This post is an overview for those arriving late. Triage after a major traffic wreck is no damn fun, but somebody’s got to do it. So, donning biohazard gear and checking my supply of bodybags, I gather my flowahy intrepidity and wade into the carnage under the bus that crashed out there on the road from Moore to Brumfield.
The first victim in sight is Judge Henry Lackey: though bearing some tiretracks, he’s only shaken up, not injured. Patsy Brumfield’s first story about his Tuesday testimony, filed at 4:28:27 PM that day (by folo’s log, two hours and 50 minutes after NMC posted liveblogging of it) fails to mention the language NMC headlined, “Judge Lackey: ‘I did not know what kind of monster we were dealing with.’ ‘The monster was Dickie Scruggs.’”
Mike Moore, so crucial a figure in Lackey’s testimony about the judge’s conversation with ADA Lon Stallings, appears only when Brumfield lists a few spectators in Judge Coleman’s courtroom.
But B&E the next morning (6:00:09 AM local time), Patsy revs up and makes a run:
OXFORD – One part of Circuit Judge Henry Lackey’s testimony Tuesday in Lafayette court sent former Attorney General Mike Moore out of the room.
He was mad and decided to check into what Lackey had just claimed. …
“Judge Lackey either is very confused or he made up the story out of whole cloth,” Moore said. …
He also showed the Daily Journal a text message he had just received from Stallings, which confirmed the story.
Was Moore surprised to hear Lackey’s accusations from the stand Tuesday morning?
“Sure, I was appalled,” he said.
Patsy leads us to Moore’s next victim, one in rather worse shape than Lackey:
Moore also noted he, as attorney general, had removed Patterson from office as state auditor and prosecuted him.
“I of all people would not have anything to do with Steve Patterson,” he noted.
Four minutes later, Patsy files another long story about the hearing, repeating that Moore was present but again mentioning neither Lackey’s “monster” quote nor his testimony about Stallings, Hood, and Moore.
By now other reporters are checking Patsy’s facts, though, and the Oxford Eagle‘s Alyssa Schnugg is doing some interviewing of her own. The Eagle allows folo to print its account in full, including the ka-BOOM that flattens Patsy:
Moore said that recently published reports claiming that Stallings had text messaged him to assure Moore that Lackey’s comments about his threatening Hood’s position were untrue. Moore said the text message he received earlier this week came from his associate, Lee Martin. …
Alyssa watches Moore veer for Patterson again:
"As far as what Judge Lackey said, the information is wrong, " Moore said. "Maybe he’s confused. Maybe someone else is doing that stuff. Maybe Steven Patterson. I prosecuted and removed (Patterson) from office. He doesn’t like me much. Whatever those boys are saying, they aren’t talking to me about it. "
But however deep Patterson’s treadmarks may be, Patsy Brumfield’s are deeper. Early Thursday afternoon, Ole Miss student reporter Paul Quinn asks “What really happened?” His answers come from interviews with Moore and Stallings that echo and expand their statements to Alyssa Schnugg.
A few hours later, the DJournal attempts emergency surgery, calling Patsy’s account of the Moore interview “substantially correct,” though it “missed on a couple of points”:
– Lon Stallings “told the Daily Journal on Wednesday he had told Lackey about Hood’s disagreement with Moore and Scruggs, but that he had never mentioned anything about [Insurance Commissioner George] Dale.”
– Neither Tim Balducci nor Steve Patterson threatened Jim Hood as Patsy reported.
– Stallings had indeed “told an investigator for Moore … about his advice to Lackey and what he had said about Moore and Scruggs’ disagreement with Hood.”
Most crucially:
– “A text message shown Tuesday to the Daily Journal, which reporter Patsy Brumfield originally thought was from Stallings, was not. It was from Moore associate Lee Martin, and Moore said again Wednesday it confirmed his recollection of what his investigator told him about speaking with Stallings and his advice to Lackey.”
This morning, with reporter Brumfield’s condition now at best guarded, Paul Quinn’s new story only darkens her and the DJ’s prognosis:
The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal reported that Stallings sent a text message to Moore during court Tuesday. The message said Lackey was not telling the truth. The reporter was actually looking at the e-mail sent by Lee Martin, an attorney in Moore’s office, to Moore during Tuesday’s hearing and mistakenly thought it was from Stallings, Moore said.
The e-mail sent by Martin said, “I talked to Bill, and Lon Stallings did not say anything about such a conversation with Hood or Lackey. During Lackey’s conversation with Lon, Lon suggested they get the attorney general’s office involved.”
District Attorney Ben Creekmore said the false report was a “huge, huge mistake.”
Thursday, Stallings said he was offended by the false report. “The judge is not a liar,” he said.
What’s more, the whippersnapper pries out that, before Dickie’s guilty plea, Moore sent his investigator Bill East to talk to Stallings about the Lackey meeting, and both Moore and Stallings confirm that the latter didn’t tell East he believed Hood had been threatened (nor did Stallings know East was working for Moore). But Stallings tells Paul that speaking with Hood had convinced him of the Moore-Scruggs threat to Hood.
I started this post in a lighthearted mode, but by now, that mood is gone. I might suggest that, in Paul’s stories for the Daily Mississippian and Alyssa’s for the Eagle, Patsy Brumfield and the rest of the regional media — not to mention the public — find the journalistic equivalent of malpractice claims. I might suggest that, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that the silence of most and the bad reporting of one are so serious a disservice to basic democracy that Paul’s and Alyssa’s work is really more like indictments.
I don’t know exactly when the DJ posted it’s not-quite-correct correction, or whether the timing is important, but I blogged about it at 8:47 yesterday, so it was before the afternoon. The night before it was clear from comments by Alyssa and Paul (DM) on this blog that the story was going to come unraveled in stories in the Eagle and the DM….
Right, NMC. I’ve probably left out some other things too, so let’s collect ‘em all and I’ll add them. (After breakfast.)
So Patsy has now been ‘thrown under the bus.’ But does she realize it yet ???
When it’s all over, who of Moore’s associates – if any – will be left standing ???
In previous threads about this I heard people alluding to her previous political affiliations / activity, without getting into details. Can anybody flesh that out a little?
Coastian, here‘s nomiss’s backgrounder on that.
Most residents of Tupelo agree that the DJ is a joke. They need a competitor. A paper that is not swayed by big money supporters or politicians. The Joey Langston edition of the DJ, 10 page editorial proves my point. Quotes like “He paid for my mommas funeral”, “He’s really sorry”, “He’s done such good for the comunity” ect…Made me want to PUKE!!! I refuse to read the DJ. You can get them to print anything for the right money. Their politics are even stranger. Keep em honest NMC & lotus.
P.S. KUDOS to the Oxford Eagle!!! At least we have a few good reporters in this state!
Why didn’t Judge Lackey just go to the district attorney for the circuit to pursue his concerns? As I read Mississippi law, the district attorney had the power to do what he seems to say he wanted Attorney General Hood to do.
Eugster, stir yourself to click on the link above to NMC’s liveblogging.
Well, NMC, seems the New Madrid’s done a little dancing for ya.
lotus, I stirred myself again. Been back to the posting several times before you suggested the stirring. Still can’t figure out why Judge Lackey did not just go to the district attorney for the circuit. He’s an electd official and AG Hood had no control over him.
lotus//The quake was felt in NMS. but not by me, eventho everybody in the neighborhood felt it. We were told early it was The Wabash Faut, no one except my fifth grader had heard about this Faut. I thought it was an early morning phone call from Patsy to Mike.
I stirred myself too, and found you the exact passage in NMC’s first liveblogging post — Grady Tollison’s direct examination of Judge Lackey:
“Did not have the capability” would probably mean, most of all, no wiretapping ability.
mag, you be incorrigible (thank goo’ness)!
“Did not have the capability” I think also means that Ben’s office didn’t have the UNLIMITED resources of the federal government behind it as well as the wire-tapping ability.
lotus, thanks. I missed that part about “capability.” Guess that explains things. I was looking for something which indicated the district attorney did not have authority or was controlled by the AG. Could not find it in the Mississippi code or constitution.
Next question: In my experience getting a US Attorney to do anything is next to impossible. Why was the US Attorney so primed on this one? Do you think it may have something to do with the topic of the House Judiciary Committee report which you reported and posted yesterday?
Stallings knew to never take a knife to a gun fight (limited resources versus political clout and massive wealth to back it up).
I think it had most to do with Judge Lackey’s story, SE, especially as it meshed with a certain background local awareness of some things over the years . . .
Thanks to Lotus and NMC. This is like reading a novel you can’t put down, but it comes one installment at a time. Who needs Grisham?
Steve, are you implying this is all political and started as witch hunt? Seems the corruption was there and the US Attorney’s office did what they were suppose to do. Hopefully, more will come of this and we can remove more corruption from the practice of the law.
lotus and Delta Native, thanks it all makes some sense. It sure would be edifying to have some idea of the local background and common knowledge and common suspicians as to what was going on? Do you think there were rumors about DeLaughter floating way up to the surface in Hinds County about the Wilson case?
MSBroker, you are surely right. The story unfolding is more interesting and complicated than The Appeal. And, there is so much more to come!
Well, if there’s one thing we know, it’s that Mississippi’s legal community is a very small “town,” where bad reputations get around fast. This crowd had made itself lots of enemies over the years, so I imagine — no, know — that an opportunity to do something definitive about them at last was very welcome (as you can tell by what’s materialized on these pages since November 28).
msbroker, no, I do not think it was a witch hunt. (Although the Alabama case by US Attorney Martin sure as heck was/ is (in my mind)). I am disturbed about the entrapment matter, but that has to do with the idea of the government using agents to make the crime to entrap people into the agent’s crime. There are cases on such things; I think there may be a relevant case from the Fifth Circuit or at least one which may have a related thread of thought.
I am concerned about the constitutional issues and the reach of government. The guilt or alleged guilt of the person entrapped does not change my broad concern about this issue. The concern is a special concern as our nation seems to be moving more and more toward a state which does not protect and respect personal liberties.
I also think the public attitude toward Dick Scruggs changed in the year or so before November 2007. I think he broke his pick on the Katrina Cases — his conduct was out of line. And this: lawyers do not pay witnesses, period!
Great topic and analysis lotus. Perhaps Moore/Brumfield as co-drivers of the bus were still so intoxicated or hungover from years of consumption of power-ade ( political and monetary ) that they believed we were still operating in the days when anything fed to the media by scrugg’s thugs would be lapped up and published as fact without either confirmation or application of a simple smell test.
Journalist’s with agendas of the type just demonstrated are and have been for years enablers of corruption, but the blogs with their output of credible information and honest skepticism are changing the rules. Keep up the good work. You might even put Patsy on the wagon
Wonder if dm’s gotten the much-anticipated interview w/ Patsy yet. I’m interested in what she might allow. Have you had any communication w/ her, lotus?
#23//You coined it…If not for Folo, We would have been spoon fed S/H/M jello that slide down so smooth that we would have turned on the feds and run them out of the State. Moore with his yearly stipend of 20million had bought every paper in the State with his full page ads’ promoting himself and how he was here for the People.
mag 25/ don’t underestemate the media professionals, they have been at this ole game way before we were born! They also blog!
Telecommunication experts fer sure!
waterwalkin// Telecommunications’ experts caught in STING…By Bloggers..
ww, a “media professional” I recently contacted re: an upcoming news item said he might run a story, but only if he could get it out before “those damn bloggers. I tell you, they’re killing us (news reporters)!”
LOTS more catchin to do!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Polish them skills!
Sailor 28/Lost their rudder?
I may get smacked with a wet fish but..did anyone consider Patsy just made a mistake? I don’t know if the smackdown she’s getting now by I’m sure lots of people, including boss-types, would be worth trying to make Moore look better. Perhaps she just assumed it was Lon. While a bad bad mistake on her part, and a fireable one at many newspapers, maybe it was done without malice or intent and was simply – a mistake.
Just throwing it out there as a possibility.
Perxacly why I’m wantin’ to hear what she has to say, Lydialaw@31.
ww, you could say that, but I don’t think it’s an equipment problem. More like sailing in uncharted waters. I think they’ve got to learn some navigation skills.
LL / 31 – I don’t guess Patsy has come out to say one way or the other has she?
Patsy’s mistake in her original article, IMO, was taking what Mike Moore said as the absolute printable truth without verifying the text on the screen and identifying its writer. Another mistake was printing this assumption without questioning Lon Stallings (since she wrote that he was the sender) to verify his account. She did, after all, print that Moore had shown the DJ a text message on his Blackberry that proved Moore’s comments were true.
IMO, printing that a witness who is highly regarded is on the stand lying under oath should require a bit more investigation of the facts before it goes to print.
dmwriter said that Moore called Patsy later to straighten it out. Then Patsy should have asked Moore to make a statement in print stating the facts as they should have originally been reported. Plus Patsy should have printed her own statement revealing how this error happened and that she regretted the error and the confusion it caused. And both should issue an apology to Judge Lackey.
Moore’s reaction in this debacle makes me think that he heard the truth about himself in Judge Lackey’s testimony and immediately went into attack mode. Once again, the press was there to assist.
I have contacted Ms. Brumfield and this is how our correspondence went.
Ms. Brumfield,
I was hoping I could get an interview with you today. There are many people out there asking what really happened when you talked to Mike Moore? I just wanted to give you a chance to refute claims that your error may have been on purpose.
Thanks
Paul Quinn
Patsy:
Paul, I can assure you I don’t make mistakes on purpose. I can’t think of a single journalist who has, but we’re all fallible and subject to them. Hopefully, it’s not very often.
Frankly, I barely know any of these people so having an agenda about any of them seems unlikely. I do not.
Me:
I do not know if you called to talk with me, my phone is actually not working, sorry. I can be reached at 662 202 XXXX all day. I am wondering if Moore misled you or if it was just a simple mistake. Thanks.
Patsy:
Mike Moore did not mislead me – I simply misunderstood what he was telling me.
Frankly, I think whoever is obsessing about this needs to get a hobby or adopt a child.
LL 31 / She probably got in a hurry to print her scoop and didn’t think before acting – which, without knowing, I assume is the classic rookie mistake of a journalist – and she got burned. In the internet age, we seem to endure more of those type of mistakes. Folks hurry to the web to post their scoop so as to be the first, without triple checking their facts.
And, this can be a tough crowd, so be careful!
The brain transforms sensory messages into conscious perception almost instantly. My belief is Patsy’s perception of what and who Mike Moore was and is to her meant that she could take his word for it without checking. Don’t work anymore, two many fact checkers checking the facts. New world in Mississippi.
(I’ll take that back…I think I reacted too quickly. Sorry Patsy – if that matters)
dmwriter — Don’t make the same mistake in your career, if you choose to be a journalist!
dmwriter, She says: “Frankly, I think whoever is obsessing about this needs to get a hobby or adopt a child.” I have heard this “obsessing about this” response from reporters quite a few times over the years in my dealings with the press. Must be a reporter thing. A sort of “don’t care about the accuracy” — “I have moved on and don’t want to be bothered” thing, I guess.
DN: I will be careful, however I understand how she could have made the mistake.
I think people should be looking at the Moore Scruggs threat more than the mistake by Patsy, she is a good woman and didn’t mean to cause this shit storm, I am sure of it.
DMW. I agree.
Well, Patsy, so much for giving you the benefit of the doubt…when a usually respected journalist (you) prints unsubstantiated “evidence” that a judge has just lied under oath, and the stated information came from a former popular AG, well… excuse us for “obsessing!”
I don’t believe I’d insult my readers w/ catty comments.
Delta@37: The problem is that Patsy is no rookie. She’s a veteran journalist and news editor of north mississippi’s major newspaper.
I am bothered by her flippant attitude regarding the fact that she “misunderstood what Moore was telling” her, and I’m bothered even more by her flippant attitude as a journalist and news editor of a major newspaper toward her printing of what she “misunderstood” without at least trying to verify. Journalists do have responsibility for accuracy.
So much for the last paragraph of my comment at 34!
Good job, dmwriter!
Ok…I was starting to think I was the only one feeling the “Frankly, I think whoever is obsessing about this needs to get a hobby or adopt a child.” statement was a little uncalled for…
(I still think it should be “whomever” but I don’t journalize…)
Seems like every time someone from Scruggs’s camp tries to lay pipe to Judge Lackey, the good Judge seems to only come out with more credibility and his good reputation intact.
I’m not trying to be disagreeable, but I really am inclined to think this was just a mistake. I can’t think of any reason why a reporter would deliberately print something she knew was false, especially when it so easily could be determined to be so. Writing is difficult enough under any circumstances, but doing it on deadline has to be even more difficult.
Truth is better than teflon at keeping shit from sticking to you.
That is a good one -Shaves
MSlawyer, neither do I think that Patsy would deliberately print something she knew was false.
I agree that “this was just a mistake.” But it was a public mistake from someone in an organization in whom the public puts a lot of trust. This organization also asks for the trust of the public. I don’t think Patsy or the Daily Journal handled the correction of this mistake very well.
Well PB’s “I made a mistake” and post- comment comment captured by dms’ interview, “adopt a child” makes me wonder if she is aware of the damage she does to not only her credibility, but that of the DJ. Does she think that her flippant condescending attitude makes it better? “Shot on purpose and killed or shot on accident and killed. Either way is still shot” but it makes me think if one could be a a little more remoreful than her equivalent of saying , “My bad, I shot ya.”
Something a little more apologetic than snide and flippant would have been the better action on her part.
h/t Stormy
dmwriter@42, one way that “the Moore Scruggs threat” (quoting dmwriter @42) has been able to become a threat is that the press has simply accepted what they say and printed it—no questions, no verifying. I think that’s why this has touched off such a storm.
ccvz: “who” and “whom” are now interchangeable in journalese. “Whom” will probably be dropped from writing endeavors altogether, much as the article “an” used before a noun w/ a vowel in the initial position has been replaced by the article “a.”
Sailor – Thank you for that explanation…I had no idea. Interesting…
Sailor. I used to get some “corrections” with my blogname…”you aren’t using “an” or “a” correctly…
Ya know, it might have been a newspaper editor or retired English teacher that I told, “whoever is obsessing about this needs to get a hobby or adopt a child.” Or wait. Maybe it wasn’t…I might have read that somewhere else. LOL
Well razor, I will add this: it’s much easier to SAY “an” preceding a initial vowel object. In writing, however, journalists are always in search of extra space, thus the elimination of “n,” or in the case of “whom,” the “m.” Now I’m giggling… BACK ON TOPIC: to Patsy, What if my hobby IS adopting children? Ole Sailor here might be Angelina or Madonna or (gasp) Mia!
Shaves, I don’t believe I was one but apologies if so…I had no idea there was this grammatical journalistic revolution happening. (I guess “y’all” and “ain’t” finally get their respect)
NoMiss there is no MooreScruggs. There are two different guys, one who has pled guilty to conspiring to bribe a judge and the other who has not been accused of any crime. The one who has not been accused of any crime spent twentysomething years as a prosecutor putting people in jail who engaged in bribery and other such shenanigans (sp?). The idea that these two men are one in the same is a common theme on this otherwise excellent blog and I am very happy you finally said it that way so that I could have the opportunity to point out that it is patently unfair and just plain wrong to lump the two together as if Moore had anything to do with the Lackey mess or the Delaughter mess or any other situation where criminal activity is alleged or suggested.
ccvz: You may want to invest in a copy of the AP Style Book. Just don’t abandon your LITERARY style after reading it, cuz trust me, the two ain’t the same!
Well, with this new Grammatical Journalistic Revolution going on, I think eliminating the comma in between MooreScruggs give the author more room to write.
Sailor. I agree, it was just funny seeing you address it. I personally have a hard enough time speaking English, much less writing it correctly. BTW…sailors still wear blouses in the Navy don’t they? So even if ya said you wore a blouse we couldn’t be sure if it was a blouse (male military uniform) or a blouse (civilian female).
CCVZ. Nope it wasn’t you, I was just quoting ole Patsy from dmwriter in #36 and NOT your #45. I too apologize if I was unclear.
Ya just never know where a thread on here is going to end up.
Aren’t we supposed to be getting some responses from the trailer lawyers in the qui tam case today?
I just realized that the first line of my post could have read: There is no more Scruggs. Which sounds the same but has a different meaning . . .
LOL, ccvz, but I do believe dd has made a valid point. Back to the revolution, tho’. You may want to invest in an AP Style Book. The “revolution” is at least 20 years old now. I, for one, choose not to taint my literary endeavors w/ those stylistic adaptations using “whom” when it suits. Of course, blogging has it’s own Grammatical Revolution–LOL.
I’ll try again. ccvz: You might want to invest in an AP Style Manuel, altho’ I would caution you not to let those guidelines taint your literary writing. BTW the Grammatical Revolution as pertains to “a” and “an” is over 20 years old.
sailor 64 – I see you! Do I need to toss you a line?
APA vs MLA…that is the question.
Razor: don’t know bout blouses in the Navy. Am not a professional sailor, simply a boater who enjoys sailing small vessels, not ships.
Thanks jester I swam to shore and started over. Guess what I wrote earlier has been dashed upon the rocks. Well, NOW obviously not…redundancies abound…
Nobody told me about the Revolution, maaan…
I think I’ll just wing it, speak freely, ad lib it…
dd511, I corrected the comment above.
Or I guess I could just say that if you are obsessing about that space between Moore and Scruggs, you should get a hobby or adopt a kid.
It was an inquiry on the namesake. I kinda sorta thought you were a guy until your #57 then I got all confuzzled.
LOL @Nomiss 72
I suspect Judge Lackey and others will be interested in Whistle Week in D.C May 11-18. Some of the world’s most prominent whistleblowers and members of prestigious law and judicial organizations will gather on Thursday May 15 to discuss judicial accountability. http://www.internationalassemblyofwhistleblowers.org/
Apologies to all for taking up so much space. For some reason I couldn’t edit and there was a lag time I’ve not experienced before. Was I caught in the dreaded spam trap?
Editorial discourse 200+ years ago: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.”
-
-
Editorial space conservation today : ROFLMAO
My way-too-late comment that I already deleted once while trying to post it:
1. ccvz 46 .. "whoever is obsessing " is correct.
2. ccvz 58 "Y’all " has always had respect among grammarians who understand it.
3. Sailor 54 Say it ain’t so.
4. My favorite comment on journalism from my late father-in-law: "Journalism is the world’s second oldest profession. " Mike Moore has an innate grasp of this concept.
Sailor 75, yes’m, you were, and so was greenlawyer earlier, and so have been several regulars the last couple of days, stuck in there with all the ED-product and p*rn spam, pore thangs.
We sorry and are gonna be trying a new spam-filter soon. That may bring us a few days of other weirds — dunno, but I’m anxious to give it a try, even if it means a bit of funkiness while the new system learns its lessons.
Anybody who emailed me since late morning: thanks and hang on, I’m working my way toward you!
Scott Bauer, welcome to folo. Bleeve you’ve caught the spirit of the joint and will fit right in.
MsNExile, come sit by me. I’m crazy about antiques, including linguistic ones (which I DON’T think “an” and “whom” are, dammit).
Did Patsey make a mistake or not? Did Patsey write the correction article on 4/16/08 or not? Would Mike Moore threaten the Djournal to save his own rear? Patsey knows the real truth! Is Patsy being pressured to take the blame for false information from the former AG, whom she thought she could trust?
Lotus hon, should I re-register me name addressing that whole “use of articles, indefinite vs definite” so I’m somewhat more presentable in a public forum?
Touche’ Nomiss . . . hobbies seem more manageable so maybe I’ll try that.
Have a good weekend everyone.
IMO, the only “mistake” Patsy made was in believing and trusting what Moore told her. Lets see, he makes facial expressions indicating disagreement with Lackey’s testimony during the proceeding, then angrily leaves the courtroom in a show of disgust, and then later shows off the email as if it “proves” his position. Its not a stretch to believe he also uttered words to the effect of causing a belief by others that he had an email from Stallings.
Why would I jump to this conclusion? Well, it seems that there are a whole lot of people who “misunderstand” the words or actions of Mike Moore. And I can’t ever recall hearing him express ANY degree of responsibility for any of these many “misundertandings”. Its always the fault of someone else. This is a poor trait for true leaders to have. And he has gotten away with it for years due to his political power and influence, with many willing to take the blame to protect him.
An “honorable” man and gentleman, even if he believed himself absolutely right, would have at least taken some of the blame for Patsy’s “misunderstanding”, by saying something along the lines of “I should have made myself more clear during the discussion, and perhaps my shock over the testimony and immediate reaction had me so out of sorts that I was not being as clear as I needed to be”. Or something like that. And he should for certain apologize for public comments insinuating that Lackey was “lying”. His arrogance and lack of decency knows no bounds. He is a scoundrel not worth two squirts of piss.
These Boys mean business!
http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=47877030&_charset_=utf-8&bcd=%C3%B7&scs=1&pageid=r&query=mississippi&mode=Find+pages+matching+ALL+words
Razor, you be jes’ fine as-is (even if I do stumble over “a oc…” every time I try to say it. Thass why I call you Razor instead, cuz you so sharp).
Friend I’d say you might need a hobby or a kid or ten . . .
Lotus 79: I’m on your side.
Also, wasn’t it Patsy who had dinner with Jim Hood in a trailer? And didn’t she have corn and sweet potatoes, while looking at a computer?
Out of Wind @74: Judge Lackey is not a whistle blower. He is a judge who DID WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.
dd, after reading all the typical BS coming from the likes of Moore, Hood, and others this week, I “need” a good stiff drink of whiskey. Fixing to get this weekend started off right, with a drink, good cigar, a little grilling action, and a nice meal with the little misses.
dmwriter, I’m reading back through your conversation with Patsy where you state that you want to give her the chance to refute claims that she printed the error on purpose. I hope no one thought that Patsy printed the error on purpose; I certainly didn’t. I did think that she gave Mike’s denial too much credence without verifying its authenticity. She did print that Moore showed the DJ (her) the text which backed up his story. That was her mistake, IMO. She accepted the text as fact just as Moore had told her, with no questions, no verifying, and thus printed something that was not accurate. I speculated that perhaps her past knowledge and friendship with Moore caused her to accept and print his denial without questions or verification. That’s not the same as claiming that she printed an error on purpose. As Patsy stated, she didn’t know it was an error when she printed it.
afotl: mmmm, whatchoo grillin for the missus tonight? I’m gettin’ hungry, myself!
I think Lackey meets the definition of whistleblower: a member of an organization who exposes (blows the whistle) on a corrupt act. See Cynthia Cooper, Sherron Watkins, Coleen Rowley, Mark Felt, Frank Serpico, Karen Silkwood, Joe Wilson, and Dr. Jeffrey Wigand.
I interviewed for a job with Mike Moore when he was Attorney General of Mississippi. At the time, I was fresh out of law school and in the middle of a clerkship with a federal appellate judge. I decided if that was the only job I could get, I’d rather be a socialite than a lawyer. He is the most smarmy individual I’ve ever, ever been near.
Nomiss, speculation about why she wrote that was asked to me by multiple people, I decided to ask her so those questions askers could get their answers.
I didn’t take your comment to mean that, however I am glad we got all this cleared up…a little.
More Cowbell, Judges who expose corruption in their own courtrooms (chambers) are simply adhering to the Canon of Judicial Ethics. In other words, they are doing exactly what they should.
If Patsy and I could sit down and have a drink, I’d want to ask her:
How long have you known Mike Moore and in what connections?
How many times, over how many years, have you interviewed Mike for stories?
Has he ever burned you on a story before?
The interview Tuesday — did he initiate it or did you?
How did it happen that he showed you that text message? Did he offer you a look at it, or did you ask to see it? What, exactly, was he saying before, during, and after he handed the device to you? How long did you look at it? Did you jot down what it said (if no, Why not)? Did you notice that it referred to “Stallings” in the third-person?
Have you been in touch with Moore since the interview? (If yes: How? What have you each said to the other?) What would you like to say to him about this?
How do you feel about the consequences of this story? Have you caught the hell for it face-to-face than you have on the blogs?
How do you feel about Mike Moore now?
If you could re-do this one reporting transaction, would you? What — exactly — would you do differently, either face-to-face with Moore or after the fact?
How are you tonight, Patsy?
Sailor, judges are asked every day to join this or that law firm. Ask Reuben Anderson and his running buddy. Is every request an ethics violation? Should Larry and Brant investigate every time a judge retires and joins a firm?
Honestly, I’d be inclined to give Patsy the benefit of the doubt on this if I hadn’t read that Langston love-fest of an article. I literally broke out laughing while reading the thing- the worst excuse for journalism I’ve ever seen.
<<<thinking I’m sure glad Lotus ain’t my mother, my wife, my next door neighbor, the IRS or most ‘specially, the persecutin’ attorney after my butt. And thinking PB ain’t gonna be there for the end of that drink and question session…unless it’s in a shot glass or a go cup.
And just think, Razor — that’s leaving out the followups.
Keeping that line of questioning up will no doubt ensure your omission from the DJ’s commercial and PB’s personal Christmas card list. (smile)
Of coure you already knew Dickie took you off his..
No, Shaves they adhere to the ole,
“Keep your friends close and your enemies closer!”
Wull, these are just person-to-person-curiosity type questions, Razor, just what I’d like to chat with and hear about from Patsy herself.
I’m not thinking in terms of witness interrogation or interviewing, just two ol’ broads having a yak and a snort.
Lackey said that Stallings said that Hood said what? That Moore directly threatened him, that someone representing Moore threatened him, that Scruggs threatened him and he assumed Moore was also involved, or something else. What is the official version of the he said he said he said testimony?
Not sure there is an “official” version other than the one at 12 ^ , Researcher. Maybe NMC recalls a few words more from Lackey-under-oath or otherwise, but that’s all I know of.
OT
Sorry to hijack thread briefly but I will be in Pascagoula area tomorrow and Sunday on the way to Lotus land stopping to catch some photons in my camera on nature tours then professional education. Any food suggestions?
you can email me at bopbop dot george att gmail dot com or through my website or if its really good Lotus may not complain about food discussions….
george
Couple of observations:
1) I have no doubt that Patsy Brumfeld made a mistake– she misunderstood what Moore was telling her about the email on his Blackberry. I saw this going down (did not eavesdrop) and it had to be done quickly and quietly to keep it in a recess.
2) I have no doubt that Moore also said that Lon Stallings had recommended Lackey go to Hood and said that Stallings denied that he mentioned a Moore threat to Hood. On this point we have Stallings and Lackey in agreement and Moore seems to have mislead Patsy Brumfeld.
I am perfectly willing to leave it at “I made a mistake” with Brumfeld. I will say I’d have wished a reporter to check with Stallings.
I have no sympathy for Patsy, given her apparent shelving of journalistic ethics in the pursuit of Moore adoration, but feel compelled to recall what my grandfather told me many years ago: three “callings” do not require any credientials before embarking upon them: (1) prostitute, (2) self-ordained minister, and (3) journalist. Many who enter these callings are superb at what they do, and many are not, but the fact of the matter is that no particular credentials are required before going into them. It may be that nobody told Patsy at any relevant juncture that she couldn’t “take sides” with Moore and “report” his version of whatever the Hell was in issue as if it were “the Gospel.” If so, it probably ain’t her fault and her defenders her are probably right — it wasn’t malicious, it was just a “mistake.”
More Cowbell, you have missed my point. When a judge turns some lawyer in for what he has deemed an inappropriate act, in this case, BRIBERY, he’s not a “whistle blower” by your and Out of Wind’s examples. Obviously every judge who’s offered an “of counsel” position has not been bribed–what are you talking about? And no, neither Larry Houchins (MS Bar Ass.) nor Brant Brantley (JPC) should be asked to investigate when that occurs. Judge Lackey apparently caught on to the quid pro quo from Balducci and DID THE RIGHT THING.
I don’t think he’s a hero for doing what we should expect any judge to do in that situation. He isn’t, IMHO, a “whistle blower” in the tradition and spirit of the whistle blower protective legislation that you and Out of Mind try to place him.BTW, your most recent comment is offensive [lotus agreed and removed it on sight; MORE COWBELL, in folo's ballpark, two strikes make an out, and now you've got one].
Good bit fun today. Have to say, I think Patsy Brumfield just made a mistake. Now I am going to cook dinner. Wish lotus would help me with the Walleye I defrosted this afternoon. Just can’t remember how best to cook it.
fry it like catfish, ske?
Had catfish north of Shreveport years ago in 1970. That’s a good idea. I think I remember how the they did it. Thanks, NMC!
Mike Moore told me he called Patsy the morning the story ran and left a message for her and said “she didnt call back.”
Now..it is possible she was off that day, or out on assignment (she does get out a lot for an editor) and perhaps someone else wrote the correction. Why they decided to bury it on page like 5 or 6 was odd. I don’t like passing judgment on other reporters because I know what it’s like. I do think the DJ on the whole should of taken a better position for after the fact and sound a bit more apologetic. Personally, I prefer the correction in today’s paper where she called Nutt – Butt. Fraudian slip? That one I can’t really fault her for..hehehe
How can someone with the non de plum of “sailor” say that something is offensive? If you know what I am referring to, with tongue in cheek of course, then you know it has nearly 30 million hits on Youtube, and would that make a difference? And if a whistleblower walks like a whistleblower, and quacks like a whistleblower, then it must be a . . . shall I use the term . . . Rigsby? Is that why you are so squeamish today?
MORE COWBELL, check the last sentence at 109 for an update.
Unfortunately the questions asked of Brumfield by dmwriter at 36 missed the real area of inquiry concerning her “mistake”. No one thinks she intentionally printed content she “knew ” to be a lie. She did however print material which clearly implied that Judge Lackey had lied and the DJ (she) had personally confirmed the validity of his impeachment, and she did so without giving a rip for whether what she vouched for was true or valid.
The lotus question list at 96 would begin to explore the real issue. Why has Patsy throughout been so consistently bent on spinning every account in the light most favorable to Scruggs, Sruggs, Langston, Delaughter,and now Moore while repeatedly ignoring the most important testimony concerning their actions which whether criminal or simply unethical or improper cast them in an unfavorable light. Why such empathy for this group?
If she is part of their old propaganda machinery and wishes to go to her editorial page in their defense thats her perogative but to pass her accounts off as news coverage of factual events is wrong, particularly when the effect is to attack the integrity of the most honorable character in this sordid mess.When Moore calls the Judge a liar you simply consider the source: when a major newspaper and its news editor purport to have verified that the Judge is a liar thats a henious misrepresentation.If she is to continue to report on these events the public has a right to know her relationships with these people with whom she so clearly empathises
Morning, doin. Patsy and the DJ haven’t begun to clear themselves, and her defensive lahdidah to dmwriter did ‘em as much good as the DJ’s non-correction correction.
But the even bigger questions are the micro “Why did everybody but Alyssa and Paul ignore the hearing or just run the AP story that ignored its most important testimony?” and the macro “Why did most of the US media ignore one of the juiciest AND most significant domestic stories of recent times?”
Jeez, you’d think reporters would knock each other down to get in on something this compelling and rich. I’ll never understand why they didn’t.
profits might be elsewhere, other than reportin’
http://www.fedspending.org/fpds/fpds.php?company_name=community+enterprises&sortby=r&detail=0&datype=T&reptype=r&database=fpds&fiscal_year=&submit=GO
I have an odd reaction to the “Patsy is taking a side” argument. I know lawyers deeply involved in this that very much share that view. I don’t, really. I think that her stories fall prey to a couple of standard tropes of newsprint journalism: First, half-baked or even misleading (not always intentionally so) efforts to present “both sides” of an event. Some events do not have another side. This can drive me nuts. Everyone can think of examples of it in operation. When they were trying Edgar Ray Killen (sp?) in Philadelphia for the civil rights murders, there was a Republican political consultant from Oxford down there as the “spokesman” for a “civil rights group” who was getting air time on statewide public radio and elsewhere presenting an “other side” to the trial. I can’t coherently state from memory what his particular point was, except that I found the whole thing bizarre. No reporter as near as I can tell made any effort whatever to check out this guys bona fides. I happened to know because he’s from the town where I live, but he should have set off any sentient human’s bullshit detector.
Second, building a story by getting a couple of quick quotes (that two sides thing again) and going no deeper. The depth of this story was not that great– this was a child’s wading pool (not to demean those who did get the story right)– make one more call to Lon Stallings! Didn’t take long! I think this last one is the product in part of deadline pressure– get it online quick! I do wonder if blog posting makes that deadline pressure even worse.
Having been interviewed by reporters before about sensitive subjects such as company closings or relocations, where I felt accuracy was of prime importance, I have been amazed at what actually comes out in print from a simple phone interview. It is to the point I would not do it anymore unless I could review what is being printed as fact before I would ever comment to a reporter. Most reporters probably would not accommodate that type request due to deadlines and time constraints.
I will say having never paid a whole lot of attention until recently as to who writes what for the DJ, that I am surprised at the number of articles Patsy kicks out on various subjects. I do not see anyway possible she would have the time to research an important story such as this properly, hence the DJ should just stick to the 30,000 feet overview and let folo and others do the details in my opinion.
More Cowbell, Sailors can be offended. We don’t all use gratuitous profanity (only when appropriate will I unleash a well-seasoned tongue, one which I’m now biting, BTW). Your remarks, which thankfully lotus removed, were misogynistic if not downright demeaning to Ms. Brumfield, and maybe worst of all, lacking in originality!
Can they be misogynistic if they were a parody authored by a famous female comedian? The most famous parody in the history of Youtube and late-night TV? Do you know what my handle means? BTW, I wholeheartedly SUPPORT Patsy, Anita, Alyssa and folo, as well as Judy Guice, Lisa Dodson, and Alice Martin, and the Equal Pay Act, NOW, etc, all of the above being female or female issues. If the women weren’t helping out the Katrina victims, we would have no help. How’d you make out during Katrina? Me, I lost everything, except my humor.
It’s been interesting reading this whole thing and thinking how little we would know about the truth of what happened in the days before blogs.
It’s not that Patsy Brumfield is biased, but rather that she is still operating under the old rules of no accountability and the doctrine that it is better to be first with half of the story, than second with all of the story.
Blogs would rather be second with all of the facts, and the light they hold much of the traditional press up to is not illumative in the way people like Patsy would hope for.
Without corroboration, Patsy Brumfield doesn’t have any credibility left, and she might as well get used to it.
OBSERVER, yer back — YAY! Missed you these last few weeks, friend.
Thanks. I’ve been lurking and watching the Presidential campaigning. I thought the whole Scruggs thing was going to die down after the convictions. Boy, was I wrong!