Update below
I have really hoped to avoid the form of blogger arrogance that assumes that anything we do here has any meaningful or measurable impact on the external world. But! I can’t resist repeating this passage that opened my post last night about the Balducci grand jury testimony:
Balducci’s grand jury testimony is now semi-available. The transcript that Zach Scruggs’s motion includes is incredibly annoying. It contains every other page, roughly, and I guess is designed to impede somewhat the flow of information into the public sphere. It does that to the point that any reader (e.g. including judges and law clerks) will find it very frustrating.
And now I want to thank whatever forces impelled Zach Scruggs’s lawyers to post a corrected Motion this morning with as its correction the inclusion of the complete Balducci grand jury testimony.
While I have no (well, not much) illusion that I brought this correction to pass, I will admit that I was kind of hoping with my shot last night that readers who might find it very frustrating included judges and law clerks. If any faithful reader of this blog had anything to do with this correction, I thank you!
Here’s some highlights:
- Backstrom had called Balducci about the fact that Scruggs Katrina Group were going to kick out Jones and held out the possibility that Balducci’s new firm could replace them, meaning as much as a million dollars in fees. He had just started his firm and needed money and needed business.
- Balducci and Patterson “have had a long relationship with the Attorney General” and the Attorney General “is distantly related to Steve” Patterson and Hood has known Balducci since he was a D.A. “[T]he Scruggs Firm approached Steve and I and essentially hired us as lobbyists. And… told us …if you go meet with the Attorney General and if you will help him to resolve his issues with State Farm and try to craft some settlement with that issue…, work with the lawyers who are representing the Attorney General, who we knew personally and had worked with before, to try to help almost mediate the dispute.” If we were successful in “lobbying and working” with the AG’s lawyers to get a resolution, we’d get $500,000.
- We needed the money to hire staff, get a building, and buy computers, and were counting on that money. When we went to Scruggs and said we completed our job and he owes us the money, “he told us then for the first time, I’m going to pay you but I’m not going to pay you up front. I’m going to pay you $100,000 a month for five months until I pay it off, which was not what we had agreed to. And he did pay us one month. And then he didn’t pay for us the next month.” They were worried about getting the other $400,000 when they were approached about contacting Judge Lackey.
- When Balducci told Sid Backstrom about bribing Lackey with $40,000, Sid said he would have to talk to Dick and Zach and get back to him.
- Why he and Patterson went to P.L. Blake: “Mr. Scruggs and Mr. Blake have a pattern, a practice of relaying information through that means. Mr. Blake has served for many years as a conduit and a layer of separation, if you will, between Mr. Scruggs and other people on sensitive issues. And Steve and I both knew that. And Steve knew that an appropriate way to approach Scruggs about that would be to go through P.L. because it had happened before. Also, he did not want to upset the possibility of assuming the Jones role with the Katrina group.
- Patterson and Balducci went to meet Scruggs about the Anderson campaign, in which Scruggs had invested a half million dollars for t.v. commercials and print ads to beat George Dale, and when they went in, “Mr. Scruggs unsolicited said I’ve already talked to P.L. and I know Steve you’ve talked to P.L. and I just want you to know that everything’s okay. Y’all go ahead and get it done, and you’re covered.”
Update
I’m going to update a couple of more points here. There’s another bit of information I will put in another post. Here’s some more newish details from Balducci’s transcript:
- There’s a description of a phone call on October 16th or 17th where Balducci walked into Patterson’s office to discover he was on the phone with Scruggs in the middle of a conversation, and Steve said on the phone, “Dick, wait a minute, Tim just walked in. Just tell him all of this directly,” and handed the phone to Tim. Dick said, “he had developed essentially a cover story of how he was going to get me the $40,000 to pay Judge Lackey. I had already paid the 20 myself because of the timing. Scruggs said that he had a Katrina case coming up in December on the coast and was going to send me a check for $40,000 and reference it as a retainer hiring me to do voir dire. “[W]hat he was saying was rather than just send you $40,000, I am constructing this cover story where I’m going to send you 40 but I’m going to say it’s for you preparing my voir dire in this upcoming trial.” On 10/18, Patterson called Balducci to tell him that he’d spoken with someone in Dick’s office and there was a “package” for Tim to pick up when he dropped off the orders. Tim then went to meet Judge Lackey.
- On October 18th, Balducci took two copies of the order to Scruggs’s office from Judge Lackey. When he got there, the only one there was Zach, and Balducci gave him a copy of the order and “told him… I had just left the judge and here was the Order that the Judge was sending to be filed in the court file, and that this was just basically a preview that I had gotten from him. And that the real order would be filed within the next couple of days.” Zach “was very happy. And he told me, he said good job. You’ve been a good friend for us.” Tim left the order with Zach and thereafter called Backstrom. In the conversation, Tim asked him to act surprised with his lawyers when he gets it, “make sure you don’t let the cat out of the bag that you knew it was coming.” He said great and everything was going to work out.
- After being confronted by the FBI, Tim decided immediately to cooperate and was brought to Oxford and met with Tom Dawson and Bob Norman (Asst US Attorneys) and agreed to cooperate and wear a wire.
More in another post…
Not to burst your bubble, NMC, but if every other page was missing, it’s likely the original transcript was double-sided and they failed to scan both sides for the original submission. If so, they just corrected a clerical error.
That said, if they were reading your posts (as they probably are), you did them a service by pointing out the oversight and so are in fact responsible for the entire transcript being made public.
Either way, thanks for all the hard work digesting this stuff for the rest of us. Keep up the good (and very hard) work!
I honestly can’t decide if I had anything to do with it. Using a warped sort of golden rule, I know that if last night, I’d been sitting there reading someone blog about a case I was in, and saw that post, I’d have said “Oh, s–t” and set out to deal with it. But who knows. I’m mostly just having fun.
I hate the big gap between “we’ll pay you $500K to get this done” and “we got it done, please pay us $500K.” I want to know what happened!
MT, look at the additional grist for the mill in the new post I just posted.
who were the ag’s lawyers they talked to?
Other than the AG himself, no names were named.
Reading along, it doesn’t sound as if the “it was Zach’s idea” at that initial meeting is played out in this testimony.
I just re-read the indictment, and here’s what it charges about the 3 events:
1) A group meeting in March where the idea is raised of contacting Lackey. It just names those present without saying who proposed what.
2) Balducci delivering the order to Zach on October 18th and getting the $40,000 check.
3) Telling Zach and Backstrom, here’s the order, lets see if we got we’ve paid for.
Each of those items is supported by the grand jury testimony. The indictment does not charge them with agreeing to the extra $10k (does charge Dickie with that).
Balducci on Hood: “We had a close relationship.”
Paints a much different picture than the one Hood initially portrayed when he distanced Balducci’s role as a Special Prosecutor… but more in line with his more recent “they’re like family.” statements.
I wonder why DS wouldn’t have take a less risky method to the payoff and had P.L. pay TB the $40k directly from the $1m/yr P.L. receives?
That tells me the $1m has a designated home already.
Also, I now believe the $500k for the AG work paid to Patterson Balducci was meant only for them as they had to have it for their firm. There was no bribe involved with Hood it appears from this angle.
Mr. Norman did a very thorough job of questioning clarifying in advance possible areas that the defense would attack and in fact are attacking anyway i.e. the sweet potatoes.
RE: Hood influence.
Q–And in short, you were successful?
A. We were successful.
Dick Scruggs sounds like old man Potter in this transcript.
Balducci’s testimony that he feared for the safety of himself and his family and had sought protection from the feds is making me re-think what he said about “buried bodies”. Does anyone seriously think he feared that Scruggs would harm him? I just have a hard time with even contemplating such a thing.
MS: yes.
MS:yes.
That’s what I’ve been wondering since December… hearing that they were in protective custody. I mean, I have ZERO problem believing the accusations against any of this crew, but THAT would be a stretch for even me. Wow–surprised by your answers.
I read that Ed Peter’s was in protective custody. Don’t know where I read it now, but is that true?
no peters is not in protective custody
Peters hasn’t even made a deal, Seacrest. That’s virtually public record.
Testimony: That on 11/1 Lackey says that he needs 10k more for extra exposure. Balducci testifies that he picked up a package and check on 11/5. Government introduces a Scruggs Law Firm check to Patterson Balducci for $10,000. Will Dickie flinch?
heck mo he won’t flinch, he’ll sit there with that stupid grin on his face
Thanks all on Peters. Don’t where I read that and I wasn’t sure it was true. Might have read conjecture. Anyway, thanks.
Who is Ed Peters’ criminal attorney?
Anybody who thinks that there isn’t probably at least one person in this gang who isn’t capable of paying to have somebody killed, (a whole lot easier thing than doing it yourself, and much more consistent with their ways of doing business as revealed so far) has a much different life experience history than I have.
But, I’m not so sure about Peters or Blake not having made some kind of deal. Not every kind of cooperation shows up in court or on Pacer.
observer,re24 and Blake/Peters–I agree and especially in Blake’s case.
HDM 23, last I heard, Cynthia Stewart was “advising” Peters, but whether that makes her his crim atty, I don’t know.
If memory serves, I believe Cynthia Stewart started her career with some legal services outfit that represented a number of Death Row inmates up at Parchman. She was known as a passionate opponent of the death penalty.
Later on, she partnered up with Tom Royals in his criminal defense practice.
Cynthia practiced with Sebastian Moore before spending a year at the Mississippi Capital Defense Resource Center representing death-sentenced defendants.
I specifically remember this because I was clerking at the Mississippi Supreme Court when she and Sebastian had some emergency appeal for some kid whose grandparents had forced him into rehab. The kid was arguing that he had to get out to start his first year at UM. Some of the clerks (incl. myself) were laughing at the idea of needing rehab but going to UM instead. Too late, we realized Sebastian and Cynthia had been ushered into the conference room (adjacent to the library where we were) for an emergency hearing. The conference room wasn’t ordinarily used for hearings.
Here is why I am convinced that as of the motions hearing, Ed Peters had not made a deal: Asst U.S. Attorney Bob Norman represented to the court that Ed Peters would likely be recommended by his lawyer to take the Fifth Amendment if called to the witness stand in the hearing.
A reliable source who I asked about this said that Peters had not made a deal because he demanded immunity and DOJ policy demands a felony conviction for what he has done.
So I’m willing to wager money that as of 2/15, there was no deal involving Peters.
I have no idea about P.L. Blake, except two or three observations: If the US Attorney wanted to increase the pressure on Scruggs to plea, all they would have to do is make it known that Blake was a witness. I’ve seen no hint of that.
Blake represents two things to the US Attorney– a big, fat target, first. The big fat targets don’t get deals unless they deliver equal or greater big, fat targets. Second, he may be a bridge to other parts of the case– other big, fat targets. So there’s a chance he could deliver up someone interesting enough that they would deal with him.
He has a problem, though, and it is a big one. Any plea involving judicial bribery is a bad thing as far as sentencing guideliness go. And anyone with a prior record is in a bad way as far as sentencing guideliness go. Doesn’t he have a pretty serious misdemeanor involving bank fraud? Wasn’t the charge a felony and plead down? That’s bad. And he’s an older guy. It might be hard to find a deal for him that doesn’t place him in jail for what-amounts-to-life. So there’s that suggesting no plea.
So I’m betting strongly Peters hasn’t made a deal, and think it improbable that Blake has.
None of this is about Pacer.
Where are my guesses off track?
Balducci and Norman have been friends for a long time- I am sure that when the pressure was on Tim told him everything-
good points NMC regarding P.L.’s age and prior record influencing his desire to work a deal.
Don’t forget the American Greed piece about Ebbers on CNBC tonight at 8 PM CST.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/23237211/
I recall a friend of mine that goes to Bernie’s church in Madison telling the story of Bernie standing up around Christmas time and telling the congregation right before he was to report to the Federal Pen, “I’ll see you folks Christmas of 2031″
Hope the poor old chap lives that long and is able to do some good there for the next 24 years. It looked like he and Siegleman where in the same place in Louisiana but not sure.
A few things don’t add up:
Why would Scruggs have to create a fictitious bill for voir dire for the $40,000, yet he could pay TB & SP $100,000 and promise $400,000 more for the Hood contact without making a false invoice? Where did that money come from and how was it recorded?
Second, what was the point of going through PL Blake to set up the deal if in the end Scruggs just wrote a check?
Madge @ 30: That’s an interesting piece of insider news that hasn’t come up, I don’t think – that Balducci and Norman were old friends.
We were pondering yesterday as to how Balducci, after being taken into custody, gathered himself enough to wear a wire and go about his business at the Scruggs firm. I suppose having Norman there as a friendly face, as opposed to a group of total strangers, was somewhat reassuring to Balducci.
Reseacher// Patterson was on the phone with his wife and his wife had just talked to PL and PL was coming into the airport. Where did I read this? If this was a private airport, say like Oxford , can the records be looked at if we find a time frame?
Researcher: great question.
Researcher, we don’ t know much about the $500k– it ssems more a loose end than something that doesn’t add up. I don’t know how it was paid, or whether P&B had to share it, or whether it was done on some sort of normal invoicing. All of that is invisible. So it’s not so much not adding up as not knowing.
The whole bit about P.L. “insulating” Dickie but then he just talks about it is a little weird and that doesn’t really add up. The notion that they had to go through Blake comes from Patterson.
This is the kind of wrinkle that could go several ways– all depending on what additional facts come out about Blake, Scruggs, and Patterson.
There is so many turns and twist in this trist , now we find Norman and Balducci were friends, so Norman is local or has worked here many years. That’s a whole story in it’s self, for you novel writers take note.
Bob Norman was an assistant DA in Oxford for a long time, then I think briefly in private practice, and then a US Atty. He’s been there for years. He’s from Oxford originally.
I think he was no longer an assistant d.a. before Balducci got out of law school and became public defender, but I may be wrong. If he was an asst at the same time Balducci was p.d., they’d have been dealing with each other a whole lot.
Mag–that was on 9/27
“Patterson told Balducci "that his wife had just gotten off the phone " with P.L. Blake "who had just gotten out of a meeting that Patterson asked him to have. " Balducci asked for details, and Patterson called back and told him that Blake had "met with Dick Scruggs and "he’ knows it’s going to be "40. Patterson assured Balducci that P.L. was confident that Scruggs would take care of Patterson and Balducci, and Patterson said "We got your horse sold " or words to that effect.”
MT 39, wasn’t “We got your horse sold” a PLB line? That’s how I recall it, but maybe incorrectly.
NMC 29, what I’d really like to guess is how long before we started hearing about them were the Feds surveilling Blake and Peters (electronically and physically), since I assume they have been since at least the raid on Joey’s office, if not well before.
So . . . is what the agents are involved in with those two (either or both) “a stand-off” or merely “a stand-back” at this point?
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS/80305018
update on Wilson v. Scruggs
Lotus—I can only find that line attributed to Patterson, referring to Patterson and Balducci as the “we” who got the pony sold
Awrighty, MT, I must have misremembered, gluing it onto PLB just because he’s into hosses.
NMC -29 – That’s a good analysis of why Peters is probably not cooperating, especially the insider account. I still wonder about Blake. Of course, something about him made Scruggs and the others think he was a good cutout and a stand up guy. Maybe, they were right.
And, I want to amend an earlier comment about Tony Farese being the only lawyer I have been impressed with enough in this thing to want defending me if I got indicted. I have decided I wouldn’t mind having you do it, either.
There’s a “you are getting s-l-e-e-p-y, s-l-e-e-p-y quality to the DeLaughter picture, only I’m not sure if he’s the hypnotist or the subject.
Actually the picture of DeLaughter brought to mind another song….
Three Nights Drunk
The first night that I come home
So drunk I could not see
Found a horse in my stable
Where my horse oughta be
Come here my little wifey
Explain this thing to me
How come a horse in the stable
Where my horse oughta be?
You blind fool, you crazy fool
Can’t you never see?
It’s only a milkcow
You’re granny sent to me
I’ve traveled this world over
Ten thousand miles or more
But a saddle upon a milkcow’s back
I never did see before
The second night that I come home
So drunk I could not see
Found a coat a-hanging on the rack
Where my coat oughta be
Come here my little wifey
Explain this thing to me
How come a coat a hanging a hanging on the rack
Where my coat oughta be?
You blind fool, you crazy fool
Can’t you never see?
It’s only a bedquilt
You’re granny sent to me
I’ve traveled this world over
Ten thousand miles or more
Pockets upon a bedquilt
I never did see before
The third night that I come home
So drunk I could not see
Found a head a-laying on the pillow
Where my head oughta be
Come here my little wifey
Explain this thing to me
How come a head a-laying on the pillow
Where my head oughta be?
You blind fool, you crazy fool
Can’t you never see?
It’s only a cabbage head
You’re granny sent to me
I’ve traveled this world over
Ten thousand miles or more
But a moustache on a cabbage head
I never did see before
If anyone wants to hear a piece of this one, look for a version recorded as “Drunkard’s Special” by Coley Jones and the Dallas String Band.
Lotus- Patterson is into to horses too-
Oh yeah, think I vaguely remember that now you mention it, Madge. Thanks. (For the animals’ sake, I hope he only spectates.)