In his order denying the defense motion to suppress, Judge Biggers works through the defense claims that the wiretap and search affidavits were misleading and rejects each argument. For instance, he notes that the defendants argue that it was misleading to say that the defendants decided to try to have Balducci corruptly influence Judge Lackey at that first March meeting. Judge Biggers cites a dictionary definition of corrupt, and notes that the defendants were proposing to send Balducci on an errand that violated all known legal ethics rules. Here’s the Order denying the motion to suppress.
Judge Bobby DeLaughter should read the last sentence on page 2 of this order.
I disagree, MSlawyer. He shouldn’t need to read it — it should be as automatic as muscle-memory.
I wonder if Peters will roll on DeLaughter first, or the other way around, for their (alleged) misdeeds in Wilson v. Scruggs. Or if they will (allegedly) go down together.
Speaking of, I read somewhere that DeLaughter never bothered to enter a final order in Wilson v. Scruggs. If that is true (I’d love to know if it is), is there still a Rule 60 final judgment hurdle to cross? Could they just move to have a new judge assigned, move to set aside or reconsider DeLaughter’s prior order rejecting the special master’s recommendations (if in writing) and move for judgment on the same?
Lotus what does last sentence say? I can’t pull it up this red hot minute? Thanx
“Indeed, when an act such as this occurs, perceived by the judge possibly to be an attempt to corrupt or bribe, it is incumbent on the judge to report the matter to appropriate authorities, which is what Judge Lackey did.”
I prefer this from the prior sentence: ” “These actions are certainly a clear and gross violation of all known codes of ethics applicable to attorneys and judicial officers.”
ITs all over now but the crying and whining.
lotus, of course, you are right. My attempt at sarcasm didn’t go over so well in writing, did it?
dickie bobby and zach will be the last to realize : GAME OVER!! Peters and did will cut deals. That’s my prediction.
sorry i meant peters and sid will cut deals.
Confounded: Here’s the mystery question: Why hasn’t Sid already cut a deal. He has all the indicators of a deal maker (like Tim);
1) Small fish
2) Caught totally red handed
3) Insufficient resources to put up a fight
4) Easily cut off from the pack (e.g. father and son of Dickie and Zach).
This situation has pertained for a while. And Sid has the sell-by date of old fashioned sweet corn or home grown strawberries. Every day that passes reduces the marketability.
So I have two questions: Why hasn’t he already dealt? (I’m totally mystified) and Since he hasn’t, why think he will in the future?
NMC: Good Question, during this whole ordeal been waiting on Side to cut deal, but now, the deals may not be ther unless Sid can bring some substantial info to the table
Again, I find myself thinking the same thing as NMC.
Why isn’t Sid Backstrom pleading? He can’t be under the illusion that the Scruggs boys aren’t having private discussions about their strategy without him ( some that undoubtedly consider offering him up for some kind of a 5K break).
I’ve always understood the theory behind a 61 year old rich guy deciding to go for broke when the choice is spending almost all of the rest of his life in prison, or all of the rest of his life in prison. I can also understand the logic behind Zach saying he would rather go to prison for a long time than give up his father.
I can’t, for the life of me, fathom what is going on with Backstrom.
Here is one theory as to why Sid has not pleaded. Dickie has offered to set his wife and kids up for life if he doesn’t plea. The way Dickie uses money to get what he wants it seems like a definite possibility.
If true, I bet Sid knowing Dickie the way he does said I want it all up front….none of this I’ll pay you next Tuesday for a hamburger today type deals Dickie seems to like.
My advise to Sid would be if this is the case….get it in some kind of trust because the wife ain’t likely to wait around on you for 20-30 years if you know what I mean.
My theory is Sid thinks Dickie will plead to get Zach a very reduced sentence. This will serve as leverage for Sid’s lawyers to say no way we get more time than Zach. Kind of reverse lead dog litigation, I won’t do more time than the least culpable who pleads before me.
Dangerous if some of you are right that Dickie would give his only begotten son!
It’s all good- 14, you may be right. That would be consistent with how Scruggs seems to operate.
I’ll tell you who would know, and its one person every attorney in Pascagoula is wondering about as to why the feds haven’t interviewed her, yet. Scruggs’ secretary, Charlene Bosarge, has been with him forever (her name even turned up in the Minor investigation for giving out money to Diaz’s wife).
If Balducci thinks he knows where bodies are buried, the money is that Charlene Bosarge knows where the cemetery is.
Morning, y’all. observer and Ms. Bosarge have just reported to Pith & Vinegar.
Well, I wouldn’t have felt comfortable mentioning her if she hadn’t showed up in such a prominent way in the Minor investigation. What’s fair for P.L. Blake is fair for her, when performing the same role.
observer, a time or two I too have wondered why she hasn’t surfaced as a witness yet, since obviously her vantage-point on so much of Dickie’s activity (and cash-flow) was uniquely good.
IAG 14—most plausiblie argument I’ve heard yet. Think you’re on to something
any deal to pay Backstom’s family for him not pleading would produce another indictment. So Scruggs couldn’t leave evidence of that (e.g. a large money transfer) available for the feds. So I think he could convincingly say to Backstom “but I can’t pay you till later” to such a deal.
And, then adds, “And, you won’t even have to sue me for it, I promise.” !!!
There has been much speculation about why hasn’t a deal been cut with these defendants. Good question, but the answer lies in history. I heard it on good authority that the second time around Paul Minor was offered a great deal; no jail time, but he had to turn in his law license. We all know what happened to Minor. Same thing with Saddam. He knew we were going to invade. He was offered all kinds of deals to step aside and live in exile. We all know what happened to Saddam. Unfortunately, the same thing will happen here. No deal will be cut, and all will go to prison for a long time. History always repeats itself.
NMC 21, not much there for Sid to rely on, huh? Similarly situated (gawd), I wouldn’t take Dickie’s word for squat, no matter how many bishops witnessed it.
Well, since I’ve always wondered why Sid didn’t plead immediately, his ideas and mine must be pretty different.
But I’ve heard from a lot of folks here real regrets — and no small disbelief — that he got caught up in this at all. The thought that he’d ride it all the way down to final impact must dismay his friends and acquaintances no end.
Insert Backstrom’s trick or treat musings here that I’m now recalling…
I am somewhat surprised that the remaining defendants are not at least “exploring” the possibility of a plea agreement. Does anyone remember the plea cut-off date?
Another thought on pleas–some people are not psychologically set up to say, “I was wrong.” It’s hard for any of us to admit a mistake/error/misfeasance/malfeasance but if you are always right in your own mind it is especially difficult.
At what point can the Feds step in and start monitoring Dickie’s financial transactions?
And in the case of Joey, where he has already plead guilty but faces civil suits, how much freedom is he given in moving assets around and even out of the country?
I think someone said on another post that the cut off date for a plea was 03/17/2008.
Did Biggers ever rule on the request for an anonymous jury?
Not yet, hkm.
IAG 27, recall that a part of Joey’s plea agreement was no forfeiture of his assets. He’s free to do what he will, which appears to be getting liquid so he can reduce/eliminate debt and reinvest for income to live on now that the well has run dry.
On Bosarge/s, I’m sure my assistant would love to know how you give $42,700 to political candidates over three election cycles.
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=jpn5q&txtName=bosarge&txtState=MS&txt2008=Y&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&Order=D
If I recall correctly, one of the early asbestos plaintiffs was named Bosarge. Wonder if Charlene is related?
Curly -32 – Good catch there. Anybody here think that was anything but a very thin attempt by Scruggs to get around the campaign donation laws? Anybody? Anybody?
But, that’s what I was talking about.
Interesting when and who she gives to.