At the hearing this morning in Jones v Scruggs at the end of the hearing, Judge Coleman said there was a concern he had. Judge Coleman said: “Judge Lackey is to be awarded as outstanding jurist of the state of Miss. at the bar convention and I have felt for him during the press coverage of this, that they grouped him along with other members of the judiciary who have been convicted of accepting a bribes, leading to the implication that Judge Lackey was said to have accepted a bribe and then reporting it.” Judge Coleman made clear that this bothers him and that he thought it was wrong to speak of Judge Lackey in this way, and then directly asked Tollison if he is to be interviewed about this could he correct this implication so that it is clear that Judge Lackey did nothing of the kind.
Judge Lackey went hunting for Dick Scruggs. He succeeded.
He succeeded by taking advantage of a young lawyer who was a friend and whom he had mentored over the years. After the friend earwigged him about a the Jones case and when the friend was down on his luck and apparently falling apart, Judge said he would rule in favor of his friend’s friend (Dick Scruggs et al.) if he (Tim Balducci) would come up with $40,000 to help him out (the judge said he was in trouble). Did I miss something? Did I get the sequence of events wrong?
SKE, Let’s see if I got this right.
Judge Lackey is the real criminal here and Team Scruggs the victims? Furthermore, said victims should be released and awarded Lawyer of the Year awards while Lackey goes to prison?
Is that about it?
SKE, Infidel, and DannyR – where is BelleSouth when needed?
SKE @#1 – you have got be kidding!!!
I’ve said it before and I say it again. The “earwigging” scheme was as dangerous if not more dangerous than the bribery scheme. Judge Lackey had nothing to do with the “earwigging scheme” and he wasn’t even involved in the Wilson/Peters/Delaughter mess. He took advantage of no one, they clearly set out to and took advantage of Judge Lackey. You’ve heard the old saying: You can lead a horse to water, but can’t make him drink. As far as the attempted bribery was concern, Scruggs and Co. came on their volition to watering hole and readily drank the putrid waters of bribery without the least hesitation. As Judge Biggers said they went to it so easy it was like they had done it before!! You need to remove your rose colored glasses and get to reality. Judge Lackey did the right AND HONORABLE THING. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. THANK YOU JUDGE LACKEY FOR YOUR HONESTY.
SKE….. I can just hear the violin playing in the background as the camera goes to black for the next Scruggs movie…. a hero falls prey to the evil judge….. get a life!!!!!!
JUDGE LACKEY behaved correctly.
That said, here is the problem. Tim Balducci would have done anything to help Judge Lackey. Balducci was in a bit of a crack himself, though. Balducci was launching his own firm in New Albany, after having left Langston, and Balducci had a 5,000 sq. foot house sitting unsold on the market in Booneville for quite some time (gotta be a $5K per month mortgage payment there). Balducci badly needed to impress Dickie Scruggs and get onto the Scruggs gravy train. Balducci had to be sucking wind to get cash any way possible.
Balducci makes a “Hollywood Invitation” to Judge Lackey about joining the Balducci firm “of counsel” after Lackey leaves the bench. This was done to further ingratiate himself with Lackey to further the earwigging scheme to get the arbitration order signed.
(Which raises the question, why was that order hung-up, anyway? Most judges would have signed it easily enough.)
Lackey, in the post-Minor, et al., atmosphere, felt uneasy Balducci’s “Hollywood Invitation” and talked to Lon Stallings about it. Stallings sent Lackey to the FBI.
The FBI monitored Balducci’s with Lackey for months. Lackey initiated many of the calls himself — Lackey called Balducci!!!! Then after months of hearing nothing actionable, the FBI told Lackey to ask for money directly. Lackey did, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Some of you people amaze me. You cry for Paul Minor, you cry for Gitmo detainees, but you see nothing putrid about what the FBI did in the Scruggs case.
I agree, it didn’t take much for Dickie and Co. to drink from the well, but, my cow, the FBI concocted the scheme in this instance. And to me that is just plain wrong.
It is NOT the same thing as sending an informant in to buy drugs from someone who is already selling drugs. This is more like calling an addict and offering to sell him drugs, and then charging him with possession. BTW, you can prosecute the latter scenario in federal court BUT NOT in Mississippi state court, because under Mississippi law the latter scenario is ENTRAPMENT!
Observer @6
BTW, you can prosecute the latter scenario in federal court BUT NOT in Mississippi state court, because under Mississippi law the latter scenario is ENTRAPMENT!
Some of my imprisoned friends in Mississippi may not agree with this statement.
To my critics: I am still waiting to hear if I am wrong on the facts I submitted or wrong about the sequence of the those facts as I related them.
I mean no disrespect. The truth will speak for itself, will it not?
If a state agent sells drugs to an offender, and then arrests and charges the offender, that is entrapment under Mississippi law.
When it comes to drugs, law enforcement has little to fear.
SKE, you have the sequence correct, but you are wrong to say Judge Lackey went hunting for Dickie Scruggs.
In the post-Paul Minor world, Judge Lackey apparently was afraid someone was trying to set him (i.e., Judge Lackey) up. The people that were hunting for Dickie Scruggs was the FBI. Judge Lackey found himself in an awful position.
Do you have some animosity toward Judge Lackey?
Judge Lackey is a hero. He did what he had to do when the King of Torts sent a pawn to bribe him with whatever it took to get what the King of Torts wanted. Read Judge Biggers’s remarks about Dickie’s role in the bribery scheme. He listened to the tapes. If it were the way you report it, SKE, why on earth would a man with Dickie’s brains with a lawyer with Keker’s brains plead guilty? Not guilty of being hunted. Guilty of bribery. With all that was on the line, and all these admitted felons about to go down, Judge Lackey must have been in fear of his life when he agreed to do a very difficult, but right, thing. He’s a very brave man who did a very courageous good deed for the entire State of Mississippi.
He has also been award the Judicial Intergrity award from Mississippi Association of Justice (trial lawyers) so if they trial lawyers think he is a hero and no entrapment exist who does?
Observor, it was entrapment as you stated.
Back in December when the case broke, before the tapes were made public, all the regular folk heard was “Judge Lackey wanted only Scrugg’s money”.
It is on the tapes, the Justice Dept. and the FBI pushed the situation, Mr. Balduzzi and Judge Lackey were possibly led on to escalate the bribe.
Possibly still bad blood between Repub. and Dems., trial lawyers and top-drawer lawyers.
Some of you amaze me…Is it okay to hire a lawyer who is close to/friends with the Judge (pay him $1 million (Peters) or even $500,000 (Balducci)) to go influence the Judge (off the record) against your opponent?? This was going on before Judge Lackey ever got invovled AND IT IS AT LEAST AS BAD AS THE BRIBERY. If not worse, at least the bribery (paying $$) creates a trail, that you catch and follow. This earwigging scheme does not. Now, I understand your feelings but don’t agree with you, on the set up 0r entrapment. I certainly don’t agree with the poor Balducci and poor Scruggs position. It is clear to me that Balducci while “off the record” asking for help for his friend (Scruggs) , whether intended or unintended, made a offer (of counsel – pay you monthly) that was understandably received as a offer of bribe by the Judge in the context of what they were talking about. The Judge was obviously bothered by it and wasn’t sure if Balducci’s offer was a bribe or not, he sought advise from multiple people he trusted who referred him to the FBI eventually. All the FBI did was say lets see if he meant the offer (0f counsel) as a bribe, ask for $$. And guess what the tapes shows, Balducci never hestitated, “yes” they will pay and “they” DID without a moments hesitation. As Judge Biggers said they accepted and did it so easily, it was like they had done it before (ala Wilson case -predisposition). That my friends is not “entrapment” by any means. I am upset at what they did to themselves, their families and to our profession. But to blame Judge Lackey or the FBI or the Government in any way shape or form for this mess condones some of the worst conduct lawyers can engage in.
Ah, Tim, argue as cogently as you (and I) like, some boulders just ain’t gonna budge. Nice job, though.+++++++++++++++++
(See? Isom Hadaway likes it too.)
It’s easy now folks: Laying aside the guilty plea, Dickie Scruggs admitted out of his own mouth that he asked Balducci to improperly contact Judge Lackey in an effort to corrupt the judge. And that describes the meeting Tim Balducci testified about in the motions hearing– that he was asked by Dickie and Zach Scruggs to contact Judge Lackey off the record and attempt to take advantage of his relationship with him.
And Tim Balducci did just that, and kept that contact up, the whole while telling Sid Backstrom about it, including through the late May call after the recusal, a call in which Backstrom made clear they wanted Lackey in place and to attempt to use the “backstairs” contact with him. (The people who appear to be willing to pretend Scruggs’s innocence here to the death also pretend away Tim Balducci’s testimony. Did they hear it? I heard it and found it pretty credible, and now we know it matches admissions out of Dickie Scruggs’s own mouth about that March meeting).
So here we have all three defendants agreeing to corruptly influence the judge before money came up. There is no question about that. There is no conceivable way to suggest any impropriety for Judge Lackey about that.
What did Judge Lackey do? He went to the federal government. That was the right thing to do. Some have said he should have just thrown Balducci out of his office the first time, but Balducci had gone too far for that– a lawyer appearing and arguing for one side, not on the record, trying to take advantage of his relationship with the judge and then offering him for a job. So Judge Lackey appropriately went to law enforcement.
And then later, as Judge Biggers pointed out, when Judge Lackey brought up money, everyone involved– first Balducci, then Backstrom, and finally Scruggs– quickly and casually signed on. As if it was something usual. Also as Judge Biggers pointed out, it is not really credible to suppose in that law firm that Sid Backstrom kept to himself the conversations (wired) about the bribe? I don’t believe he did not speak to his immediate peer (Zach) or senior partner (Dickie) about this.
Whether or not you believe Zach was involved in the bribery scheme he has plead guilty to not just failing to notify the authorities about it but taking steps to affirmatively conceal it. I realize he danced around acceptance of responsibility, but the facts point toward his involvement whether he wants to acknowledge it or not.
I don’t think anything in the foregoing discussion is at issue any more. It’s all established by what has become public in the last 8 months. That leaves one issue, raised by Observer that I will acknowledge is a real one: An essentially moral question of whether having the FBI and law enforcement set up “stings.” Stings were at the heart of Operation Pretense (the 80s prosecution of county supervisors for kickbacks– law enforcement undercover agents pretending to be businessmen would approach supervisors offering kickbacks for equipment transactions). It’s an interesting question. It is wrong to cloud that questions with suggestions that Judge Lackey did anything at all wrong or suggestions that Dickie and Zach Scruggs are not guilty as they shown by their plea.
I know I brought this up before, but for those who were not around at the time, go look at SKE’s website. He doesn’t try to hide who he is, as he is Steve Eugster, an attorney from Washington State. Then go read this http://spokesmanreview.com/blogs/olympia/archive.asp?postID=7806
Finally, Observer wrote:
>>
Some of you people amaze me. You cry for Paul Minor, you cry for Gitmo detainees, but you see nothing putrid about what the FBI did in the Scruggs case.
<<
The “you people” here grates my teeth. Who are you talking about here Observer? I’m quite tired of repeated posts like this, which I think must imply that the whole crowd commenting and posting at Folo are speaking with one voice, which we aren’t.
To make my positions clear
1) I think secret loans to judges and politicians ought to be a crime if they aren’t, and if the government proves a quid pro quo (an exchange) for judicial rulings, it’s bribery and the participants should be in jail. If Judge Wingate did not require a quid pro quo in the jury instructions in the Minor case, Paul Minor should get a new trial. I don’t cry for him. I think he should get a fair trial. Tell me your problem with that position, Observer.
2) I think now that Dickie Scruggs has had due process he should go to jail but guess what? Nothing remotely like that has happened to the Gitmo detainees. I’d even find acceptable proceedings that were not full blown federal court criminal trials. But there needs to be something that provides due process, and centuries old rights central to our judicial system– that is habeas corpus– should not be shredded for expediency. This view has been confirmed by clear evidence that people were wrongfully picked up and held in Gitmo. So there you have what I think. I’m very aware that you believe otherwise, about which we disagree.
3) I noted my acknowledgment that there is a question about whether government stings are a good thing. I don’t think what the FBI did was remotely putrid.
Now, tell us who you are amazed by and why. I’m tired of the broad brush accusations.
Good point, NMC. The Devil is in the details.
Observer (and afotl and msbroker and anyone else who likes to claim something similar), I too take issue with this silly “you cry for … .” That’s a willful misreading and misrepresentation of what’s been written here by those with whom you disagree. Cut that shit out.
I don’t know Paul Minor — wouldn’t even recognize a photo of him. But enough people here have described enough of his behavior so similarly that I suspect I wouldn’t want to be around him. NONETHELESS, he deserves the fair shake in court that American citizenship guarantees (or did, before the 2000 elections). I “cry” that he and others haven’t had that and, under the Bush DoJ, in some federal districts, can’t get it.
The same goes for the GITMO detainees, some of whom belong under U.S. control forever, but many (most?) of whom don’t and never did.
I cry:
– for what’s come of my country,
– for the evil things we’re doing in the world,
– for the honor we’ve forfeited abroad and the legal safeties we’ve lost at home — and most of all,
– for the retribution of history that all this is courting.
If you want to peddle crap, go peddle it where the stink ain’t so noticeable.
I can’t believe Dickie is still a subject of debate.
Dickie will be a subject of debate for years to come.
NMC, I wrote ‘SOME’ of you people.’ That allows whomever to either opt themself in or themself opt out — if the shoe fits.
All I know about Paul Minor is what I read in the newspaper, and from what I read in the newspaper, Paul Minor did not get a fair trial.
With Scruggs, the surveillance went on for months, with the FBI having the Judge call Balducci. That’s causes me a lot of heartburn. It changes the whole scenario in my view.
It’s not like Balducci made his offer, Lackey got the FBI to wire him up, and Balducci waved money under the Judge’s nose every time they talked and Balducci was arrested in April … or May … or June … or July … or August ….
Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you on all points.
Lotus, don’t go crying. Or maybe do, but cry for something REAL not something imagined.
Nothing has gone wrong with America. America is still the only real force for good in the world. We’ve forfeited no honor abroad. Just watch how much respect the US attains as Russia begins to re-arm and threaten Europe again. BTW, in case you missed it, in every election in Europe in the past four years, the pro-American candidate WON.
History’s verdict may well be that Bush changed the world for the better. Imagine if a functioning democracy in Iraq takes hold and then democracy spreads throughout the Middle East? One thing that really elevates my blood pressure is the racism from “liberals” who claim that Iraq is “too tribal” or “too feudal” to embrace democracy.
GITMO detainees deserve no US rights, not even habeas corpus. Perhaps they should have been turned over to the World Court at the Hague. One thing that is often overlooked is that the US has tried to return many of them to their home countries, and their home countries have refused to accept them.
Crap is in the eye of the beholder. I’ve seen a lot of here, none of which I was peddling.
Well, Observer, you and I look at the world and see it so wholly differently, it convinces me the brain scientists must be onto something: persons with “Left” and “Right” political values actually do have organically-different brain-structures.
Observer – I’m no fan of government stings, but in this particular case, here’s where the entrapment argument loses steam in my view. Take everything you say as true up to the point that Judge Lackey asked Balducci for money. Balducci goes back to Dickie and reports the advance. At that point, Dickie should have said, “Hell no, I don’t bribe judges”. But he didn’t. He wrote the check.
The analogy I draw from personal experience is this: Walking down the street in some major city, some dude comes up to me and offers to sell me drugs. Now, I didn’t do anything other than walk down the street. I tell them “no” every time. If the alleged dealer was an undercover police officer, I could argue entrapment, since the police made the initial advance, but I don’t have to, because I say “no”.
DN @ 25: I agree.
lotus @ 24: You really want to argue that different people have ‘structurally different’ brains?
I thought that that kind of thinking went out with Jim Crow laws? Do you really want to go down the road that that argument leads to, where one sex is superior to the other sex, where one racial/ethnic group is superior to another racial/ethnic group because their brains are ‘structurally different’ ??? Yikes!!!!!
Observer, I’m going to disagree to this extent:
The Scruggs folks set out to corruptly influence Judge Lackey. While later Judge Lackey initiated some of the contact at the behest of the FBI, the conspirators kept on playing– they did not cease their attempt to corruptly influence the judge, and in fact by every indication enthusiastically attempted to advance the ends of their conspiracy. So not seeing much in the way of hesitancy at any stage, I have nothing in the way of sympathy for them and little in the way of disagreement with the methods of the FBI. However, I do think you raise an interesting moral question that I think would be worth discussing, except that every time this comes up, nutcases who want to suggest either that Scruggs isn’t a criminal or that Judge Lackey did something wrong come out of the woodwork and make a reasonable discussion about an actual issue virtually impossible.
Dickie Scrugg’s was the hunter. He was hunting for the magic jurisdiction in North Mississippi, since he was new in Oxford and Balducci was a pawn, if not Balducci, it would have been someone else. They got caught, caught, caught. What in the hell would have happened if they had not gotten caught.
No kidding, Observer, I read this somewhere about 18 months or two years ago, but now I can’t remember where (a serious publication, though).
Anyhow, it’s not the whole brain but just one small structure in (if I recall correctly) the forebrain. Some medical researchers somewhere did a study of cadavers’ brains that revealed a different shape or size (can’t recall which) of this little thingamabob in brains belonging to defunct Lefties and Righties.
This possible explanation makes more sense to me than any other, and it has the virtue of being value-neutral (as only physical phenomena can be).
And please note, Observer, this doesn’t ascribe “superiority” to either brain-structure: they’re just different.
Mag, you are right. $cruggs was hunting for his magic jurisdiction in North Mississippi and using Balducci because he had ties here.
If this was the $cruggs’ first attempt at creating magic, why would Balducci have told Lackey that this was not his first rodeo with $cruggs and that he knew where there were “bodies buried.”
If this was not a pattern or mode of operation with $cruggs, why did Joey Langston fold?
I’m not sure that contemplating disagreement based on having different brain structures will do much to advance the discussion here.
Well, NMC, my heading to the gawf course will, then.
Please watch the spam filter — it’s after our regulars again. See y’all later.
Lotus,
you’ve hijacked this thread with your discussion of right/left brain anatomy speculation! If such were true, how could one explain former leftists/even Marxists experiencing a dramatic change and the reverse? I daresay you could find many such “converts” to one philosophical bent or the other. E.g., the writer David Mamet, see http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html/full
Ignoring the brain-related comments (which they deserve), there is no way Scruggs would have pled guilty if he wasn’t caught red handed. You can say what you want about him, but he is definitely a fighter. And Biggers was right, it wasn’t his first rodeo.
As a side comment to Lotus’ side comment and the subsequent snarky reply:
in female years. (Keep your eye on the checkout lanes at a grocery near you for my newest addition) The Jim Crow reference is misdirection on its face. Ad hominem. as it were when I percieve Lotus’ comment as simply recognition of differences observed and perhaps their less shakeable biologic origins, speculation of course.
Although the science on this is still quite up in the air it is quite clear that there are structural and functional group (emphasis on group)differences that can be demonstrated . We can see such group differences every day in other parts of our bodies if we dare look. The new info is that we may have demonstrated them on a more subtle scale and in a place (the brain) that is the seat of our soul (if you will). That can be liberating and scary simultaneously but given mankind’s history what we cannot do is to use this knowledge of differences to put up insurmountable barriers based on what is likely statistical differences with considerable overlap. We stand for equal opportunity not necessarily equal endpoints of course. There are definite morphological differences that rationally have to be taken into account and do not rise to the level of Jim Crow. My freckles and Barack’s color do alter our relationships to our environment- the sun -but really cannot be used to decide potitical and social issues? God forbid I should carry a child- besides I am postmenopausal
Pardon my slightly off topic rant but Science is something I do have a feel for.
I have made my position elsewhere on the import of an assault on our precepts.
NL
Lotus, I don’t recognize the Jackson Free Press and some of the other leftest rags you reference as credible “serious publication” so not too sure how to regard your information about lefties and righties.
I do apologize to all that think I have painted with a broad brush. This site does seem to lean a bit to the left in its denouncements of the government and especially the Bush administration. I don’t weep at night for what they have done. I am proud of this country and see it as a beacon of hope for others around the world. If you don’t feel this way, I hope you have a revelation and if not you begin your search for a better society so that you can really be happy one day. Life is so much better when you are not weeping!
Observer @ 11 — You say “In the post-Paul Minor world, Judge Lackey apparently was afraid someone was trying to set him (i.e., Judge Lackey) up. The people that were hunting for Dickie Scruggs was the FBI. Judge Lackey found himself in an awful position.”
I do not understand why Judge Lackey would have been afraid someone would be setting him up. Who would that have been? Who would have thought Judge Lackey was a possibility of anything? Do you think he was afraid because he had signed an ex parte, in camera order sealing the Jones case?
Was there local knowledge about what Balducci and company were up to?
On this vein — Judge Biggers seemed to give me the impression a few days ago when sentencing D. Scruggs that he may be aware of things happening re Delaughter and that situation.
The Scruggs Affair, I think, is really just getting started.
BTW — I have nothing against Judge Lackey. I do not even know the man. I am just sitting out here in the mountains observing things, wondering about things. Forest fires get a little dull after a while.
Lotus, you’ve got to be kidding.
That is just as credible as External Morphology of the Primate Brain where he claimed blacks and whites had different frontal lobes.
You’re alot smarter than this.
All I know is ya’ll are hurting my brain with this talk about left brain and right brain, therefore I need to stand up for while as I have been sitting on my brain too long today. In otherwords my arse hurts from all this brain talk.
Welp, y’all (except NL, whom I’ve never been so glad to see!) lookin’ at me like I’m a crazy lady, huh? Think I made this up or something, as if I had that kind of imagination? Okay, here:
Los Angeles Times, September 10, 2007 — Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
And from ABC’s Nightline, October 15, 2007 — America’s Political Divide: Red Brains vs. Blue Brains
Research Shows Political Leanings Depend on How Brain Processes Information
My recall of some important details (and the time-frame) is off, but the main point is, I think we can agree, intact.
Re: How the left brain/right brain thinks
“My Stroke of Insight” is an interesting book detailing very enlightening insights into how the brain “thinks.” The book supports the left brain-conservative/right brain-liberal theory stated in the articles noted at #41, although it comes from a very different perspective. The author, Jill Bolte Taylor, Ph.D., is a Harvard-trained neuroanatomist (brain scientist) who had a massive stroke in the left side of her brain. Within a four hour period she lost the memory of her life as well as the ability to walk, talk, read or write.
Because of her knowledge of how the brain works, her book details her observations of her own mind deteriorating, and then of her wounded brain’s healing, a journey that took eight years. The author describes herself before the stroke as a typical left-brain linear thinker—rational, sequential, detail and time oriented. Her “left ego” was judgmental and critical and the source of her “brain chatter.”
Her “stroke was insight” was the euphoric nirvana—the sense of peace and well-being and feeling at one with the universe— she felt while relying on her right brain. She describes the right brain as intuitive and open to new ideas and experiences and non-judgmental. The right brain sees “the big picture,” she says, while the left brain sees the parts of the picture. In other words, the right brain sees the forest and the left brain sees the trees.
She writes in more scientific terms (lots of neurocircuitry talk) than I have above, but you get the gist of her story. Very good read if you are interested in left brain/right brain thinking.
After suffering from manic depressive disorder for 48 years I do not believe anything anybody says about my brain. They know nothing and I know less. Since we are talking about Dickie maybe that first sentence needed a comma.
Trace Adkins: “This ain’t no thinking thing, left brain, right brain, it goes a little deeper than that, it’s a chemical, physical, emotional devotion, passion that we can’t hold back, there’s nothing that we need to analyze, there’s no rhyme or reason why, cause this ain’t, this ain’t no thinking thing.”
Warning snarky comment:
Admittedly science is imperfect, being a human endeavor and some of this will be altered or thrown out but there is an increasing body of knowledge concerning structure and behavior. The implications both scientifically and socially -too much for the ignorant to ponder. Make yourself knowledgeable.
heritability in brain size and function:
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-1/Genetic-contributions-to-human-brain-morphology-and-intelligence-830-1/
brain structure and sexuality
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000762
brain folding size and intelligence
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/14/4/424
Fascinating stuff. Complicated. We all recognize differences in human function. Mr Scruggs appears to have functioned on the edge- Many do not. How do these arise both structurally genetically and finally functionally. What parts do the genes and environment play and how do they interact and how can we improve the human condition, knowing this while avoiding some of the stereotyping that limited each individual’s chance to approach their best?
By the way my hat size is 7 7/8
NL
If Judge Lackey was not hunting for Dickie, then why did he continually bring him up, and telling Tim he did not want any of Tim’s money, he wanted only Dickie’s money. Entrapment. D.S. only pled to save his only son years in the pokey.
I think a lotta you should consider buying a Harley Davidson … best relief you can get for brain cramps.
MC you got that wrong– Dickie did not a thing to protect his son, and all indications are he could have done a lot more.
And you also got entrapment wrong. Entrapment requires a sting against someone who has shown no willingness to participate. Scruggs started off to corruptly influence Judge Lackey, and then shown no hesitance to move up to bribery when the subject was broached. That’s not close to entrapment.
I think MC has got it right. Scruggs was trapped. The FBI and its agents (Judge Lackey) wanted to end Scruggs’ career. The deal he made put a limit on what would happen to Sidney Backstrom and Zach Scruggs.
NMC — Judge Lackey clearly showed, early on, a willingness to be earwigged in the Jones matter. The ex parte bench order obtained by the Jones attorney makes that clear.
I hardly think earwigging in Mississippi , especially in the Jones case and in the context of earwigging which had already taken place from the perspective of the plaintiff establishes a willingness to corrupt a judge. The law of entrapment is more complicated than you make it.
Another reason why one could conclude that Dick Scruggs was acting for the benefit of his son and partner in this is that he had an entrapment defense — a very good entrapment defense. He could have used it.
Indeed, the law as would have been written if he had, would have been much better for it.
No offense SKE, but you clearly have no idea of that which you speak. There was no entrapment defense that would survive the laugh test. Scruggs the Elder, at least, had an excellent legal team. Come visit the Fifth Circuit sometime. Or better still avoid the humidity and merely visit Fifth Circuit cases on entrapment.
Frankly, it doesn’t look to me like Mr. Backstrom and the boy got much of a deal. Everybody is, after all, going to the big house for a while.
I respectfully suggest you have not a clue what Judge Lackey was thinking in the Jones matter or elsewhere. I do not know either. I do know he is a very rare kind of gentleman who will suffer the worst fools (particularly if they are lawyers) without a whimper. It is certainly not because he is foolish but rather because he has a huge reluctance to embarrass lawyers in his court (or elsewhere). Hence the expression “lawyer-friendly” judge.
Tim Balducci was, in the words of Robert Stone, “young, smarter than hell and insane with greed.” He was so insane with greed that it eclipsed his intelligence. Judge Lackey was not about to suffer corruption.
I think BC should file reports from Sturgis!
SKE, writing from outside the reality-based community, opines:
>>
Judge Lackey clearly showed, early on, a willingness to be earwigged in the Jones matter. The ex parte bench order obtained by the Jones attorney makes that clear.
<<
This is a lie. Judge Lackey was made ill by the contact from Balducci, and it deeply troubled him. I’ve done some research on when and where ex parte contact is proper– at times it is proper. I’ve little doubt about the signing of the seal motion, because: 1) It did not involve the merits of the case; 2) it was a “side” issue; 3) it was set up in a way that the other side got immediate– by hand-delivery–notice of exactly what happened; and 4) There was a reason for it– if Tollison had filed, noticed, and then asked the seal there would have been no seal, and he had a right to protect his client in the “race to the courthouse.”
Earwigging involves talking to the judge about the merits of the case in an ex parte contact. That is what Balducci did. They were flying the pirate flag when Scruggs sent him to do that– there was no pretense whatsoever they were following the rules.
The persistence with which SKE holds out to assert things that aren’t so makes me wonder what is actually behind his public assertions about these cases.
Well, NMC, I have a theory about that . . .
DN 51, with cousin Rodney from the sidecar!
Caution: The opinions of truck driving disbarred lawyers are at best suspicious..
kycol: Is he thinking “there with the grace of God went me”?
NMC: Actually I was thinking about someone living on the upper left coast.
Hey kycol, I was in Tupelo the last weekend in June for the purpose of practicing my KY accent without being interrupted. The upper left coast has some disadvantages.
I know kycol–
SKE (disbarred former lawyer) is thinking about Scruggs “there with the grace of God went me.”
I yield to you all! I’m just gonna get on my 40 year old Vespa and ride out of here with Ben Cole and his Harley.
Note to Weirdharold who is working on his Kaintucky accent: Effen Ah don’t sir vive at trip, kandly sand “flares” tu mah grave.
Nevermind.
Observer – In the past you said “In the post-Paul Minor world, Judge Lackey apparently was afraid someone was trying to set him (i.e., Judge Lackey) up. The people that were hunting for Dickie Scruggs was the FBI. Judge Lackey found himself in an awful position.”
Do you think he (Judge Lackey) may have thought someone was working with Tim Balducci to set him up?
Do you think he knew anything about, or had heard rumors about, the Wilson Case in Judge DeLaughter’s court?
Do you think he thought there was surveillance of him independent of Balducci?
I think the judge even said somewhere he was concerned that someone might be looking at him back in March of 2007.
Sure would like to figure this out. Hope you or others will make me understand things better.