folo

Lovelace:

Direct: Practices Lovelace Law Firm PA. He’s Sparky. Is familiar with the joint venture agreement. Did not know about the bribery/improper contact with Judge Lackey. Learned about the events in the indictment, he guesses, when he saw the indictment. Has a son who lives here.

Has not seen the order Balducci tendered. Did not communicate with Balducci about the fee dispute case. Did not know who Patterson is.

Q. P.L. Blake?

A. No.

Did not authorize bribery. Agreed that Daniel Coker could defend the different defendants. There was not a joint defense agreement.

Tollison cross:

Did you agree with the motion to submit to arbitration filed by Daniel Coker? Doesn’t remember whether he agreed. He has not paid a proportionate share of the fees yet.

Daniel Coker: Asks to submit an affidavit of Barrett. Tollison objects, wans a deposition.

Final argument:

Judge states this is a joint venture, and he has previously ruled that the action of one joint venturer is the action of all for purposes of sanctions in this matter.

Moffett argues inherent power to look at lesser sanctions than default, says that the criminal punishments are sufficient punishment and deterence, the other defendants were not in bad faith. Bad faith is personal.

Moffett: The plaintiffs haven’t suffered any damages from this alleged wrongful conduct [this got a silent guffaw from Grady Tollison].

Moffett: Don Barrett individually is a defendant in this case. He was not a member of SKG, but is named individually. If a default is entered against Mr. Barrett, they have allegations in their complaint about him individually which if taken as true would expose Mr. Barrett to punitive damages for the conflict in the underlying fee dispute. That would be double punishment against Mr. Barrett.

Judge: I’m ready to rule.

Roy Percy: Asks to be heard. (?? That slightly surprised me. Perhaps I misheard the judge. Someone did). Starts talking about the defendants arguing that the acts of Scruggs should not be charged against them, I thought that had been decided.

Judge: Addressed their challenge, not the procedure. [The judge expreses some impatience -- "get to the point."]

Percy: Entire purpose of the bribe was to secure enforcement of a provision of the joint venture agreement. How could an attempt to enforce a provision of the joint venture agreement be anything but an effort on behalf of the joint venture agreement.

Coleman: I set out in my email the steps that I’ve gone through and the steps needed, to the best of my memory was to avoid piecemeal resolution as best possible. On hearing, one of the issues or questions. There has been no argument or filing for reconsideration. The argument is stronger this time [for the KG side] but I don’t intend to revisit. It’s a day late, maybe not a dollar short, but I don’t intend to revisit my rulings. I did not anticipate that the plaintiffs are asking for any funds individually other than their share of the assets of this joint venture that are pending for distribution. I consider the suit to be, if not against the joint venture, against the assets of the joint venture. For that reason I am not going to reconsider my previous ruling that is the joint venturers are charged with Scruggs’s actions. Anything else?

Percy: Would like to address precisely what the sanction should be.

Ten minute recess.