As noted in the Clarion Ledger story quoted in a prior post, Roberts Wilson’s lawyers have taken the first step toward reopening Wilson v. Scruggs. Two lawyers and a… uh… fixer (Balducci, Langston, and Patterson) have plead guilty to bribing Judge DeLaughter in that case, and Ed Peters is out there somewhere twisting slowly, slowly in the wind for having helped them.
It turns out that Judge DeLaughter never entered a final order in the case, and so it’s still open. That surely opens up the options for Wilson’s lawyers! (They are Vicki Slater, Bill Kirksey, Charles Merkel, and Cynthia Mitchell). So as an opening salvo, the motion notes that DeLaughter has recused himself from all other cases involving Peters either sub rosa (Eaton) or super rosa, but that he has not recused himself in this one. The motion then asks for recusal from DeLaughter, and further, noting that the local judges really won’t want to get in the business of investigating their brother-on-the-bench, asks they all recuse themselves so this case can go forward.
The motion includes the transcript of Balducci’s testimony in the U.S. v. Scruggs motions hearing and the Langston plea colloquy, both of which we’ve seen. Here’s the Wilson v. Scruggs Plaintiffs motion for recusal.
“Judge DeLaughter failed to recuse himself in this matter, a failure which was more likely than not an oversight on his part.”
Mmm, I always did love deadpan.
Thank you, NMC. Who says we need a JMC after all!
The Cabal’s failure to have the final judgment entered that they bought and paid for (allegedly) may very well cost them. Sloppy.
Maybe Bobby got so starry-eyed imagining a new gig, he couldn’t see the paperwork in front of him, DN?
Maybe he never entered it because, like in other situations, the promises made by the Cabal were not kept. Peters got the money, the Cabal got their case settled on the cheap, and DeLaughter was left with nothing. No wonder he has that funny look on his face.
Maybe the reason he never entered the judgement is the fact Dickie and Trent didn’t come through on the federal judge position.
Nothin’ much surprises me anymore.. but I’m so intrigued with the possibility of a move toward purer justice.
Don’t be fooled. Merkel deserves deep observation. I understand that the FBI is investigating. That’s all I know, so I won’t surmise further. I’m sure other FOLO members are abreast of this.
UMATTY, I’ve noticed your dark mutterings about Charlie Merkel for weeks now, and I’ve also noticed that no one has ever taken your bait.
In fact, I’ve heard or read nothing, ever, anywhere, to support them, and unless you’re prepared to offer some proof, you really need to cut it out. “I understand” comes trippingly to the tongue but means zip.
It’s put-up-or-shut-up time here.
Here’s Anita Lee’s story on the motion, which remarkably leaves Ed Peters’ name out of it.
UM: put up or shut up about Charlie. To me your comments are ludicrous.
UM – don’t mean to pile on, but I have never heard anything negative about Charlie’s character or dealings, mostly they are the opposite.
UMATTY – I echo Lotus 9, confounded 10 and greenlawyer 11. Be specific or stop posting your inane ramblings. Which member of the Scruggs Cabal are you friends with?
I’m not sure where to post a link to the JFP’s cover story this week – The Scruggs Saga Comes Home to Hinds County: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=16439_0_9_0_C
I have worked and socialized with Merkel and never experienced anything other than a dedicated, intelligent, humble and honest person. Never even heard of anything suspicious surrounding any of his cases.
If I were a Judge who just got the promise of a Federal Judgeship, I think that I would set about getting my house in order so that my past could endure a Federal background check. I wonder if anyone has checked to see if Judge D. did that? Did he look backwards to past situations that he had, ones that might look ugly on a background check, to see if he could right past wrong doings?
Somebody who can check backgrounds might want to do that…