The 9/21 meeting between Balducci and Judge Lackey is a “consensual conversation,” which means it was the two of them meeting in person with one– that would be Judge Lackey– agreeing to be recorded. It’s another one that Keker on behalf of Scruggs filed with parts missing, and it’s also important because it’s in the time-frame when the conversations were shifting from influence to out-and-out-bribery.
I suppose I’m being excruciating here, but bear with me.
Balducci arrives and they greet each other on the first page, with the standard lawyer-joke about the mess in Lackey’s office. “Yeah, my filing system,” says Judge Lackey) and then the transcript blanks for 7 pages. What are we missing?
The judge says he appreciates Balducci coming down there, and Balducci says he is glad to listen. “Naw, listen, you and me, we tight now. I mean, there ain’t no, there ain’ t no way to put that now, we’re gonna figure out what we need to do here.”
Lackey: I wanna stay that way.
Balducci: Ain’t no problem, well, I want you to tell me, ’cause I understand what you say on the phone the other day. I want you to tell me, you, you got, you in a position where you need a little help, I, I wanna try to help. Um, but I need I gotta have some kind of parameter to operate in, judge. I need to know kinda where we are. I need to..
This does not sound to me like Balducci is passive and the government active.
Lackey (with some interruptions by Balducci): now, well, I would, you tell ya that what I need, and it may be more, than, than um Mr. Scruggs or whoever would even consider, but, uh, to get me over a hump, I need forty.
Balducci: Forty? Ok.
Lackey: Yeah.
Balducci: Um, alright, you need it pretty soon?
I’m not sure this exactly supports the defense theory of Balducci’s resistance.
Judge Lackey sets a deadline of October 1st, and says “If they, uh if that’s uh inconceivable, uh.” Balducci responds, “No, it, it’s not inconceivable.” Lackey says he could wait on the remainder until the first of November. Balducci says that’s not a problem, and he needs to figure out a way to get it to him.
Balducci: Do you want, are you gonna have to have it in cash? Probably the best way isn’t it.
They agree on that.
Balducci: Well, I’m, what I’ma do is I’m gonna take care of it and you just let me take care of it through me…”
Lackey says he does not want a nickel from Balducci, and Balducci says “That’s not what it’s gonna be.” Lackey says to bring him the order and he will sign it. He says he does not have the old one, that he’s been “wishy washy in this, and, uh, other things have been bothering me.”
Baldducci says, “I understand. I wanna talk to you, I wanna, I wanna lay, lay the corn on the ground too, while we’re here, and I’ll find out what… what’s your plans, judge? What are you gonna do, what are you thinkin’ you’re gonna do? How much time you got left in your term.” Lackey says he has three years but has his health situation.
At this point the transcript that the defense has submitted has a twenty-two page gap. At this point, Baldducci is talking about Langston, I think, and how Balducci’s move might hurt Langston’s practice (this is major arrogance, I might add), and that “that program has moved to New Albany now. I’m sure he’ll land on his feet and keep on goin.’” Lackey responds: “Yeah. He might delay the purchase of another jet. Another Rolex or two.”
I’m guessing here that Balducci is trying to suggest that Langston is going to be hurting some because Balducci has left him.
Balducci then offers to help Lackey on his next move, and “These are not, one thing is not connected to another,” he says, “I’d be tickled to death and humbled if you’d think about doin’ something with us.” They agree to get back together the first of the week.
Balducci then asks if this “is gonna take care of your problems,” and says “cause goin’ to the well… is one thing, but you don’t wanna, you don’t wanna come up with the bucket half empty, if we need to…” Lackey says that’s fine.
Once again the transcript ends without formally closing with “(end of transcript).”
Timmy B is just pure deee entertaining to read. He’s got more sayings than e-harmony has fat chicks.
Wonder if he’s as entertaining to his fellow construction workers? Hope he ain’t messin up those soft, purty lawyer hands. Might need em in the pen.
Sweet potatoes, peanut brittle, huckleberry, corn…we have a recurrent theme!
I really, really want to know: what the heck does that corn on the ground remark mean?
As a hunter, I thought of baited fields.
corn on ground = getting something started, getting something in motion.
Is quote #1 the supporting evidence for quote #2?
Quote #1: (from the post above)
“These are not, one thing is not connected to another, " he says, "I’d be tickled to death and humbled if you’d think about doin’ something with us. "
Quote #2
Lackey said as he was getting ready to put on his robe, Balducci said he could have a place in his law firm after he stepped down from the bench[and] was so upset by this offer that he reported the matter to federal prosecutors.
You have quote number 2 slightly wrong, nowdoucit. According to Grady Tollison, Judge Lackey would testify that at the first meeting (3/28), Balducci said that “when you put down your robe” you can come with us.
I’ve heard indications that Balducci may be so clueless that he didn’t think that first remark would be an inducement. It’s that remark that I think you’re recalling as Quote 2, and that sent Lackey to the feds. Quote 1 is a repeat along the same lines.
So searching the internet, I see “corn on the ground” used to refer to baiting a field, to wasted corn that’s on the ground because it isn’t worth harvesting, to the part of the landlord’s share in England circa 1750 (that would be wheat, though). Supergreg suggests his theory. Here’s the quote again: “I wanna talk to you, I wanna, I wanna lay, lay the corn on the ground too, while we’re here, and I’ll find out what " what’s your plans, judge? What are you gonna do, what are you thinkin’ you’re gonna do? How much time you got left in your term.”
I think supergreg may be correct given context.
TB was on his way to Scruggs office. In a phone conversation Patterson told TB to mention to Sid “IUPE”. He said his reaction would be very positive.
May have something to do with 2 phone calls TB says he was going to ask Sid to make.
Any thoughts on what this means?
“Corn on the ground” is derived from the practice of leaving a trail of corn for chickens to follow back to the henhouse…or at least that’s what I was taught as a child.
I just looked at that transcript, IAG, and it doesn’t ring any bells to me. An internet search turns up nothing likely, unless you count a restaurant in Ocean Springs. Do you have any clues?
The Iupe’s used to own a clothing store in Canton…and an interest of some sort in TC’s Uniforms in Jackson.
That ain’t corn, thats yeller acorns your looking at!
I’m no more “slightly wrong” than Rossmiller who cited the same quote from the same news report of Tollison speaking to what Judge Lackey would testify.
http://tinyurl.com/2rsmrh
However, your different take on the same is consistent with your post here on January 14
“At the next meeting, Balducci said that when Lackey "got ready to put down the robe " he could have a place in Balducci’s firm.”
Now about that “corn on the ground”… Expressions like that are not taught – they’re caught. We pick them up in conversation and later use them in same; but, as we understand the meaning – which may or may not be the meaning as defined.
There is now an Iupe establishment in a strip mall along Highway 51 in Madison. I believe it is operated by the same Iupe family that had (or maybe still has) the place in Canton.
NMC (or somebody), would you please point me to our link to that transcript? Thanks.
Being a child of a planter, corn on the ground meant a commitment by the farm hands that nothing else could be done until the corn was in the crib. Most everyone in the state has farm ROOTS , what I see is what the farmer sees , what Tim and Judge Lackey saw…a commitment because the weather might change , the status of this lawsuit might change if a commitment is not worked out today.
Thanks for 16, mag. It makes good sense in the context, fer sher. Razor’s 9 is the one I’m more familiar with (from my grandmaw’s backyard), but yours probably works better here.
Maybe folo’s gonna need a separate “Balduccisms” page before this is over. I know what the B section begins with: “bodies buried” . . .
I don’t take the sense of it the way magnolia does. The closest anyone has come to me is that he’s trying to make something happen– e.g. planting corn to grow. That’s what supergreg suggested in 4. There’s no sense of “hurry or we’ll miss our chance” in this quote: ” "I understand. I wanna talk to you, I wanna, I wanna lay, lay the corn on the ground too, while we’re here, and I’ll find out what " what’s your plans, judge? What are you gonna do, what are you thinkin’ you’re gonna do? How much time you got left in your term. "
Reads to me more of “I’m planting seeds.” But it’s not completely clear.
what transcript are you seeking, Lotus?
Morning, NMC. I’m looking for the one with the “IUPE” reference y’all were talking about.
Nowdoucit:
You are citing Jerry Mitchell (who was at least there in the courtroom when Tollison said what Lackey’s testimony would be) not Rossmiller, nowdoucit. Mitchell’s quote is slightly mangled, but it doesn’t say what you’re reading it to say (and what Tollison actually said was even less so– because he had Balducci say the line about “put down your robe.” In any event, here’s Mitchell’s version:
“Lackey said as he was getting ready to put on his robe, Balducci said he could have a place in his law firm after he stepped down from the bench, according to Tollison, who is representing the lawyers suing Scruggs over the legalfees.”
BTW, NMC (et al.), did you see IATime’s good question here?
The IUPE thing is in the conversation between Steve Patterson and Balducci that is one of the exhibits to the motion to dismiss. I’m sorry I don’t remember which one. I’ll try to pull out the quote later. It’s pretty cryptic.
I saw the question, IATime, and started to make a comment and got distracted…. maybe in a moment!
Okay, NMC 24, thanks.
I may try to do a freestanding post about the Patterson Balducci transcript later today.
IUPE is mentioned in Exhibit 35
I was struck also by the comment when Balducci asked Patterson regarding his conversation with “PL” … “did you pad it?” Patterson said “no,” and Balducci replied, “good.” Hmmm… wonder if they’ve padded before?
n miss, here’s the full text of the related section. I did not use the first paragraph and I delete the reference to Tollison but otherwise took the text straight from Mitchell’s article – however, you missed the last paragraph/sentence that I joined with [and]
What is it that doesn’t mean what I said it did?
“Lackey wasn’t permitted to testify, either, but Oxford lawyer Grady Tollison said if he were, he would testify Balducci approached him in March 2007 about ruling in Scruggs’ favor.
Lackey said as he was getting ready to put on his robe, Balducci said he could have a place in his law firm after he stepped down from the bench, according to Tollison, who is representing the lawyers suing Scruggs over the legalfees.
Tollison said Lackey was so upset by this offer that he reported the matter to federal prosecutors”