“I’ll be with you when the deal goes down.”
Bob Dylan, “When The Deal Goes Down”
This series of posts outlines what is public about the conversations that led to the indictment of Dickie Scruggs and others for judicial bribery. Part 1 outlined Tim Balducci’s initial off-the-record approach to Judge Lackey and Part 2 described conversations between the two from late May until early September, a period the defense says Lackey “pursued” Balducci. Part 3 deals with the period that talk moves from hints to an actual cash bribe. Part 4 deals with the first cash payment of half the bribe, $20,000, and conversations involving Steve Patterson about P.L. Blake’s role. In this post, the players move toward the climactic events of November 1st.
Not by coincidence, at this point, the defense finds the transcript less, um, useful to make their points, and I’m having to depend on other sources for an account. Unless noted, the descriptions below are from the summaries in various applications for wiretaps or search warrants.
At this point, Balducci has paid half of a $20,000 cash bribe. The government has a virtual recording studio in Judge Lackey’s office and a wiretap on Balducci’s cell phone. On October 16th, the government applied for and got authority to wiretap Steve Patterson’s cell phone.
- October 16 telephone call, Tim Balducci and Henry Lackey. No transcript or information available.
- October 18th call, Dickie Scruggs to Patterson. Dickie asks if “Tim” is coming over. Patterson says that he is, but has to go to Calhoun City first. Dickie says that everything is ready. “I have a package ready and it’s just waiting for him.” Dickie says that he’s going to have someone wait for Balducci, and Patterson says, “I will just tell him to leave what he’s got for you on your desk.”
- October 18, call, Steve Patterson to Tim Balducci. Patterson asks what is going on with the order and tells Balducci he has talked to Scruggs about “fifteen times and gotta talk to him again.” Balducci says that he, too needs to call Scruggs.
- October 18, call, Tim Balducci and Henry Lackey. Balducci calls Judge Lackey and leaves a message about the order. Judge Lackey calls him back later and makes an arrangement to meet later that day. Balducci calls Judge Lackey later and says he is on his way. About 3:45, Balducci delivers $10,000 in cash to the judge and gets the order signed by the judge for the Scruggs Law Firm. Balducci tells the judge he will have the rest of the payment later that week.
- October 18th call, Patterson to Balducci, saying Balducci needs to go to Oxford and the order needs to be “on Dickie’s desk” and Balducci is to pick up a package from Scruggs’s desk.
- October 18th call, Dickie Scruggs to Patterson, saying that there is a package to be picked up by Balducci with a check fo $40,000 “ostensibly for ‘voir dire’ in Katrina cases.” Balducci is surveilled on this day traveling to Oxford, entering the Scruggs office, and leaving with a package.
- October 18th call, Balducci to Sid Backstrom. Balducci says he has dropped off “the papers we have been waiting on at your office” and that things look good for the people the firm hired. Balducci says he has an “advance copy” and others will get it later. Balducci says he had to “go south to pick up the papers and then went to Oxford.” Balducci says that Dick has hired him to handle voir dire on a Jackson County Katrina case and as a reviewer of other juries and that Balducci has been paid $40,000 in a check he has picked up that day for that. The two agree that things have “worked out good for everybody, if you know what I mean.”
- October 18th call, Balducci to his office, where he tells a staffer, Beau Buse, “the eagle has landed.” Buse says “good.” Balducci says that he is still on the Square in Oxford.
The application for a wiretap extension notes:
Since the signed order (copy) given Balducci and delivered to Scruggs Office on October 18, 2007, will not be entered in the court file nor mailed to the parties, the co-conspirators’ anxiety will heighten and the likelihood of incriminating conversations will increase. … Moreover, Patterson has said in intercepted conversations that he intends to leave the country for 3 or 4 weeks beginning October 16, 1007 [sic]. Therefore, after the final payment, direct conversation over the target cell phone between Balducci and Scruggs is more likely, given the “middleman” Patterson will be unavailable.
- October 31 telephone call Tim Balducci and Henry Lackey. No transcript available.
- October 31 telephone call, Tim Balducci and Sid Backstrom. Transcript available. Balducci calls into the Scruggs law firm, where the receptionist knows him. Balducci says, “What’s happenin’, huckleberry.” Backstrom says, “Not a lot.” He says he might not be there the next day because he’s trying to beg off a deposition.
Balducci: All right. Um, all right, I need to see you tomorrow. I’ve got an agenda of some items I need to [unintelligible], I need an hour of your undivided …
Backstom: Oh, my.
Balducci: …time and attention.
Balckstrom: God. An hour?
Balducci: Yeah, about an hour and some of my agenda has the possibility of making you some money.
Backstrom: Really?
Balducci: Really, so unlike most of the meetings when I come over there that are geared toward making me money, this one this meeting, a small portion of this meeting has to do with making you some money.
They both laugh, and Backstrom says “A small portion. I like that.” Balducci says he is coming over.
Backstrom: Uh, ok. Um, I wanted to ask you too, oh, um about that thing that you have been working on, the jury research. I still haven’t gotten that document.
Balducci: uh, I know, that’s why I’ma be over there tomorrow. That’s one of the things we’ll get hammered out tomorrow.
Backstrom: Yeah. And Dick’s about to melt down, ’cause, you know, you know why.
Balducci: Oh. absolutely, but no, I’m getting’ that, gettin’ that handled in the morning as a matter of fact.
Backstrom: Yeah, yeah.
Balducci: That’s what, I why I’ll be over yonder.
Backstrom: Good.
They then talk about who is using Balducci’s apartment in Oxford on a football weekend.
NMC thanks for the work you’ve done. Especially the “Dylan” lines. When you write your book, we’ll know it by the Dylan quotes at the beginning of each chapter.
It strikes me as strange that one of the most powerful lawyers in the country would consistently keep very young lawyers around him. I am aware of the tobacco lawyers working in Scruggs’ firm. They were mostly right out of law school or extremely young. Here, we have Sid Backstrom, Zach Scruggs and Tim Balducci running the show–all very young. Scruggs then “hires” experienced lawfirms to do the work (and ostensibly fails to pay them). But consider who Scruggs keeps in his “inner circle”—extremely young lawyers. I, for one, find it strange. If I ran an operation such as Scruggs’, I would have the most experienced lawyers in the country working directly with me. This is just one of the things I don’t understand about the man. (I minored in Psychology and am interested in any mental problems which might be detected by his behavior—this may be one of them. Perhaps it is a “control” issue.)
UMATTY–I think you are right on with control. I think this is a situation that is common with big egos.
You are onto something, UMATTY. The control-issue thing is a very clear part of the picture.
There is a way that Scruggs thinks he works magic, and that he doesn’t work the magic with what you and I think of as lawyering. Going back to the tobacco cases, you get an interesting stark comparison between the firm Minnesota hired to do their tobacco litigation (their atty gen, Skip Humphrey, declined to work with Scruggs) and the way Scruggs operated.
The Minnesota lawyers were very high-level aggressive litigators. They convinced the judge that the tobacco industry was misusing atty client privilege to hide things, and by going toe-to-toe and using the rules were able to make the tobacco industry produce the largest library of documents showing how the tobacco industry operated. Perhaps if a couple of smaller caches had not leaked, it would have been easier for the tobacco industry to stonewall in Minnesota. Nevertheless, the consensus is that the straight-up skilled lawyering in Minnesota got the best results.
Scruggs, on the other hand, seems to think it’s done by paying off witnesses to become informants. Shortcuts.
Another weird thing (this may sound contradictory) is the way these cases are litigated. He seems to think the thing to do is turn them into Armageddon– it’s almost as if he adopted the legal strategy of the tobacco companies. Never accept a court’s ruling and move on, always ask repeatedly, again and again, constantly attempt interlocutory appeals, etc. His cases will have multiple summary judgment motions that seem to replow the same ground. None of this stuff seems to my mind calculated to move the case toward the place Scruggs wants them to be. Oddly enough, his opponents often seem to respond in kind.
UMATTY,It appeared Langston was going down the sameroad…Oh How did he get in with Scruggs Tobacco>>>No dispute on fees, doesn’t pass the smell test>>>Who paid taxes on all this money or was that part of the web of weaving in and out…Were is the IRS..They would have seperated most of us from our pototaes early on and the CL would have put our picture out to the world.
Another issue on “control” which has been discussed at length: Scruggs never (or rarely) appeared personally before a jury. He operated through Chancellors (Mississippi Judges who make decisions without juries) and through Arbitration. He could “control” individuals—harder to “control” juries.
Magnolia, not to worry. The plea agreements allow for tax evasion prosecution. Forensic accountants have been brought in from Washington to follow the money trail. Don’t count the IRS out just yet!
Magnolia, as for Langston, this goes back to the “control” issue. Langston did practice before juries and made a lot of money without Scruggs. Scruggs apparently didn’t want anyone to be “bigger” than himself, so he enlisted Langston to be “on the Scruggs team.” That’s another reason he didn’t pay the lawfirms he associated with—-he had to be in control. Although the amounts of money involved in these disputes are extremely large in my practice, they are “chicken change” to Scruggs. With his money, he could have easily made $25,000,000 in less than a month just on investments and interest payments. But gotta get in a fight to show who is in control.
Umatty, I sure am happy to hear that about the IRS and the forensic accountants.
Yes and many with the control and ego issues sooner or later get careless. They reach a point they feel they are superman and invisible and bingo one mistake and they are in trouble. I think you can lump control,ego, greed and you have the picture. Old Grady’s “hubris” ain’t bad either.
UMATTY #3 Could it be Dickie’s Navy training. You ever see the leadership on a carrier. Those guys are babies.
A comon theme I keep seeing from the lawyers who comment here: You take pride in your work & you care about your clients and your profession.
On the other hand the theme I see (and NMC re-pointed it out to me) with the players in Scrugsianna is SHOW ME THE MONEY-greed.
One of my professors once said that “The top of the class makes the best researchers; the middle of the class makes the best [practioners]; and the bottom of the class makes the most money.” He was saying that some people will just chase the $ without regard for those around them.
If I were to take my professor’s statement literally, I could guess where Dickie would have been in his class rankings.
Jim, the accountants will uncover every dime. One reason that the amount of money that was paid to Lackey was so small (and paid in increments) is that it is difficult to obtain $10,000 or more from a bank account without the IRS being alerted. Of course, if you are paying your taxes, you couldn’t care less and don’t worry about such things. You can rest assured that Balducci wasn’t given a 10-99 for the money he received! (You can read between the lines that Lackey was to expect a much larger payout later.) And on top of the IRS, don’t forget about all of these local District Attorneys. I’ve never known one who didn’t want to get his name in the paper. The Feds have told them to hold off (the plea agreements allow for state prosecution) until their cases are finished. Then the local DA’s will be itching to drag the defendants out of the federal penitientaries for state prosecution.
SameOL, we must have had the same professor. Sadly, Zach graduated with honors. He should never have worked with/for his father. He had the potential to be at the top.
Wonder if P.L. got a 1099 for the $10 million and the subsquent $2 million in annual payments that may still be being made?
Delta Boy, I don’t know much about the military, and would be interested in learning more about Scruggs’ military training and the possible relation to the control issue. Thanks.
I will be shocked if any of the local D.A’s go after any of these people. I tink they don’t want any involvement and are glad to let the Feds do the dirty work. Don’t forget about the GOB network.
One interesting note about the transcripts (and then I’m going to be quiet for a while–I know many of you are relieved!)—-notice how Balducci seems to be a complete pest around the Scruggs firm. Backstrom sighs at the thought of having to meet with him and then is horrified at the thought of having to meet with him FOR A WHOLE HOUR! I get the idea that Balducci was driving the firm nuts.
UMATTY 18- Thought you might want to see this as it relates to Scruggs’ & his military influence. There are also some interesting quotes from Dickie, regarding his views of a law practice, especially in light of current events.
http://appollonius.com/Richard%20Scruggs.htm
It’s no so much the military aspect as it is his place in the military. He was a “Brown Shoe” aka Naval Aviator (the best of the best). They were on the carrier, but not OF the carrier. Had their own chain of command and did not associate with the “Black Shoe” aka Sailor side. They were the mini-gods of the ship. All of them were type A –but then again they’d have to be.
The tobacco settlement money did not go directly to P.L. Blake. It went to the Developing Markets Group, LLC, from which it was distributed to Blake, Tom Anderson, John Sears, Joel Hoppenstein, and who know who else.
That is vaguely related in the Scruggs deposition in the Luckey case.
For tax reasons, I would not be surprised if DMG, LLC funds pass through the Cayman Islands or some such before making it to the individuals.
Researcher, where did I read the first $10 million went from Scruggs to Langston to Blake’s account at First Tennessee all by wire transfer. It may have been from Luckey depositions. Merkel actually asked Scruggs why he wired it to Langston rather than direct to Blake?–I think??
Researcher -22 Is the “Tom Anderson” you mention the same person who was Trent Lott’s college friend and long-term Chief of Staff from the 70′s through the 90′s (Pres. Reagan made him ambassador to some Caribbean island at some point.) ? Surely that is not the same “Tom Anderson.”
Yes, that Tom Anderson. Anderson and John Sears were brought in by Scruggs and/or then-Majority Leader Lott to help turn the tobacco settlement from multistate to a national agreement. Anderson had a long history with P.L. Blake. Scruggs testified that he first met Blake when Anderson asked him to represent Blake in his bankruptcy. As a congressional candidate, Anderson was busted for taking many flights on Blake’s Dewitt Corp. plane while Lott’s chief of staff without reporting them as required.
Anderson and Sears were liaisons between Scruggs/Moore and the tobacco industry, the Republican majority in Congress, and Republican lobbyists. They tried to help Lott put together federal legislation that would codify the settlement. John McCain introduced the bill, but it broke down because some in Congress and the Clinton Administration wanted the money to go to federal health programs, wanted it to include federal regulation of tobacco, and did not want to give the industry a broad liability shield. So the guys who lobbied for a federal bill then lobbied to kill it. If you read Scruggs’ deposition in the Luckey case, Merkel produced an exchange of sharp letters where Scruggs questioned the value of Anderson/Sears/Hoppenstein to the ultimate outcome. However, they got millions in the end.
See from about page 345 through 400 or so:
http://www.insurancecoverageblog.com/Scruggs%20dep.%20310-end.pdf
on page 374, Merkel asks about a document with the heading “Summary of payments on behalf of Anderson/Sears”
The list includes three payments to P.L. Blake for $1 million, $4 million, $5 million (that is the first $10 million that seems to have gone through Langston), another $5 million to Developing Markets Group, which is Anderson/Sears/Hoppenstein, and a payment of $4.3 million to Americans for Tax Reform, which means it went to Grover Norquist. It seems that Anderson/Sears bought in Norquist to oppose a tobacco tax increase and a tax on the attorney fees, both of which were proposed while the bill was pending in Congress.
UMatty, was it tom anderson of lott’s office who scrugg’s put on to pl blake…pool setting, family gathering ..tobacco cooking on the grill.
Wonder where those quarterly payments totaling $2 million anually to Blake are going? Reckon he is keeping it all?
Tommy Anderson was with Lott from the beginning when they went to Washington. They were the best of friends and fraternity brothers. May have even been cheerleaders together–not sure about that. It is a major connection–the STRONGEST link I have heard of so far between the Scruggs money and Lott. It merits major investigation.
pl blake was put on to scruggs by the lott people when blake needed a bankruptcy lawyer. scruggs used to nothing but bankruptcy.
langston hooked up with scruggs when langston defended steve patterson against mike moore’s charges of a bad car tag.
when the federal legislation was being voted on by congress, langston’s brother and sister sued ron motley for conflict of interest because motley was lobbying congress to pass the national tobacco deal which would have destroyed a punitive damages claim in a lawsuit langston’s sister had pending in jones county. the case was set for trial scruggs and motley were afraid langston’s sister was going to clean the tobacco company’s clock or maybe the tobacco companies asked motley and scruggs to get the case continued. at that point joey came in somehow arranged to have his sister’s case bumped and settled the dispute between motley and langston’s brother and sister.
for getting the case bumped, joey got millions in tobacco fees.
Researcher, you give me hope that they may follow this thing to its final chapter. I thought that at the start but have been having second thoughts. You have revived me somewhat. I have been shouting to the roof tops that these are old connections that have been together for many years.
Researcher @ 25 is that why HB is so set against a Cig tax?
Hopefully, he’s relying on the reliable data that show no product has a customer base with a lower average income than cigarettes. Getting people to believe that instead of reports here to the contrary will be hard – we do love “home cooking”.
Well I was thinking of his connection with Grover Norquist. That guy pops up everywhere.
confounded, I’d forgotten about Cindy Langston Lott & Billy Joe Landrum.
I understand, Delta Boy. Ours is a strange world – and people tend to pop up in the most unexpected places. Seems to me if you lined up all the people involved in the tobacco lawsuit, the line would go around the world twice.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/settlement/
Check this out.
Remember that Jack Abramoff routed millions from the Mississippi Choctaws through Norquist’s group to Ralph Reed and the Alabama Christian Coalition, Alabama Family Alliance, and Alabama Eagle Forum to oppose legislation to allow casino style games at Alabama dog tracks. Reed knew the money came from casino tribes, but did not want the public to know that, so Norquist was the launderer. Abramoff and gang also shook down the Mississippi Band and other casino tribes to block other tribes’ casino proposals and to restrict internet gambling.
So, researcher, Abramoff went to jail, right? Anyone else? Fuzzy memory here. Does this relate to Seigelman?
Abramoff and a couple others went to jail. A few Congressmen resigned. Rep. Bob Ney did a little jail time.
Boston Globe,2006
Special interests aided tax reform advocate
http://tinyurl.com/p424h
The biggest surprise is Norquist’s largest individual donor: Richard ”Dickie” Scruggs, a Democratic Mississippi trial lawyer, who contributed $4.3 million. Scruggs had received a $1 billion fee in the landmark tobacco case against the same tobacco companies that were also Norquist’s donors.
Scruggs, like the tobacco companies and some other leading donors, was interested in more than lifting the burdens of the taxpayer.
He said he had his own agenda: He wanted Norquist to work to defeat a congressional proposal that he feared would confiscate most of his $1 billion legal fee in the tobacco case.
”I paid a lot of money,” Scruggs said. ”I thought that was the way the game was played.”
I’m just now catching up on the excellent posts and comments from the weekend, and was especially interested in UMATTY’s thoughts as to Scruggs’ control issues, and Delta Boy’s and SameOlGrind’s speculation as to how Scruggs’ military experience may have influenced his later behavior in life.
I have one military anecdote about Scruggs that I gleaned from a Time magazine article some six or seven years ago: In the article Scruggs recounts how his carrier (the Roosevelt) was on station in the Mediterranean during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, during which U.S. forces were put on an elevated nuclear alert. Scruggs says he came up with a plan of attack (approved by his squadron commander) in the event the squadron’s A-6 Intruders were tasked with operating against Russian warships.
The plan involved a surface-skimming approach under the enemy radar, and popping up at the last minute to hit the enemy ships’ missile batteries with anti-tank ordnance.
I’m no expert on aerial anti-shipping tactics from the 1970s, but that struck me as a damned aggressive, near-suicidal gambit. And it certainly presupposes a great deal of confidence in one’s skill as an airman, not to mention the sheer nerve and steely resolve required to carry out such an attack. It’s the kind of thing that has Type A personality and thrill junkie written all over it.
I’m not sure what, if anything, it has to do with Scruggs’ later behavior and his present troubles, but I thought I’d throw it out there for speculation.
Now back to the Jim Hood fray!