David Rossmiller in a post on his weblog asked his ten unanswered questions in the Scruggs matter. I’ll play– here’s my thoughts, if not answers, on the questions. I’ll invite discussion in comments
1. How likely do you think it was that a lawyer of the reputation of John Keker and a defendant of the wealth and notoriety of Dickie Scruggs failed to test their case before mock juries? I would say it is very unlikely, and my guess is they used more than one. I would also take an educated guess that, if they did, the answers from the mock jury were unfavorable.
I’m with David on this one. And also note that asking a rhetorical question is a great way of asking about what’s being heard on the street…
2. Is the talk of the 50 sealed indictments just wishful thinking on the part of Mississippians, some deus ex machina that will come in and settle the plot? And if they are real, what are the feds waiting for? One reason I’ve been skeptical of this is hardly anything is really a secret about the Scruggs case — I hear a lot more than I pass on, much of it credible or reliable — but I’ve not heard any of the names supposedly on this list.
Speaking of what’s heard on the street! The rumor mill sometimes includes names, and sometimes it’s included names that were startling to me. I have resisted passing on names either in conversation or online. I’m a real skeptic on this one. First I heard 50+ target letters (in early January?), then soon after that morphed into 50 or 50+ sealed indictments. I thought that morphing process could likely have resulted from the fact that the lay public didn’t know what a target letter was– I thought perhaps the literal game of gossip had switched target letters to something familiar to the public. I would say if we don’t see indictments by the end of March, it would be a reasonable bet there aren’t a big pile of sealed indictments. I’m still wondering about the rumor about target letters.
3. It seems evident that the government will seek an indictment against Scruggs for his alleged role in the Wilson case. Why did they wait until the conclusion of the Lackey bribery case rather than going after a superseding indictment and rolling all the charges into one?
It makes perfect sense to me. They took the equivalent of a sitting duck, and now are working on the more complicated one. There a lot of decisions to make about the Wilson case– for one thing, it is part of an apparently huge pattern of improper influence involving the judge and the former D.A. It’s not inconceivable to me that it may go even broader than that. The prosecutors in hearings and pleadings consistently emphasized how simple and straightforward the case involving Judge Lackey was. The Wilson case is anything but. I can’t blame them in the least for keeping the straightforward and the baroque apart.
4. Where will Dickie Scruggs do his prison sentence?
In the Colorado supermax with Ted Kaczynksi? Actually, I have no idea but if forced to guess would guess Florida.
5. What exactly does the phrase mean that Balducci used with Judge Lackey, “lay the corn on the ground”?
Like Gertrude Stein, Balducci varies meaning of a phrase as its repeated. One time he means he’s putting down seed for a later harvest, in developing his legal practice. The other time he means it as some sort of exhortation, encouraging Judge Lackey– like a congregant telling the preacher “Tell it!”
6. Will Jim Hood continue to hand out multi-million dollar cases like a Pez dispenser? (Scroll down to the middle of the post).
I kind of doubt it but he’s shown a capacity to continually surprise me, and not in good ways.
7. Will we ever find out what exactly P.L. Blake did for those millions?
That’s an area where there will be major loose ends even when this is all done.
8. Returning to the issue of the Wilson case, was the timing of Joey Langston’s guilty plea anything other than a justification to use the evidence as prior bad act evidence against Scruggs? Were there plans to roll up the Wilson case, but then these plans were scrapped?
I think the timing was about striking while the iron was hot. I think Joey and his lawyer both knew he needed to deal and cooperate, and being the closest possible to the first in line was the best possible way to deal. So they dealt. The prosecution has seemed to me to be methodically playing their hand according to plan; I doubt seriously whether they’ve changed direction in the Wilson case, but working through the simpler one first, as noted above.
9. When and if all the information on the Wilson case comes out, I’m sure going to be curious to see the testimony about Trent Lott’s role in the call to Judge DeLaughter, aren’t you? I mean, given that he had known Bobs Wilson for a long time, and given that Dickie Scruggs was his brother-in-law, is it possible that he could have been unaware that Judge DeLaughter had before him a case involving Wilson and Scruggs? If he did know, how is that OK? If he didn’t know, how is that OK?
I’m curious about it, too. I have to take at face value the prosecution announcement that he is just a witness as to the Wilson mess, but I’m not really buying. And I absolutely do not buy that he had no knowledge why this mattered to Scruggs. But perhaps I’m being cynical. If he knew, not ok. If he didn’t know, more likely ok. I’ll rephrase David’s question: If he knew, how much bigger a role in Wilson does Lott have than Zach-who-pleaded-to-misprision had in Jones?
10. In thinking about this, it seems to me that when Mike Moore was brought on the Zach Scruggs’ defense team, this indicated a fighting strategy, a trial strategy. If this is so, what happened to change this strategy and make Zach willing to take a plea agreement just a short time later?
I think the largest role Moore had to play was this: They were bringing in a counselor they really trusted. I don’t think Moore’s presence in the case changed their strategy. If I had to guess, I would strongly tend toward thinking that the Kansas City lawyers were stronger advocates of a plea than Moore.
as to #8 – I think the plea is interesting and timed by the feds. Going into the trial they only had Balducci – the rogue lawyer goon – turned on Scruggs. I think Joey’s *kind* plea may not have been so much a testament to Farese as it was that the government saw another avenue of evidence against Scruggs from a reliable and well-known source. With giving Joey the easy way out, but securing his testimony and therefore 404b evidence, it put a full court press on Scruggs.
And there is NO WAY Lott did not know about the lawsuit. Not only was Bob Wilson a friend of Lott, their families were friends. The Wilsons were donors to Lott and even campaign staffers back in the day from what I hear – no way he did not know and turn his back on a friend (nevertheless supposedly sicing the IRS on him.) If the allegations of what Lott did to Wilson is true, it is just downright wrong and malicious.
greenlawyer//For Lott to turn on Wilson to the point of IRS tells me He is trying to protect the POT OF GOLD the Feds are looking for. Lott joined K Street where you can influence and steal Legally, not that he would do anything like that.
NMC. In reading all of the above and in a laymen’s understanding of the RICO statute, could it be that the Fed’s are putting together a RICO indictment by their methodical approach to finishing one case before beginning another…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO
“Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes –27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes –within a 10-year period and, in the opinion of the United States Attorney bringing the case, has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.
We’ve already got bribery as one crime. Money being “flown in” in the Wilson case, possibly laundered as it were. And the list goes on if all these cases are won.
Applicable? Plausible? Thoughts?
As to the prison, methinks somewhere within the triangle of Dallas, Houston and Oakdale, Louisiana.
Shaves – i agree about RICO. I wouldn’t be surprised if by the end of this Scruggs & Co are facing both criminal and civil RICO suits.
Same citation from Wiki as above, “Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another’s speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.”
Wasn’t there previous mention of “some high ranking official” wanting some charges filed at one point while someone was in bankruptcy? I think it was the Wilson case also, but I could be wrong.
And there is NO WAY Lott did not know about the lawsuit.
But I don’t think that gets Lott into trouble. Scruggs can call up Lott and say, “hey, y’all should talk to DeLaughter, he’s an outstanding judge,” and even if Lott knows that Scruggs presently has a case in front of DeLaughter, that by itself doesn’t get Lott into trouble. (At least, so long as Lott is not a Democratic ex-governor of Alabama.) Even if Lott knows that S. has a case pending before DeL., that doesn’t mean that Lott knows S. has said a word to DeL. about it, etc.
I don’t see how they get Lott without *some* indication of a quid-pro-quo.
Nice thinking-through, NMC. I especially bet you’re right about the relative strength of the KC lawyers’ advocacy to plead vs. Moore’s.
greenlawyer 1, I’ve always wanted to know “When was the last verified public sighting of Ed Peters, and was it between the Scruggs and the Langston busts (if so, was it in Jackson or Oxford)?”
Everything I’ve seen of Trent Lott over the years suggests to me that he’s fully capable of downright-wrong malice, by the way.
Razor 2, got my fingers crossed for that result (though I wouldn’t want to see the Feds cut in front of W.R. Wilson in line). As to your 5, yes, “high ranking public official” wanted Ed Peters to prosecute Wilson on state tax charges after Dickie’s holding-out on him left him able only to file a return but not pay his taxes due. We got this from Jerry Mitchell in late January.
It is not only possible, but highly probable, that Lott had been tipped off that the feds were looking for evidence regarding judicial bribery involving Paul Minor and Dickie Scruggs. My guess is he was told to not recommend DeLaughter.
I had discovered that Minor and Scruggs had loaned (in actuality, gave) money to Justice Diaz’s wife in the last few days of the contribution period – the 90 days post election contribution period in 2000. During the summer of 2001 Diaz was notified by Moore’s office and asked to explain the two loans.
My guess is that Moore told Diaz, Minor, and Scruggs, that I was questioning the payoff and if these loans, totaling about $150K were really contributions, therefore grossly in excess of the $5K limit. A few months later, my letter to the editor exposing the loans , including links to the CFR, was published statewide in MS.
Lott had plenty of time to cover his tracks. I’ve always wonder why Scruggs did not cover his as well. In addition, Lott’s fall from grace ( racial comments and retirement) occurred just days before both news reports about Scruggs.
Anyone who thinks that Mississippi will clean up its act should consider the following. After the tort wars and the rah rah for a judicial code revision that was spurred by the money rush over the Diaz campaign, Mississippi thumbed its nose at the lesser public by increasing the post election contribution period from 90 days to 120 days.
Money or gifts to a judge – after – I repeat after – he is elected is bribery, especially if he is hearing the contributors case and the intent is to influence.
As to a possible RICO charge…
If you think conspiracy in the Wilson case is going to be hard to prove, that child’s play compared to RICO. It’s a complicated statute that must involve a very specific “enterprise” between seperate co-conspiritors. Also, the local US Attorney must bring in the federal RICO “squad” in DC. All of this means that RICO prosecutions are getting less and less likely.
None of this prevents a civil party from putting together a civil RICO suit.
Maybe not the KC lawyers so much as another MS lawyer v. Moore
MT 11, one by the initials TF, perchance? Someone with some sense, in other words?
Justice: There may be a simpler RICO path to travel, if the feds are looking in all the right places. The help may not come from lawyers, but their staff and, particularly, their accountants/bookkeepers.
It would be entirely consistent and prudent for the DOJ to conduct a forensic audit of the accounting practices used by the firms involved. After all, there was direct evidence that Scruggs was going to, or already had, falsified an invoice to cover up the extra $10k that was paid as part of the bribe.
A close look into the billing records for the firm’s class action proceedings may reveal a pattern and practice of billing otherwise non-case related, non-billable items to class action cases……….everything from campaign contributions, to luxurious travel and meals, to payoffs, to haircuts, etc. I would bet there are many firm-generated invoices to be found, especially for those expenses where receipts are not routinely furnished.
Some class action attorneys bill every personal expense and cost to class action cases. They believe that their very own existence is a benefit to the class, and every cost related to their personal existence should be borne by someone else.
I would bet some serious money there are some unfortunate and recently unemployed staff of the firm who would have some insight into this practice.
Lotus…Yes, one who tried to convince Z to plea a few months back to no avail, but had more success last week…
Shaves@5, I would suspect the high ranking official who wanted Peters to prosecute Wilson on state taxes would be Mike Moore. That was Moore’s mode of operation—to threaten prosecution of people to get what he wanted.
Nomiss, Mike Moore was out of office when the call was made to Peters. He’s not on the list. Also, there are reasons it doesn’t make sense for the A.G. (who would have been Hood) to deliver a threat in that particular way, so I would bet strongly against Hood, too.
Various: I would be really surprised if the prosecutors use RICO. They can get all the good they need out of conspiracy law without the dubiousness courts have for RICO and without the headaches it brings proof-wise.
Regarding question 5, I have heard of an old expression that goes, “let’s lay the corn on the ground so the goats can get at it.” This could mean, present the matter in plain terms so it can be understood. I don’t know if this is how Balducci was using the phrase.
MSlawyer, I think you are recalling a slight variation of the expression “Put it down where the little goats can get it,” meaning use plain, simple language that will not go over the heads of the unsophisticated or unlearned.
Shaves at 3 & 6
ITS ALL THERE!
Bring in a GREAT BIG POSSE!
I’m not holdin’ my breath, but for the sake of
the REPUBLIC!
Hearing rumors that 3 mock trials were held in Shreveport with no juror in any of the mock trials voting to acquit. Don’t have any facts to substantiate the rumor. Anyone heard something to confirm or refute?
Also news of the weird–petition website to save Dickie Scruggs from jail time. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/svae-dickey-scruggs
i think if the DeLaughter/Peters duo only involved the Wilson case, there would have been an indictment by now. however, it has become so apparent that DeLaughter/Peters was an ongoing racket since at least 2003 (or perhaps when the DeLaughter took the circuit Court bench in 2002) that the feds are trying to get the whole scheme as it played out over the past six years between DeLaughter/Peters. That’s why nothing has happened yet. I do not see how DeLaughter can possibly defend against so many instances of corruption. His orders in Kirk v. Pope evidence what he did in that case. That case alone should cost him his bench, his license and some prison time. Then there’s Wilson, then Eaton and who knows how many others.
Makes my skin crawl to think that Bobby DeLaughter has been sending people to jail in this state for 20 years. Who knows what horrors lirk below the surface?
I think a lot of us have the hope of RICO being used because it could take all their damn money and actually punish them. A 250K fine, couple years in jail……. but hey, when you get out, you still have 500 million. Yeah, yeah…. public embarrasment, losing law license, blah blah. When you live on an island estate somewhere, you aren’t going to be embarrased anymore or need to practice law. That’s not justice.
But hey…….. I’m not bitter. lol
Interesting thoughts on the WSJ’s coverage and Keker:
http://newhouse-web.syr.edu/legal/blog_comments.cfm?blogpost=570
Are any of you troubled about the order Judge Lackey signed sealing the file in Jones v. Scruggs, on the basis an ex parte motion, and if so, why not?
Steve, read below, AGAIN!
http://www.folo.us/2008/03/22/a-meme-that-makes-me-ill/
NMC re #7 and my friend P.L. Blake. Why would there be loose ends? Should this money trail not be relatively easy to follow? We know that there were wire transfers from Scruggs to Langston to Blake’s account at First Tennessee. We have Langston cooperating along with Balducci and Blake’s long time friend Patterson. I would hope that with this kind of a starting trail that they could find something–if not we are in trouble. In my opinion this one should be easy to tie up in a neat little package–unless of course some people in higher places sabotage the trail!
NMC at 16, you write like a man who has experienced the hassle of working on a RICO case. I briefed the plaintiffs’ side of a civil RICO case in 2001. A complete hassle. The basic problem with a RICO case is that there are about 15 times more ways to screw it up than there are to win it.
Jim:
Here’s the problem: Unless the trail needs somewhere the prosecution or a civil litigant needs to go, there is no way to force it into public view. We (the folks on Folo) can follow up on the things exposed in the cases in a huge way, and do, but we have no levers to to wedge things out into the public. I really doubt that the prosecutors will need to chase down all the various threads to a conclusion in order to “bring people to justice.” So I doubt it’s going to come through court case.
It is possible, but just, that the plaintiffs in Wilson and Luckey exposed enough to get where you’d like to go, but some intrepid writer has to be willing to go through it all and make sense of it. I can tell you from my own experience with this case, there is SO MUCH to work with, any writer has to do some triage.
Just with regard to the posts I did this weekend about Wilson: I’ve had that stuff sitting in my word processor since January. Every bit of it. I was holding it until I could get back and work on it some more, and till I got some of the pleadings from the sealed case. When Jerry Mitchell (and Lotus) starting posting fragments of the story, I decided: “Shoot, I can’t wait any longer” and ran what I had. But just running down the loose ends in the part of the story I’m focused on (the Lackey bribery case, the Katrina cases, and U.S. v. Scruggs) is more work than I can do, and so backing up to the tobacco stories is overwhelming.
So I’m thinking between those two problems, when the dust settles, there will still be stuff we don’t know about the financial deals with the tobacco fees, even if some of the principals get prosecuted, including Blake.
rogerwilco, I cowrote the motion to amend the complaint and the amended complaint in the first case to bring RICO claims in North Mississippi. It was a securities fraud case in which bond counsel’s firm had repeatedly issued opinions for bond issues that went south, but still was a pain to get where we needed it to be. OTOH, the motion to amend was granted and BAM the case settled.
All I need to add is to “lay the corn on the ground baby!!!!”
NMC: Ole Miss just took down the scruggs name from the music building. I guess we knew it would happen but at 10 o’clock at night, why?
Less likelihood of wandering photographers, late at night under the quiet cover of darkness. Everything doesn’t have to be in the paper, complete with pictures does it? Were they taking it down with loving tenderness, or just helter skelter ripping and slashing. Though this is nothing on the scale of tearing down the Berlin wall…some type of closure from seeing it done would have been nice. Khayat could have given a lil speech, “tho we now quickly remove the names from this buildings of brick and stone, NOTHING can ever make us remove their names from the great donor lists or our hearts.”
I think it is very interesting to read the names of the people that are signing the petition. One person I’m pretty sure worked at his firm (does anyone know what is happening with David Shelton – one of the partners?) and another is the wife of one of the defense attorneys for Sid.
There was a letter to the editor published in the Oxford Eagle today from the creator of the “free dickey” site. Also, I think it’s kind of funny that they mispelled his name – isn’t it Dickie?
razor: we couldn’t get there in time with camera to take pics as they took them down…They obviously wanted kept out of the paper, luckily we got picture for at least our website, hopefully publication.
dmwriter, the pictures are up on the website here, in any event. Thanks for the tip, and thank your photographer for sending us the pics.
hmmm $10 mil to P.L. Blake and a $10 mil contribution by Ben Lebow. Just coincidental I’m sure.
“Drexel’s College of Business and Administration was named the Bennett S. LeBow College of Business in his honor after a contribution of $10 million to the university.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_S._LeBow
Interesting comments from Lebow gushing about Scruggs and Moore:
“…Q: Let me change the subject on you a little bit, just because we’re focusing to a certain extent on the attorneys general and what happened. When you first met Dick Scruggs and Mike Moore, what did you make of them?
Lebow: I thought they were really crusaders.
Q: Moore was a crusader?
Lebow: Absolute crusader. He was crusading for something he believed in. And I was very impressed by his record. And it turns out he was a hell of a crusader…General Moore. It turns out he was right all along. And I was impressed.
Q: Not your average politician?
Lebow: No, not your average politician.
Q: Why not?
Lebow: He had a focus. He and Dickey Scruggs wanted to accomplish something, and they went for it, you know, all the way. And they did it, and they deserve all the credit that they get….”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/settlement/interviews/lebow.html
scandaljunkie
There was a letter to the editor published in the Oxford Eagle today from the creator of the "free dickey " site. Also, I think it’s kind of funny that they mispelled his name – isn’t it Dickie?
It is. And it is funny.
I thought it interesting the “free dicky” site’s url is
“svae-dickey-scruggs”
OK, I’ll “svae” Dickey!
SVAE away!
NMC, I was not inferring that you are folo follow Blake’s money trail –you have done so much to date and we owe you so many thanks. My position is that the $50 million is probably some of the most dirty and most tainted money involved in this entire case/cases. I think it would be most interesting to see where it all wound up.
jim: good point . Maybe Feds should just focus on these two matters: 1. The 50, 2. Delaughter. That would clear alot of corruption. IMO.
If they ( the Feds) do not follow that money then in my opinion NO justice will have been served.
Re Delaughter at 39 I totally agree. Between Blake’s seed money and Delaughter/Peters is where most of the real dirt can be found.
NMC 29
Care to expand?
What Bond Council’s Firm?
What Bond Issues?