There are more rumblings relating to one of those cases involving Ed Peters and Judge DeLaughter. Turns out there’s some sworn testimony out there in which the “client” on Peters’s side testified about the large fee he paid Peters, that Peters was to get to keep regardless of whether he did one iota of legal work in the case. That was the express deal Peters got, before he started “maneuvering” in a Judge DeLaughter case, maneuvers he began without bothering to enter a formal appearance. And what was accomplished for that “fee”? Well, a case that one might have thought was absolutely positively lost suddenly became otherwise….
This is a case that’s been mentioned a fair amount on this site. As always, we find that you can’t beat getting your hands on the pleadings.
Well, let’s have a look at them!
Do I have this right? The client hired one above-the-radar lawyer and one under-the-radar lawyer? Blake, the under-the-radar lawyer was connected in a way that made the one above-the-radar akin to the tits on a boar hog? And Blake “iced” it for all concerned? I can see how that might command a “fee” up front without regard for any subsequent disenchantment relating to the results. Were sweet potatoes involved? Does the client have to pay the sweet potatoes, too, or just a fee that encompasses them? I see some problems for the client as well as P L Blake if the client was in on all this and acquiesced or failed to report. Shades of Zach.
Zucchini. Bushels. Maybe some squash and cukes too.
I’ve got the tops from all kinds of boxes. Would somebody please send me my decoder ring?
there are no vegetables in this one A1A
why so coy? What’s the style of the case?
tick tick tick, the indictment comes out Friday….Monday?
Coy’s fine with me. Coy is good. Thanks for this much to whet my appetite. Does anyone expect the FBI and DOJ (even with W at the top of the Excecutive Branch) to hear about all those bodies Balducci mentioned to Judge Lackey as being buried in places he knew and not do a little excavation work, too, in addition to this civil-sounding action?
yeah but I wasn’t asking you 3rd.
Confounded, I’ve got information I’m confident about and when the pleadings hit my mailbox I’ll post details. Not really so much coy as wanting to post alerts to readers that there is more-to-come and saving the details for later.
It is a civil case. It doesn’t involve Dickie Scruggs.
NMC @ 9: You’re supposed to do it this way:
“This just in! Massive disaster! Total destruction! But first a word from our sponsor.”
[Cut to car dealer saying, "I won't lie to you."]
Thunderstorm season sure can be hard on yer blogging, can’t it?
Well, so, whilst offline I pondered “Ed Peters ‘maneuvering’ in a DeLaughter case (without bothering to enter a formal appearance)” . . . a case that “one might have thought was absolutely positively lost but suddenly became otherwise” . . . and one that’s “been mentioned a fair amount on this site” . . . hmmmmm.
And even before I saw “a civil case that doesn’t involve Dickie Scruggs,” my guess (and it is a guess because NMC’s having coy fun with me too) could only be this one.
NMC: gotcha.
Lotus: could be.
IF the scenario doesn’t mind that someone from the firm where Peters was “of counsel” entered an appearance but he didn’t personally, Confounded. It’s the “case that ‘one might have thought was absolutely positively lost but suddenly became otherwise’" steering strongest.
When Greenlee mentioned another “investigation”, would this case be part of that?
I’d imagine so, ceece.
To quote Ted Knight as Judge Smails in Caddyshack:
“Well, we’re waiting!!!!”
I’ve got part of the documents (just in today), and should have the rest in a day or so. The post is starting to jell.
Lotus in 12:
Nope.
NMC, I just thorougly enjoy reading your stuff. May not always agree, but I look forward to reading your stuff.
Wait, it doesn’t involve Dickie? What?
Well, Dickie wouldn’t soil his hands with such small potatoes as these, would he?