Renfroe. This is the case with the video of Lecky King taking the fifth.
Wow, Researcher, thanks for that link. Y’all, it begins:
Great story, researcher, but seven years is a longggg time!
jim’s comment on another thread made me wonder if you know how much SF spends on advertising with gannett.
LeBron James / State Farm News in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2008-02-07-cavs-rockets-preview_N.htm
James also showed Wednesday he can be generous. His foundation announced an initiative to build playgrounds for various communities across the country. The first, sponsored by State Farm, will be opened Feb. 14 at the St. Bernard Recreation Center in New Orleans, the day before All-Star weekend tips off. “It’s going to be a great place to play, have fun and hang out with friends and family,” he said.
I had forgotten about this trick, but rediscovered it in the Times Picayune archives (from April 2007) while looking for the LaBron article. Fortunately, State Farm and Travelers were forced to back down from this argument:
http://tinyurl.com/289rjq
Insurer drops arguments that disaster loans void insurance appeals
By Rebecca Mowbray
Business writer
… Travelers, the state’s largest commercial property insurer, and State Farm, Louisiana’s largest residential insurer, came under fire last week from SBA Administrator Steven Preston and U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu after the insurers filed motions in a class action lawsuit in New Orleans arguing that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue because they had SBA loans.
Because SBA borrowers are required to assign any additional insurance proceeds to the SBA to repay the loan, the insurers argued that the borrowers had taken themselves out of the equation and lacked the legal stature to bring suit. Preston said he was "very, very concerned " and Landrieu, D-Louisiana, called the situation "outrageous, " saying that, if granted, the motions would allow insurers to get out of paying additional insurance benefits, leaving policyholders stuck with loans instead of insurance proceeds.
…
Does anyone know if any motions were filed in US v. Scruggs today? Wasn’t today the deadline?
Two motions to Sever Trial on behalf of Zach Scruggs and Backstrom so far. You are allowed until midnight to file.
Same reporter, last Friday. Guess she’s keeping a close eye out for former state insurance commissioners.
tinyurl.com/232axa
Rebecca Mowbray, The Times-Picayune
Friday February 08, 2008, 2:06 PM
Attorneys for the Louisiana Department of Insurance and Allstate met this morning to discuss longtime policyholders who say they lost their wind and hail coverage in a bait-and-switch, but no agreements were reached about how to handle the situation.
Warren Byrd, executive counsel for the insurance department, said he met with Tom Clark, an attorney from Adams & Reese LLP who represents Allstate in regulatory matters.
“They’re still trying to get a handle of how many people may be involved,” Byrd said. “We obviously want to know how big the problem is.”
The insurance department has received complaints from policyholders of Allstate and Encompass, Allstate’s brand of insurance sold through independent insurance agents. Customers say that when they took advantage of discount offers, their policies were re-written from Allstate Insurance Co. to Allstate Indemnity Co. or from Encompass Insurance Co. to Encompass Indemnity Co., and then Allstate used these changes to redefine them as new insurance clients who were eligible to be canceled.
Under state law, homeowners insurance companies have wide latitude to cancel people’s coverage as long as they’ve been with the company for less than three years. After that, companies are essentially married to their customers.
Allstate says that when customers chose to take advantage of discounts, they chose to take out new policies, and they assume the risks of any other changes that may come with that decision.
In December, after studying the issue for several months, the insurance department wrote to Allstate and ordered the company to reinstate the wind and hail coverage for 17 longtime customers who had complained.
The insurance department does not know how many people in this situation have received, or are on the list to receive, cancellation letters, so Byrd says the department has been amenable to allowing Allstate to take some additional time beyond the original one-month reply period to get a handle on the situation, since it could ultimately help more people.
“My guess is we’ll meet next week again,” Byrd said.
Do we have the motions and I just don’t know where to look?