folo

As some may recall, Judge Coleman (specially appointed as circuit judge) ruled on the arbitration issue between Jones and Scruggs with two decisions: 1) Everything but the question of sanctions for an attempt to bribe the judge must go to arbitration; and 2) He would hear argument about the sanctions issue.

The argument over the sanctions issue is at 10:00 tomorrow (Tuesday) in the Chancery Court Building in Oxford. I think it will be a straight-up legal argument (that is, there won’t be facts from witnesses or the like).

This argument presents two ideas that are polar opposites. On the one hand, the Scruggs side will be arguing: We have an agreement here that everything will be decided in arbitration. That includes sanctions. On the other hand, the Jones side is arguing: In this circuit court, they tried to bribe a judge. This circuit court can (and must) protect itself by deciding how to sanction that attempted bribery. They are arguing that the court has an inherent power to do this, and that the sanction should extend even to partners (that is, the other SKG members) who were not involved in the bribery attempt.

It is my understanding that briefs have been filed. If I can get PDFs of the briefs I will put them online.

Update: Hearing time corrected from 9 to 10 and Funderburg corrected as per comment.