The government has slapped back hard at Zach Scruggs’s Government response to Zach Scruggs’s motion to dismiss. The response is what I fully expected. The motion to dismiss asserted that Balducci lied to the grand jury at the prosecutor’s behest by saying he’d told Zach Scruggs that the judge wanted another $10,000. I’ll quote my prior post, which is a readers digest version of the response the government gave:
Q. Is it possible that you might have used the term sweet potatoes again referencing the amount of money involved?
A. I think I did.
That’s on page 43. I think that page (added with the correction today), um, really substantially undercuts the point being made in the motion filed yesterday.
The government expresses a pretty high level of outrage at the motion given that they really did set the record straight in front of the grand jury. This may be the least likely of the defense motions.
I like
“While Balducci described this additional payment as "sweet potatoes, " nobody seriously contends they believed Balducci was taking potatoes to Calhoun City. “
I finally found the paper I was looking for. It is in Scruggs supplemental brief on wiretap, Nov. 12, 2007, Exhibit 5. I am not a lawyer so I do not have “link” access to it but you can find it on many of the blogs. Currently, the rage about this is the duo going down to Jackson to see the AG. But, if you look closely the “CHS” is discussing a meeting at the SLF where “RS, ZS…” were present. Unfortunately, I did not quite remember it correctly and using the initials fails when suddenly they start referring to “DS” but ZS was there and there was a good bit of discussion about how to get Judge Lackey to do it their way. Maybe someone else can figure out why the use of initials failed or changed. But, how can Zach claim he was did not know about it when he was there at the launch of the project?