folo

folo header image 2

Balducci: “This ain’t my first rodeo with Scruggs.” (a 9/27 partial transcript)

February 12th, 2008 @ 11:21 pm - by NMC · 4 Comments

The title is, I think, a shout-out to our friends who represented the plaintiff in Wilson v. Scruggs.

This is another face-to-face meeting. The transcript skips four pages, beginning with text on page 6. Lackey is talking about his medical treatment. Lackey introduces the topic-at-hand, saying, “Well, what did the, let me, let me, let me tell you, I don’t want a nickel of your money, Tim.” Tim says he knows that, and Lackey says, “And if this is not comin’ back to you or if it’s not, uh, Mr. Scruggs’ money, I don’t want a nickel of it because it’s not gonna do Tim any good and he’s not the one I’m trying to help.”

Balducci says he understands, and tells Lackey not to worry. “All that’s been taken care of.”

Lackey responds, “This is my first trip and I know you think I’m a complete horse’s ass.” Balducci says no, and Lackey responds, “I feel lower than whale shit to tell you the truth.”

Balducci says there is no reason to, and that he’s glad to be in a position to help Lackey. He says it’s embarrassing, but he’s glad to be in a position to try to help. He reminds Lackey this is just between the two of them, “There ain’t another soul in the world that knows about this.”

Lackey: You don’t, now I would think Mr. Scruggs would have to know something about it.

Balducci: … here’s how it works, just so you’ll have some, some comfort, some understandin’ of how it works. Um, they’ll come a time where I’ll sit him down in private and I’ll tell him that I solved a problem for him.

Has Tim watched the scene in the office at the start of the Godfather one time too many? “Don Corleone, I want you to know that Judge Lackey once solved a problem for you.”

Balducci: That he had a problem that needed solving.

Lackey: Alright.

Balducci: And that, that he needs to take care of the problem that I solved for him.

Balducci says that’s how it works, and that Lackey shouldn’t worry about it. Lackey then says that he’s heard that with substantial cash withdrawals, you have to sign for them. Balducci says that the money did not come from a bank.

Balducci: Judge, I, one thing, I’ve been around long enough to know and I’ve been involved in enough to know over time you always gotta have a slush fund.

At this point the transcript skips again, for ten whole pages, allowing me space for the editorial comment that it is not very credible to suggest that someone with a cash slush fund was somehow entrapped by the government into bribing Judge Lackey.

After the skip, Balducci says he grew up in Judge Lackey’s and Judge Coleman’s court, and that they taught him to practice law. Lackey asks Balducci to tell Scruggs that this is “a first time venture for me.”

Balducci responds: “He’s [Scruggs] not even involved at that level, judge.” (what level is he involved at, I ask?) “… I’ll just go to him at some point in time and say I’ve cured a problem that you had… and you need to, you need to recognize the problem that I’ve cured for you. … That’s how it works.”

I’m hearing the Godfather theme music again.

Balducci: … he’s not involved in a direct manner… doesn’t wanna be. Doesn’t need to be. He knows how things work. … I mean he, you know, you don’t, you don’t climb the mount he’s climbed without cuttin’ a corner here and there, so, it uh, you know, like I said, I will be fine. I will be fine because I will tell him and he trusts me implicitly. And listen, this ain’t my first rodeo with Scruggs.

After a couple of “ok’s” from Judge Lackey, Balducci says: “So he knows, he knows the drill… [Y]ou can take comfort in knowin’ this is between me and you. This doesn’t go any further.”

Lackey comments that he doesn’t “want Norman or anybody like that” to know. Balducci, knowing that this is a reference to a lawyer who is of-counsel in his new firm who had been Federal District Court clerk and state court chancellor, says “Shit, no.” After some more “shit no’s” the transcript again stops in the middle.

Tags: , , , ,
Filed Under: Herald & Examiner

4 Responses so far ↓

  1. iwannaknow says:

    NMC – what is US v Wilson? Did you mean to say Wilson v Scruggs?

  2. lotus says:

    I think he must have, iwannaknow, so I changed it. Refresh screen.

  3. ItsAboutTime says:

    I have a question for all you criminal lawyers out there:
    If scruggs hired Balducci (or Peters) to use his friendship to influence Judge Lackey (or Delaughter) and to influence the outcome of the case with no money involved (except to Balducci or Peters) what is the crime? Must be one. Or perhaps just unethical? Certainly a deprivation of property without due process under color of state law under 1983, but what is the corresponding criminal statute?

  4. a friend of the law says:

    Its called a buffer. “The family has a lotta buffas”.