I’ve been looking at the chronology of events as U.S. v. Scruggs began. This was a period when the federal government knew what was about to happen and when things began to be revealed in pieces to defendants and others. I think the dates people made various moves could be fairly revealing. This case was very leak-free before about December 16th. There were some leaks since then although not a lot.
I’m interested in some timing issues: The speed with which Langston went from being a mouthpiece-Hood-donor to target is interesting. Among the things one can infer is that the moment Langston-became-a-target had to be the moment that DeLaughter was also a target — Langston has not been implicated in the Lackey bribery scheme and I don’t think will be.
This is also worth reviewing because the players knew things we did not — e.g. surely Langston had to know he was hanging out there on the DeLaughter bribe when Balducci flipped. So let’s use hindsight to look at some of these moves.
Of course, a lot of this is still opaque to outsiders, but there is stuff to be learned. I’m curious what other readers of this blog see in this story.
- 11/01/07: Balducci arrested by the FBI.
- 11/13/07: Balducci calls Backstrom to see if the Scruggs firm wants any changes to the order before Judge Lackey files it. Backstrom says he thinks the order puts the case on a path to “quick dismissal” and concludes “stay the course.”
Is it fair to say at this point, the Scruggs firm does not know they are about to get struck by a lightning bolt?
- 11/20/07: Keker, counsel for Dickie Scruggs in the Alabama case sends a letter to the Wall Street Journal demanding a retraction for its 11/15 piece on the Hood/Scruggs connection and the State Farm case against Hood.
I can’t tell if this signifies. If they’d seen what was coming, and if they had any sense, the Scruggs folks would have been being cautious at this point. I’m not sure I can conclude that those ifs were all likely, under these facts, with these folks. This was Tuesday of the week before Thanksgiving. When did the FBI start doing interviews that suggested something was afoot?
- 11/22/07: Thanksgiving. Rumor has it that a certain senator had an FBI interview just before this. Rumor has it didn’t go well.
Is the rumor about the interview true? Would that or other interviews have caused rumblings? I would love to know. I’m putting the rumor in here because it suggested sometime before 11/22, word might have been out to a very small audience….
- In his resignation announcement, Senator Lott said that he had spent Thanksgiving with 30 family members, and that “I just realized, I’ve missed those opportunities to spend with my family.”
…just in time for Thanksgiving dinner with a big extended family that would presumably have included the sister-in-law and her husband Dickie Scruggs.
- 11/26/07: Trent Lott announces resignation on the Monday after Thanksgiving. He noted that he and his wife had been to the First Baptist Church in Jackson and heard a sermon based on Scripture that said there is “a time for everything under Heaven,” Lott said. “It seemed to be speaking to us,” he said.
I don’t have the stomach for actually listening to Baptist sermons in large doses, but just from a glance here it appears the senator may have made that anecdote up. If anyone else wants to slog through to prove me right or wrong, you’re welcome to it.
- 11/27/07: FBI searches Scruggs Law Firm. Joey Langston talks to the press in front of the Scruggs office during the search and says that the F.B.I. is looking for a particular document in a Katrina case that they did not find.
Did the Scruggs folks really think they knew what the search was about at this point? (Obviously, Langston’s comment demonstrates either ignorance or a desire to put out a red herring). Is this is the oh-shit moment for anyone involved in the bribery scheme? I would guess from Langston’s presence, it is an oh-shit moment limited to one problem (Katrina or the Lackey thing, I’m not sure) –people involved in other possible illegal schemes did not yet fear the worst.
- 11/28/07: Dickie Scruggs, his son Zach, Tim Balducci, and Steve Patterson are indicted for bribing Judge Lackey. Joey Langston enters an appearance for Dickie Scruggs. Tony Farese enters an appearance for Zach Scruggs.
And now they know.
- 11/29/07: Langston, representing Dickie Scruggs, issues a statement about the Katrina cases: “The unfortunate events of yesterday do not necessarily mean there’s going to be a change in the team that’s prosecuting (Scruggs’) cases. They have invested an enormous amount of time and effort in these cases,” Langston adds. “Just because they have to contend with this difficult matter doesn’t mean their clients should suffer from it.”
Langston still doesn’t see the thunderclouds about to loom, right? This quote ran in the 11/30 Oxford Eagle.
- 12/1/07: The Saturday edition of the Wall Street Journal reports that all signs point to Balducci having flipped. A comment on the Folo website that morning notes that the “word on the street” in
I think it almost certain that at this point the Scruggs defendants had to know the same thing that the Wall Street Journal reporters knew. So did Langston know he was toast? How could he not — did he think Balducci was not going all the way as a snitch? There’s almost no time in there–the reporting on the WSJ story was obviously done on Friday, 11/30, two days after the indictment. Langston appeared for Dick Scruggs at the 11/28 arraignment, and Tony Farese appeared for Zach Scruggs. I am pretty close to certain that Farese would not have done that if he knew Langston was in jeopardy and would need a lawyer. Would Langston have made this move if he knew? Surely not, but these people made some odd moves.
Here’s something we can’t really know about even yet: Somewhere in there between 11/28, when the indictment became public, and 11/30, when it was obvious enough that Balducci had entered a plea that the WSJ was going to report it as a probability, there was a moment when anyone who knew they had serious exposure relating to Balducci and the Scruggses would have had a major incentive to get themselves and a lawyer to the US Attorney in Oxford to see if there was a way to, uh, talk themselves out of a heap of trouble. That would mean anyone involved in the DeLaughter mess. We can be certain it wasn’t DeLaughter himself from later public remarks, and not Langston (who seems not yet to have known he was a marked man), or Patterson (who waited till Langston fell to fall himself).
That leaves Ed Peters. Is this when he started trying to work out his elusive deal?
- 12/04/07: Scruggs Law Firm files motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs in SKG litigation.
- 12/05/07 Balducci pleads guilty. It is public knowledge within hours, confirming what I am sure the Scruggs folks have already figured out. Trent Lott gives an interview in
What the other defendants may not have fully resolved is the exact time Balducci started cooperating, although I know that in December I had enough information from the indictment and elsewhere that I was convinced it had to be November 1. They had to have figured this out, and pretty quickly. Knowing when he started cooperating mattered as to when he might have been tape recording face-to-face meetings.
If the Lott comment is true (about not knowing about the investigation ahead of his resignation) then the F.B.I.-interview rumor is not true. You will note that I am leaving the F.B.I. rumor up as a possibility.
- 12/07/07: Per Hood’s January 2008 campaign contributions report, Joey Langston gives Hood another $5000 donation on 12/07 –one month after the election.
My assumption is that at this point, Langston would not have done this if he had thought he was a target. Ergo, neither did the Scruggs folks. But, again, did Langston think Balducci had not gone all the way with the F.B.I. and was just doing some heavy petting? The 7th is a Friday. Now let’s move forward to Monday.
- 12/10/07 Langston office searched by Feds.
We can assume this clued Langston in to the notion he was a target, can’t we? Also on this day, Tony Farese was in Booneville as Langston’s lawyer, talking to the
- 12/11/07 Jim Hood issues a statement, reported the next day in the Clarion Ledger: “Our contracts have been with the Langston Law Firm, not directly with Timothy Balducci,” Hood says through a spokeswoman. “His only involvement with our office is in whatever tasks he was assigned by his employer. … If I am asked to cooperate with any federal investigation, I will do so,” Hood says. “If anyone is caught breaking the law, whatever the crime, they need to face the consequences.”
It amazes me that Hood had this statement put out on the day after the Langston search. What bad luck! What a boneheaded move!
- 12/11/07: Scruggs adds Keker to defense team in the
I would say as Tuesday followed Monday, the search of Langston’s office caused a little more lawyering up by Scruggs, although it may have already been in the works. Keker was already representing him in the
- 12/12/07: Hiram C. Eastland Jr. of
- 12/16/07: Jerry Mitchell goes public that the FBI focus has turned to Wilson v. Scruggs, Peters, and DeLaughter.
When did the rumors start circulating that Ed Peters was somehow cooperating or trying to cooperate? Immediately? I am almost sure I heard them, from within a week or two of this story coming out, but the earliest confirmation I can find is almost a month later on January 12th and 13th. At the same time, it is clear a deal had not been fully struck –as of the mid-Feb motions hearings, the prosecutor said that Peters would take the Fifth Amendment if called to the stand. He did not have a deal at that point. This does not mean to me he wasn’t wanting to sing. It more likely means, um, that the prosecutors and Peters had not agreed upon an appropriate key to sing in.
- 12/17/07: Kenneth H. Coghlan withdraws as Patterson counsel.
- 12/20/07: Jerry Mitchell reports that DeLaughter has received a grand jury subpoena.
- 1/07/08: Zach Scruggs signs a waiver that Tony Farese can represent both him and Langston. Also on that day, Joey Langston enters his plea agreement in a closed, sealed proceeding.
I really find it amazing that these two events happened on the same day. Surely Farese didn’t disclose to Zach Scruggs that the sealed plea and information were occurring on that day? Surely that would have been relevant to his waiver?
- 1/08/08: Langston moves to withdraw from representing Dickie in U.S. v. Scruggs.
- 1/08/08: Clarion-Ledger reports that the grand jury is meeting this week in
- 01/10/08: Patterson enters plea agreement [pushed over the edge finally by the 2-day-previous plea of Langston?]. His lawyer signing it is former Langston partner Ronald Michael.
- 01/13/08: Jerry Mitchell reports Langston has entered a plea agreement. In a comment on Folo about this, Justus reports that he had heard the day before from two sources that Peters had entered a plea arrangement. Justus states that the previous day, when he’d said that a reliable source had told him that one lawyer was about to plead guilty and another was to be granted immunity, and all would be announced on 1/14, the lawyer he’d heard was granted immunity was Peters.
- 1/14/08: Langston’s plea agreement is unsealed and becomes public. No announcement then (or since) about Peters.
- 1/15/08 Patterson plea in open court.
The only sense to be made of their actions is arrogance. The kind that leads them to believe that they will never be caught because they are smarter than everyone else, and they really haven’t done anything “that” wrong.
The Lackey matter is in reality just a sub-plot of the way these guys have operated in a lot of other matters, and they don’t think they will get caught. We have the Lackey matter and the DeLaughter matter in front of us, but I’m sure there are more, especially from the coast. Dick already escaped the Minor case, but I’ll be there are more.
And Lackey went to Hood and was turned down or Hood turned his shoulder when? Oh I forgot about the FBI agent and his 6 weeks… the first of Sept?
curly: i agree.
i imagine when someone pointed out the ethical violations and illegality of the actions to scruggs and langston; scruggs and langston just looked down at their manicured nails and said, “they’re just jealous.” now let’s go for a jet ride! fooey on you. how dare you criticize us, we’re rich and we know senators.
Great work, NMC. Deep thanks to you and to My Thoughts, whose work starting the chronology gotcha thinkin’. You two made something very difficult to research and write into deceptively-easy reading — which I know we all really appreciate.
I’m going to add this to the “Scruggsiana: Greatest Hits” page for safe keeping, so anybody who wants to consult it again later, that’s where to find it most easily.
I’ve just added some more facts relating to Trent Lott’s resignation (and his family Thanksgiving dinner) courtesy of a tip from a reader. The details came out of the Clarion Ledger coverage of the resignation announcement. Keep those tips coming!
Thank you, NMC. This is a very helpful chronology. Along the lines of what curly and confounded are saying, I think it is possible, if not likely, that these guys had done business this way for so long that it had become a way of life for them. If they ever thought it was wrong, and surely they must have at first, by the time these events happened, they had gotten away with it for so long that it become S.O.P.
I know Joey Langston is not stupid. I know that the signs that he was in a deep mess had to be as plain as day. I know denial is a big factor, but denial and habit don’t really explain the moves he made, at least to me.
When did he know he was toast? Did Tony Farese have to sit him down and tell him?
Yeah! This is just what I wanted you to do… see things in order and attempt to figure out how they all fit… good job! (And you’ve given me more to add tonight!)
PLUS… I had been really concentrating on things that happened prior to the indictments and not paying much attention to late December and after… you’ve made the great point that many things can/may be learned from the actions afterward.
Here is a view of the events leading up to the indictment and the Mississippi tradition of earwigging.
http://wikiscruggs.blogspot.com/2008/03/earwigging-mississippi-tradition.html
Nmc: my guess is yes he had to be told.
MSlawyer re #6. Right as to a long time as we know Patterson, Blake and Scruggs go back to the late 70′s to early 80′s. Some of these worms have been in the can together for a long time and some learned from some real MASTERS.
On Jan. 9, 2008, I got the following information from a highly reliable source who had 2 sources—one big name in the defense and one person in the prosecution: Joey’s entire office was subpoened. His office had been bugged. Joey asked what they had on him. Deal is he’s pleading guilty to 1 count felony conspiracy in DeLaughter case; 5-7 years prison (this was off a bit)–to be served; Give up law license; Pay $250K. Joey is telling all on Dickie. If feds agree to plea, it will be unsealed on Monday and they will allow him to plead guilty in open court.
Patterson has flipped—has no lawyer, just telling all he knows. Zach won’t turn on Dickie. Dickie won’t make a deal. Zach is screwed—Tony Farese wouldn’t defend if he won’t work for himself (Dickie originally called Tony asking him to represent Dickie. Tony basically said, “I hate everything that you represent and would never represent you.” However, when Zach asked Tony to represent Zach, he agreed because Tony doesn’t feel the same way about Zach. Then of course, Zach wouldn’t turn on Dickie and out of frustration, Tony resigned as counsel. Of course, that turned into a bit of a mess because Zach had no one to defend him, and Tony couldn’t officially leave until that was taken care of).
I have all of this in an email from the evening of Jan. 9th….
“1/14/08: Langston’s plea agreement is unsealed and becomes public. ”
Well it might have been unsealed on the 14th, but it was certainly common knowledge before the 14th in Booneville that Joey had fessed up.
I live in Alabama, but heard on Saturday or Sunday (12th, 13th) at the latest about the plea. It’s my understanding from sources who know Joey’s family, that he must’ve (or his family must’ve) told more than a few folks what was about to go down. Briber’s remorse.
Thanks so very much for this, as hindsight does prove to be valuable. As far as the dumb movements of the players, I totally agree with Curly 1, because I think this had been their method of operation for so long they did not think anyone was sharp enough to topple them. I wonder if John Grisham still thinks Dickie is too smart to pull such bone-headed stunts.
No, Curly and Dixie … I don’t think arrogance or stupidity by Dick Scruggs is involved here. Quite the contrary.
The No. 9 post above, containing the link to a brief history of Mississippi earwigging, makes the most believable case yet as to how all this might have occurred. It is pretty consistent with what my thoughts have been along.
USA v. SCRUGGS arose, in my opinion, almost accidentally. The federal DoJ had been struggling over the past 6 years or so to bust up the litigation abuses exemplified by the Phen-Fen cases. Every time a rock is turned over down there, something slithers from beneath it, and something slithered in the direction of Ed Peters, methinks, and that something eventually slithered off toward Judge DeLaughter and others.
No investigation of Mississippi trial lawyers would be complete without an effort to implicate Dick Scruggs as a usual suspect. But, I believe, the feds were focusing their efforts in the Southern District and WILSON v. SCRUGGS. They planned on getting enough evidence from the shenanigans in WILSON to bring down a cartload of attorneys and possibly a judge or two.
No one planned on Tim Balducci’s stumbling onto center stage in Northern Mississippi. He was never a player and had no role in the Southern District investigations.
But Tim stumbled on nevertheless, substantially as is suggested in the link in Post 9 above, in my opinion. Tim was trying to make himself and Patterson a force majeure in the Northern Mississippi law and influence peddling community. Tim was offering “of counsel” badges to various people whose names would, in Tim’s view, look good on his letterhead: former Gov. Bill Allain and former Chancellor Norman Gillespie are two that names that come to mind first.
In my opinion, Balducci never had a role in JONES FUNDERBURG v. SCRUGGS until he created one for himself. He felt he could ingratiate himself with Dick Scruggs et al. by using his special closeness to Henry Lackey to turn a favor for Scruggs. Lackey had already been earwigged by the plaintiffs, so the transcripts disclose. It follows that he would lend an ex parte ear to the defendants.
Cue the orchestra and chorus: Enter Tim Balducci. Balducci thought he was going to use Henry Lackey, but Henry took Tim to school on using people. Henry saw an opportunity to unhorse Dick Scruggs, a new-comer to Northern Mississippi legal circles … a new-comer who carried a lotta baggage and had both strong enemies and friends. So, without knowing exactly which direction they might go, Henry set wheels in motion that cast Balducci as a slow-witted dupe trying as best he could to help himself by trying, as he (Tim) saw it, to help Scruggs. Henry became a government operative who continued to spin-up his dealings with Balducci so that he (Henry) would be absolved of charges of impropriety while bringing down the mighty Scruggs firm.
In a few weeks all our speculating and pondering will be over. USA v. SCRUGGS will likely go to trial and heads will roll. Then we can all move on to something else.
Nice closing argument, Ben. What about the 404 (b) evidence, though? What about Langston’s guilty plea and expected testimony that will implicate Scruggs?
Re: No. 16. That’s what they invented juries for.
It may be argued that the so-called 404 (b) evidence is not permissible to show what the government hopes it would show — that is, predisposition on the part of Scruggs. It may be asked how can you prove predisposition when the proof is that of a dubious “crime” which has not been committed. It would also be a violation of due process, I think, to try to show predispositon when it fact the court should not even get to the predisposition point because of the wrongful conduct of the government and its agent, a sitting Mississippi judge who is in violation of a host of laws and rules. Just my humble opinion.
And, there is this: Before the government can take away the liberty of a person it should be required to do so honestly, decently, fairly.
The end does not justify unlawful means. We fought WW II over this fundamental principle — We are a nation of laws not state power.
Re:17 Good Luck. Its still a stain on Miss. jurisprudence no matter how you spin it.
I’m not spinning anything. I’m just trying to take what I’ve seen, read, and heard and make it comport with the little bit I know about some of the principals in the case and the little bit I know about human behavior.
It’s much more than a stain on Mississippi jurisprudence: it’s an indictment of our state’s failure to regulate our legal, prosecutorial, and judicial systems. The Mississippi Bar can’t plead that it was just the piano player and didn’t know what was going on upstairs. We don’t have aggressive investigatory newspaper operations constantly bird-dogging these stories. And we sure don’t have lawmakers minding the shop. As always, we have to look to the federal gummint to clean our Augean Stables.
I haven’t agreed with some of the stuff Ben Cole has posted. I agree 100% with this: “The Mississippi Bar can’t plead that it was just the piano player and didn’t know what was going on upstairs. “
Wikiscruggscomment, you are definitely the juror they are hoping (and desperately need) to get, to get away with this thing.
How bad does someone have to hate law enforcement, to be upset that they investigated and charged someone with this type of judicial corruption? I don’t know, but finding people like that, and getting them on his jury, may be Scruggs’ only hope to avoid a conviction.
My view continues to be that for an attorney, there is nothing worse you can do than to corrupt the very system that was set up to give people a forum to settle their disagrements in a fair, honest, and civilized fashion. One of the things that we take for granted in this country, that is not that common when you look at the whole world.
It’s good for a poster to come along every so often to remind me that not everyone sees it the same way.
“not that common when you look at the whole world,” heck its beginning to look like its not that common in Mississippi.
BenCole, I think you reinforce my point that the Lackey matter is just a sub-plot of the entire enterprise.
I thought the point of the post was:
Whether any of the “targets” have any self-awareness of the danger they are in?
And secondly, when along the timeline to there actions reflect knowledge of the government’s evidence?
And thirdly, did Langston and Paterson have to get hit on the head with a rubber mallet to have some self realization? If so when?
I’ve known Joey for a long time and his arrogance is 100 fold what it was years ago (and I ain’t sayin he wasn’t arrogant before).
I’ve also known other people who have “made it big” and all of the sudden they think whatever they say or do is untouchable. They make bold face lies and believe everyone who hears will believe just because they say so.
Very sad, indeed.