The Judicial Performance Commission has moved to suspend Judge Bobby DeLaughter for judicial bribery in the Wilson v. Scruggs case. This is a really remarkable development. Here are the pleadings, along with the complaint against DeLaughter and the minutes of the Judicial Performance Commission so acting.
Good for them. Here is the Judicial Performance Commission motion to suspend DeLaughter.
Update: The Judicial Performance Commission has filed two complaints against DeLaughter, the second involving Kirk v. Pope, which we have written about extensively here and elsewhere. The petition contains much additional information and seems clearly to involve facts that must have come from someone who knows about private conversations between Peters and DeLaughter.
UPDATE 2: Anita Lee:
… The commission is inquiring into the complaints about DeLaughter’s rulings in a legal-fee dispute between attorney Dickie Scruggs and his former partner in asbestos litigation, Roberts Wilson. Wilson attorney Vicki Slater joined attorney William Kirksey in filing the complaints. …
UPDATE 3: From a foloer who read more than the Sun Herald did:
Eric Stracener filed the complaint arising out of the Kirk v. Pope case.
Sha-ZAMMMMMMM!
Let’s hear it for Slater and Kirksey and Stracener!
So sad, but at least something is finally happening.
Rule 10 of the rules of Judicial Performance Commission states in relevant part:
C. Preference Cases. The Supreme Court shall treat all Commission matters as preference cases, to be determined with reasonable expedition.
D. Briefs. When the Commission has recommended the interim suspension of a judge, the Commission, as petitioner, and the judge, as respondent, shall file simultaneous briefs with the Supreme Court within seven (7) days after the filing of the Commission’s recommendations with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. No reply briefs shall be filed.
So, we should hear from the honorable judge next week! And we should hear from the Supremes, well, sometime.
But no Bar proceedings or criminal charges against Ed Peters?? Are we just waiting for the other shoe(s) to fall?
As Yogi Berra might put it: Bobby DeLaughter’s gonna open a boxful of Pandoras when he starts singing.
Ben out.
Ben Cole// If Bobby doesn’t know where his bestest friend Ed is , its be talked he’s at his bestest place, a fishing cabin down in Louiseanna.
Haven’t you taken just a little liberty with the facts? The commission did not suspend Delaughter “for judicial bribery”. They are “requesting” that he be suspended “while they investigate” the complaints against him. There is a BIG difference here. I realize this is just a blog and you are free to say whatever you want. But you really should consider the fact that a lot of non-lawyer folks are coming to your blog for information. And they don’t know the difference. Someone may eventually PROVE Delaughter did something wrong. But so far, it’s all “he said somebody else said”. No no has yet said they directly heard or saw Delaughter do anything improper. Until we hear from Ed Peters, no one can possibly know what actually happened.
Lynda, what are you talking about? Nobody said they suspended him for judicial bribery. The post clearly says that they moved to suspend him.
Somebody else with a reading-comprehension problem, MSlawyer. Sigh. So many of those floating about these days.
I realize Ed Peters is a big cog in this machine but what about…
1 – Langston’s guilty plea
2 – Backstrom’s guilty plea
3 -Balducci’s guilty plea
4 – 3 million payment split
5 – sharing of orders before they were filed
6 – admission by DeLaughter as to his ignorance of being influenced or not
7 – the bribery attempt being used by federal attorneys for 404 evidence in another case
Well, between Count Three of the Slater-Kirksey complaint and Count One of Stracener’s, Trent Lott and Cynthia Stewart prolly wish they were off fishing somewhere too. Lawzee, got trouble here they didn’t have before.
Who is Cynthia Stewart? Did you mean to say Cynthia Speetjens, DeLaughter’s attorney?
Maybe Ed be with P.L. ??
No, I mean Cynthia Stewart (Speetjens’ old office-mate, I hear), who prominently features in the JPC complaint on Kirk v. Pope. She was Ed Peters’ and Bobby DeLaughter’s confederate in skulduggery, it alleges — the third leg of their stool in KvP.
My mistake.
Blah Blah Blah Where’s the frigging Houston Patton Motion Mr. Brantley?
Does anyone know about another case that is on appeal with the Court of Appeals that DeLaughter granted a dimissal shortly after Cynthia Stewart entered an appearance for another tobacco attorney?
Lynda,
Could I offer a glass of reality?
€¢ "Lott did in fact submit respondents name for the Federal position and so notified the respondent. "
Is the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance suggesting Lott was (directly) involved? How much weight does the commission hold? Does the date they decided there was probable cause, March 14, have any significance?
I also think Delaughter will respond pretty quickly to this order, I’d even think by tomorrow, who knows maybe he wants the entire state to make him and Scruggs the topic of Easter brunch.
Greenlawyer – Balducci & Langston confessed to paying ED PETERS to “try” to influence Delaughter. They did not testify to having bribed Delaughter. Futher,tThey did not – and cannot testify to what Peters may or may not have said to Delaughter, if he said anything at all. They DON’T KNOW. The $3 million was allegedly split between those guys. None of it was not paid to Delaughter. It is alleged (by Balducci) that Peters received an email from Delaughter. I’m not aware that anyone has actually produced a copy of it. Are you? If so, where? And, pray tell, WHEN and TO WHOM did Delaughter say he didn’t know if he had been bribed? Surely you aren’t relying on Jerry Mitchell! He didn’t even bother to credit “an unnamed source” with that statement! Do you really think the Feds actually told JERRY MITCHELL what Delaughter told the grand jury? Puhlease! Futhermore, even if someone DID tell, wouldn’t that be a little like the pot calling the kettle black?
I know this has been explained but I’m a little pissed. I wrote: “The Judicial Performance Commission has moved to suspend Judge Bobby DeLaughter for judicial bribery in the Wilson v. Scruggs case. ” Lynda McNamee responded: “Haven’t you taken just a little liberty with the facts? The commission did not suspend Delaughter "for judicial bribery ". They are "requesting " that he be suspended "while they investigate " the complaints against him.”
Lynda, I think you owe me an apology. I got this right and you did not read my post.
Lynda, read the judicial performance commissions complaint against DeLaughter (not just the motion). I can assure you that both are consistent with the public facts.
In the Kirk v. Pope case he is nailed by facts that are on the public record. He had ex parte contact with Ed Peters that involved setting up getting wrongful relief for a party. The petition states that DeLaughter told Peters what to do as an advocate for one side. Yes, we can await a hearing on that, but the rest of the Kirk facts are public documented record that we have posted on this site.
If anyone is posting without anything but rumor it’s you. We have the facts.
What ax are you grinding?
I would think that the Feds have asked Langston for proof of the $3m split and how the cash flowed. I would find it hard to believe that they would just accept his word for it, and not look for some kind of corroborating evidence, especially with other conspirators out there yet to be indicted.
Ben Cole is right, I think.
When I was doing research on decisions of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance and cases it sent to the Mississippi Supreme Court I was surprised to see cases dealing with discipline of judges who had ex parte contacts with litigants. These were not Circuit Court judges but the cases still startled me. The cases seemed unusual, it was as if there was a problem of ex parte communication in Mississippi.
Thus, I think there may be a problem with ex parte contacts, and/or earwigging, in Mississippi. Please do not take my statements as a slam on Mississippi. I definitely do not intend them in that way. Mississippi is not alone regarding this problem. I see it here in Washington State.
(We are one country and we have the same problems state to state. Why? Because we are one country and the differences from state to state are negligible.)
NMC …seems to me you may have an anger management problem. I do not owe you an apology. And I don’t have a problem with reading comprehension. Typing – yes. Comprehension – no. I did intend to say the commission “moved” to suspend him. But that is totally irrelevant to the point. The liberty you have taken is with the use of the term “judicial bribery” – not whether the commission “moved”. The commission’s motion does not mention – or even imply – bribery. As for grinding axes, I don’t have an ax, much less want to grind one. I just don’t believe in convicting someone before he’s even had an opportunity to answer the allegations. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t have ready access to all the records you have. Therefore, I come to this site hoping to get facts. Fortunately for me, I DON’T have a reading comprehension problem. I can separate facts from the innuendo, gossip and speculation and reach my own conclusions. And, I will wait until ALL the facts are in before I conclude ANYTHING.
Lynda, you still can’t read.
“And, I will wait until ALL the facts are in before I conclude ANYTHING.”
Apparently not.
Lynda “The Judicial Performance Commission has moved to suspend Judge Bobby DeLaughter for judicial bribery in the Wilson v. Scruggs case. ”
Please note the word MOVED in NMC initial post.
I usually find no delight in trolls, and I don’t know if it is the spring weather or the subject matter, but I am enjoying Lynda’s rants.
NMC, I have gone back and reread everything. There is not one word in the JPC’s “complaint” that couldn’t have come directly from the Clarion Ledger. I hope they didn’t work too hard at their “investigation”. Now, I have to ask you the question you asked me. What ax are y’all grinding? Did you all lose in Delaughter’s court? It seems to me, the bigger villian is Ed Peters. He’s the one who is supposed to have done the bribing and he (not Delaughter) benefited from it. So…why is there so little discussion of him and his role in all of this? And, don’t you think it was really nice of Delaughter to put his entire life in jeopardy for the financial benefit of his old pall Ed? Not many judges would give it all up for their buds that way!!! Even after he didn’t get the federal judgeship he was promised, he was still ready and willing to sacrifice his integrity AGAIN for Peters in the Eaton case. I mean…what a guy! And, THAT folks, is why I’m having a hard time believing all these things happened exactly as they have been presented. Tell me he pocketed a few millions. Tell me Peters has some dirt on him that’s even worse than all this. Tell me SOMETHING that will explain “what was in it for Delaughter”. The only things that has even been suggested so far is the federal judgship. I might believe someone like Delaughter would sell out if he believed he was absolutely going to appointed to that position. But…to sell out for nothing more than a mention? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Lynda:
1. Check out the plea statement of Joey Langston and the court testimony of Tim Balducci on 2/20/08 where Tim said “He [Delaughter] was bribed.
2. They can testify about what Peters said to Delaughter and vice versa if the statement falls within an exception to hearsay, for example, a statement made in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy, illegal solicitation of a bribe, statements against interests, etc. Like Peters saying, “judge delaughter says he wants a federal judgeship.”
3. A bribe can be something other than money. It can be a promise. For example, a promise to ask your brother in law, the Senator, to place your name on a list of nominees for a federal judgeship.
4. It was alleged, not by Balducci, but by the U.S. attorney that in at least one instance an e mail was forwarded from the judge to Peters to Langston and Balducci with an order. The US attorney presumably has a copy of this “at least one e mail.” The phrase “at least one” implies there are others.
5. The $3 million dollars was split between those three guys. DeLaughter did not get any money. How do you know? You don’t know whether DeLaughter got any money or not. Maybe DeLaughter was just helping Peters make millions of dollars for free? DeLaughter just wanted to draw a judge’s salary while he made his old boss rich as Midas? I guess that’s possible. Right now only DeLaughter, Peters and the feds know if DeLaughter got money or not. Anyway, the promise of nomination is sufficient to be a bribe — it doesn’t matter if money was paid or not.
6. DeLaughter says Scruggs tried to corruptly influence him but he doesn’t know if he was influenced or not. Jerry Mitchell reported this as a statement made to the feds, not as grand jury testimony. However, DeLaughter’s statements have changed so much over time it does lend truth to Jerry’s reports. At first DeLaughter said he was not approached. He was. He said he would have reported any approach. He didn’t. He said he didn’t receive anything. He did. Public records and phone records indicate he was contacted by Trent Lott and that his name was placed on a list of nominees for a federal judgeship. Now he admits he was approached, he didn’t report it, he was nominated but says that it had nothing to do with the orders and that they were legally sound even though he doesn’t know if letting balducci/langston edit and write the orders “influenced” the orders or not. I guess he just forgot, he let Scruggs’s lawyers write them through ex parte communications facilitated by Peters.
Time will ultimately answer all of these questions, but I hope this helps clear some things up for you.
And, I love it when someone call me a troll just because I don’t agree with everything she says. If you can’t engage in a little debate without getting your feelings hurt, just resort to name calling. That’ll show ‘em!
Lynda: I have never appeared in DeLaughter’s court. The facts I’ve learned have confirmed an opinion I already held of Peters. They’ve been very damning of DeLaughter.
The facts in the petitions are not from the reporting by the Clarion Ledger. Almost every fact cited in the Kirk v. Pope petition is in either the court file or the Mississippi Supreme Court opinion, and those facts have been discussed at length on this blog. Check the links in the post above. I thought reading the publicly available information that the judge should be removed based on those facts, without regard to the Wilson facts.
And the facts in Wilson are just as bad if not worse. I have them from a combination of public record (pleadings in the case itself largely, plus the plea facts involving Langston and Patterson) and some interviews with Wilson’s lawyers. I have very little doubt that the petition facts are accurate.
We have posted our sources continuously. They are here on the blog. Where are you coming from?
As I read your posts, you are doing two things: Saying I’ve posted something inaccurate, and ranting that these are just allegations in pleadings. As to the former, you are wrong, and just ignored what I posted. As to the latter, I’ve told you were I got my factual assertions. What other than denial are you doing? Do you have either documents or first hand knowledge? We would be glad to hear either.
I can only conclude from your rants that you have not read this blog for long. Search for Ed Peters in the search window and then come back.
Dear Lynda (again):
There is no bigger villain than an unfair judge who is willing to be influenced or even one who can’t say if he’s influenced or not.
Your questions that it doesn’t make sense DeLaughter would do this if he wasn’t getting some of the money is exactly what we mean.
Perhaps DeLaughter DID believe he was absolutely going to get that nomination.
Lynda, what is to debate?
If you believe that DeLaughter’s continued presence on the bench is a good thing, good for you; however, I just don’t know of anyone (inside or outside the bar) that agrees with that position.
what this judge admits he did, what the lawyers have given up their law licenses to prove that the judge did is so illegal, unethical and awful by itself it simply doesn’t matter if he got any money or judgeship or whether in his mind he thinks he didn’t exchange anything for it even if he did let the lawyers run the show.
what delaughter did in the kirk v. pope case is just as awful and the complaint explains it. delaughter just couldn’t help being a lawyer for one side or the other. he just simply has not acted as a judge but as an advocate. this is heinous.
i wish the supreme court would suspend the rule and not allow any briefs and just grant the motion its all so eggregious.
I just want to point out that, even after Sul Ozerden was nominated and confirmed, to fill Judge Bramlette’s active spot after he took senior status, there is still a vacant federal district judgeship in the Southern District of Mississippi. Leslie Southwick was nominated for that opening before he was nominated to fill the vacancy on the Fifth Circuit. Did Judge DeLaughter think he might have had a chance at that seat before Lott resigned? Please note: I am not making any accusations here. Just raising a question.
Methinks after reading the Lynda McNamee comments, denials, assertions etc…that I detect a similar writing style of one formerly in our midst. One that is undeniably “Hooded” in rhythm and cadence…I almost fear to speak or type the name of BELLESOUTH lest she returns spewing venom from her half crazed view of reality. Someone tell me that it is not possible that there could be an equally evil twin cast forthwith from the same tribe under a similar spell that strives to to stir up a nice simmering cauldron of controversy of what most learned people would accept as “fact” and not a fantasy world interpretation that conveniently demands “proof” in such measure that it defies common sense?
Tell me that its not from the same IP address that this madness emanates.
occamsrazor FTW
FTW?
For the Win. I believe you correctly identified Ms. Ladd.
Lotus NMC ,
Congrats I am impressed. When I googled the above styled persona possibly outed as Bellesouth, plus ‘Mississippi’ I noted google already had links to this thread. I think I may change my handle to generate more interest.
George
Justsittinhere – I realize they can testify about what Peters told them. But that’s all they can testify to…they can’t testify about what Delaughter did. They can only relate what Peters said. The feds are the ones who said Delaughter did not receive any money. That’s public record. Furthermore, if Ed Peters was as close to Delaughter as is alleged, it stands to reason that he would KNOW (without asking) that a federal judgeship was something Delaughter wanted. Hell, most everybody knew that! Peters must have also known that “money” wouldn’t buy Delaughter or he wouldn’t have suggested a judgship nomination as the way to bribe him.
The feds have not stated that they have a copy of the alleged email. The only public information about an email came from Langston/Bladucci. This is how they are supposed to have “known” that Peters approached Delaughter and that he took the bait. If you are aware of a source that says the feds have actually seen a copy of this document, please point me to it. As for Delaughter’s statements changing over time, I guess that depends on whether you give any creedence to anything “reported” by Jerry Mitchell. If you will go back and review his article in which he alleges that Delaughter said he didn’t know if he was influenced, you’ll see that he did not put that comment in quotes – which implies that he was not stating it EXACTLY as it was said. And, he doesn’t even say how he knows what Delaughter told the feds (or the grand jury – doesn’t really matter). Who told him and where did that person get the information? Delaughter has not waivered from his statement that he did not take a bribe. And he has not retracted his statement about whether Peters approached him about a bribe. As for Trent Lott calling him…why would Delaughter – or anyone else -think that strange? Why would Delaughter not have been a reasonable recommendation for the position? And, why would Delaughter not think he could achieve that without having to resort to bribery? Until now, he has had an impeccable reputation. His resume is impressive (much more so than the man who actually got the job).
You are right that time will answer most of the questions. But it won’t matter. Even if God himself was to proclaim that Delaughter is 100% innocent, there are too many people who will prefer to believe that he bribed God to speak on his behalf. I guess it just makes some people feel better about themselves when they can point a finger at someone else.
Good golly, justsittinhere, that was the very best explaining and such a nice calm attitude. I like you. one thing too, from one who knows little, i think a judge should show wisdom–isn’t being wise a big consideration for being a judge. They also, it seems to me, should have a lot of equanimity (perfect unshakable balance of mind, rooted in insight). Who are some judges with these characteristics? I think unfortunately DeLaughter i fear let the “wild horses” carry away his mind;his thoughts. Maybe even several teams of wild horses. namaste everybody; have a wonderful easter weekend with family and people you love and people that you are trying to love. try to do a down dog (adho mukha shvanasana). there are good instructions on internet. it will rejuvinate you and increase circulation to the brain, lengthen the spine,stretch the entire backside of the body, and open the heart,and more—it really is a whole yoga lesson in one.
No. I am not Belle. Don’t know her. I did read that she was banished from this site. What happened? Did she hurt someone’s feelings, too?
Regardless…I will now apologize. I am sorry that I mistakenly believed a person had a right to a fair hearing in this county before being proclaimed guilty. I didn’t realize that one side of a story was all that was required to convict a person. I thought a person had a right to SEE the evidence against him and be provided an opportunity to (at least try) to dispute it. Stupid me. I even thought you actually had to be indicted before being convicted. Where did I EVER get such an idea? I guess I should have gone to law school afterall. (For the record, I never voiced an opinion about whether Delaughter should be suspended so don’t pretend that you know my position on that. However, I will go on record with THIS opinion… Jim Hood should have to serve his time UNDER the jail! With that, you can bid me good riddance.
Lynda: my mistake. Thought you were honestly seeking answers. Like nmc, I can see you are a liar and a blasphemer. There may be a place for you on team scruggs.
Well, I do like that “you can bid me good riddance” part, Justsittinhere (welcome to folo, by the way). May that be Lynda’s one reliable statement here.
amen
And Houston J Patton still sits the bench! I’m disgusted!
JayJ: yes. call the feds if you have information.
Lynda’s rant at43 re: DeLaughter “His resume is impressive (much more so than the guy who got the job) .” Have you read Sul Ozerdon’s resume? Sure he’s relatively young, but his military and educational background is quite impressive (Georgetown undergrad, pilot, Stanford Law). Perhaps his most attractive attribute was that he is non-political–never run for office, never been involved in local judicial races, etc. I think he’s probably one of the most independent jurists ever appointed! To say nothing of his intelligence and judicial temperament. ..Lynda just doesn’t want to get her facts straight!
Sailor// My Mississippi has a culture that Lynda has bought into, You Ant’ Smart enought on your own to attain greatness unless you have the right Political Connections.
I had been missing belle until Lynda turned up!!
Eh, Lynda has a less rambling and more grammatically correct style than Belle.
I still find myself hoping that the allegations re DeLaughter himself are not true, as I had always respected him. However, he should be removed from the bench until this stuff is over — at which time, if innocent, he can be reinstated and, if guilty, he can be removed permanently. He should not be hearing cases while these questions are there, though.
Amen, hazel75.
What an amazing long time it’s taken to get even this close to prying him off a bench he should have immediately known he needed to self-suspend — if not resign outright — from when the Wilson and Kirk allegations first arose. He certainly would have looked and smelled much better had he done so.
i’d say let it go and let bobby come back. bobby is a good lawyer.