folo

folo header image 2
← →

Government response on Motion to Dismiss for outrageous… etc.

February 19th, 2008 @ 3:52 pm - by NMC · 3 Comments

Government response on the motion to dismiss for outrageous misconduct on pages 1-4 has the government’s basic story of the bribery scheme up until November 1st, and on pages 13-15, a description of how the November 1st conversations show the guilt of the defendants. The government response has a pretty effective level of indignation about the accusation, and notes that it would have been a dereliction of duty not to test Balducci. They cite a Fifth Circuit case that says “that even an undercover investigation begun without reasonable suspicion ‘does not bar the conviction of those who rise to the bait.”

Tags: ,
Filed Under: Herald & Examiner

3 Responses so far ↓

  1. lotus says:
    February 19, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    The remaining defendants seek to cast themselves as victims of the United States government. They aver that prosecutors used a very senior, well respected state judicial officer to create a crime where none existed, first victimizing Timothy R. Balducci and then turning him against the remaining defendants, manufacturing the crimes with which they are charged. Further exacerbating that behavior, defendants allege that the government has consciously engaged in a pattern of deception and concealment, deceiving the Court and in effect obstructing the due administration of justice. It should come as no surprise that the government takes exception to those allegations. However, even taken at face value, the defendants’ allegations do not make a preliminary showing of outrageous government conduct sufficient to constitute a due process violation. Therefore, no evidentiary hearing should be required, and the court should be able to decide this motion on the briefs and on the law.

    A real earful of oh P.L.E.A.S.E. here.

  2. Stormy says:
    February 19, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Well lotus I’m not an attorney but I say they are “Crispy Critters” and just need to deal with what they have done and move on.

  3. confounded says:
    February 19, 2008 at 10:37 pm

    Amazing how Judge Lackey knew he was being bribed by the promise of a job with the Balducci firm by Judge delaughter just doesn’t get that a promise from Dickie that his name would be put in the pot for a federal judgesehip, a follow-up call from Trent Lott and his name actually being put on the list was a bribe?

    Perhaps Delaughter’s name is being mis-spelled. Perhaps it should be spelled “Judge De-Nial.”