Comments on: Zach Scruggs– dismiss the indictment because “a bushel of sweet potatoes” <> $10,000

By: observer

observer — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:51:58 +0000

WorlCom is a good example. People I know who are friends with Bernie Ebbers say he still doesn’t acknowledge that he did anything wrong.

And, can you imagine how conflicted lawyers are who have been doing the same thing as Scruggs and Company have been doing, and convincing themselves of the propriety of it, being confronted with the idea that most people think they are scumbags.

It would have to result in some unflattering self reflection, at the very least, I would imagine, with only the defense to self being what Scruggs and the other are using- the, I’m not the bad guy here-the people who are trying to stop me are the bad guys- line of reasoning.

How many times have we seen that in the last few years? WorldCom, Martha, Enron, Clinton, Delay. The list is long and getting longer.

By: Its All Good

Its All Good — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:39:41 +0000

Agree Stormy #26. The Gang may want to take a click… juries haven’t been very friendly to greedy rich guys lately.

This Week on American Greed
Case 1: Inside the WorldCom Scam

http://tinyurl.com/24eo9z

By: Stormy

Stormy — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:47:46 +0000

I also believe that “the Scruggs Gang” needs the remember that is this about jail time and not a $ sign. I was talking to someone the other day that made a statement about Joey and the others having the assets to be ok and make it through all this and that Tim didn’t, regardless can you imagine being in jail snd having someone that wants you as their “girlfriend”? ouch!!!

By: Stormy

Stormy — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:23:16 +0000

I think that any of the folks that are left will do anything to try and save their butts. Sorry folks but this is going to continue to get better as the plea dead line approches. I wouldn’t doubt anything!

By: MSlawyer

MSlawyer — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:10:25 +0000

I can’t figure out what’s going on. This motion by Zach seems somewhat desperate. The only thing I can think of is that this is some strange maneuver in the ongoing plea negotiations. Perhaps a conditional guilty plea will follow the denial of this motion — preserving Zach’s right to appeal the denial of it and maybe some of the other motions.

By: money changes everything

money changes everything — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:38:29 +0000

Doesn’t anybody notice that Zach is commenting on a draft of a judge’s order that has not yet been entered? Isn’t that unusual? I rarely get to see a draft of a judge’s order before it comes down, whether references to “sweet potatoes” are involved or not.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:17:53 +0000

Per the “they don’t even think it’s wrong,” n.b. that IIRC, Balducci led off by offering Lackey an “of counsel” spot at their firm, i.e., sweet cash after the fact.

That’s sooooo wrong.

And the feds thought they had to get Lackey to suggest *real* cash, apparently lest the “of counsel” offer not seem enough like bribery.

By: duckhead

duckhead — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:55:29 +0000

I am having a hard time speculating the defense strategy. Is it “everyman for himself” or a carefully orchestrated collaboration between Keker, Graves, and Trapp to attempt to get acquitals for all three defendents.

Graves maintains that only Backstrom had involvement with Balducci in the “sweet potato discussion”. (and Backstrom just said UH HUM).

Trapp previously told Judge Biggers that “Backstrom is just a “regular working lawyer” (whatever that is) who had the good fortune of working for the Scruggs Law Firm.

I do not think the DOJ was out to get Dickie either but I do believe he is now the primary target.

This is not a slam dunk case for the government.

It does look like with this motion, that young Scruggs will fight to the bitter end along with his dad.

Has Sidney been “thrown under the bus”?

Let’s see what happens between now and March 17th.

By: confounded

confounded — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:43:08 +0000

i will wait for nmc to read all of this but it seems they have picked through balducci’s testimony as they did the transcripts in their previous motions. sometimes at the end of a page where it get near to zach (like dropping off the october 18) version of the order the transcript skips over several pages.

i expect the us attorney will file a vehement response and unload the full version of balducci’s testimony.

this may be a ploy on zach’s part to say, go ahead and show me everything you got on me from everywhere.

By: fishwater

fishwater — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 00:43:06 +0000

Mr. Cole, have you heard the joke about the paper napkin?