<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Langston question: Why did this guideline out at 27?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.folo.us/2008/12/16/langston-question-why-did-this-guideline-out-at-27/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/12/16/langston-question-why-did-this-guideline-out-at-27/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:40:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: NMC</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/12/16/langston-question-why-did-this-guideline-out-at-27/#comment-51910</link>
		<dc:creator>NMC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:52:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/?p=8601#comment-51910</guid>
		<description>3rd:

1) I&#039;ve heard it said from a reliable source that he does not find prison pleasing.  2) I&#039;m told no.  3) Not that I&#039;ve heard. With another case out there I&#039;d doubt it.  4) surely not, although there was a joke about him being paged to the pay phone when Ole Miss was having to give David Nutt a raise  5) Hey, I&#039;d let his comments through to the list.  6) No. Read again what Dawson said.  7-end) phew that&#039;s a lotta names.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>3rd:</p>
<p>1) I&#8217;ve heard it said from a reliable source that he does not find prison pleasing.  2) I&#8217;m told no.  3) Not that I&#8217;ve heard. With another case out there I&#8217;d doubt it.  4) surely not, although there was a joke about him being paged to the pay phone when Ole Miss was having to give David Nutt a raise  5) Hey, I&#8217;d let his comments through to the list.  6) No. Read again what Dawson said.  7-end) phew that&#8217;s a lotta names.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ThirdSouth</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/12/16/langston-question-why-did-this-guideline-out-at-27/#comment-51909</link>
		<dc:creator>ThirdSouth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:42:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/?p=8601#comment-51909</guid>
		<description>How&#039;s Dickie doing these days?  Is he in some kind of rehab in prison?  Granting interiews?  Does he have Internet access?  Would he be willing, now that it&#039;s all over, to post here?  It is all over, isn&#039;t it?  And Lott?  What about Lott?  And Nutt?  And Wyatt?  And Sparky?  What about Ma Lobrano?  Cori?  Kerri?  The Trailers?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How&#8217;s Dickie doing these days?  Is he in some kind of rehab in prison?  Granting interiews?  Does he have Internet access?  Would he be willing, now that it&#8217;s all over, to post here?  It is all over, isn&#8217;t it?  And Lott?  What about Lott?  And Nutt?  And Wyatt?  And Sparky?  What about Ma Lobrano?  Cori?  Kerri?  The Trailers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NMC</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/12/16/langston-question-why-did-this-guideline-out-at-27/#comment-51907</link>
		<dc:creator>NMC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:26:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/?p=8601#comment-51907</guid>
		<description>but what&#039;s a life income stream of 160-165 worth?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>but what&#8217;s a life income stream of 160-165 worth?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NMC</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/12/16/langston-question-why-did-this-guideline-out-at-27/#comment-51906</link>
		<dc:creator>NMC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:26:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/?p=8601#comment-51906</guid>
		<description>160 or 165,000</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>160 or 165,000</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Delta Fred</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/12/16/langston-question-why-did-this-guideline-out-at-27/#comment-51904</link>
		<dc:creator>Delta Fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:05:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/?p=8601#comment-51904</guid>
		<description>What is the salary for a federal judge?  Could that amount be used to determine the bump?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is the salary for a federal judge?  Could that amount be used to determine the bump?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NMC</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/12/16/langston-question-why-did-this-guideline-out-at-27/#comment-51871</link>
		<dc:creator>NMC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/?p=8601#comment-51871</guid>
		<description>It was suggested to me off-blog that Joey Langston may have received an increase for being a leader or organizer of a group doing a crime. If he was and the group was over five folks, he gets an increase of 4; if he was only a manager not a leader, he gets an increase of 3.  

I think it&#039;s clearer from the comments that Scruggs was the leader here, but may be wrong. 

But if Joey is a leader, and gets an increase of 4 or that, then we only have to explain dollars needed to increase the count 8 points, which means $70-120,000 (and makes no sense to me. How would you arrive at that number?).  I&#039;m still going with my initial speculation but would love the views of others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was suggested to me off-blog that Joey Langston may have received an increase for being a leader or organizer of a group doing a crime. If he was and the group was over five folks, he gets an increase of 4; if he was only a manager not a leader, he gets an increase of 3.  </p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s clearer from the comments that Scruggs was the leader here, but may be wrong. </p>
<p>But if Joey is a leader, and gets an increase of 4 or that, then we only have to explain dollars needed to increase the count 8 points, which means $70-120,000 (and makes no sense to me. How would you arrive at that number?).  I&#8217;m still going with my initial speculation but would love the views of others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lotus</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/12/16/langston-question-why-did-this-guideline-out-at-27/#comment-51848</link>
		<dc:creator>lotus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:34:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/?p=8601#comment-51848</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://clarionledger.com/article/20081216/NEWS/81216005&amp;referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jerry Mitchell&#039;s report&lt;/a&gt;, which, via the mention of Joey&#039;s health problems, gives me a thought. If he gets sick while in prison, Joey could very well end up in my MO hometown, which has a big medical center for federal prisoners. There&#039;s at least one other, in Chillicothe, OH, I believe, but Springfield might be the handier.

Interesting factoid: Because it happened on November 22, 1963, most people never heard that Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz, died at Springfield Federal Medical Center. (More recently, so did the Teflon Don, John Gotti.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s <a href="http://clarionledger.com/article/20081216/NEWS/81216005&#038;referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL" rel="nofollow">Jerry Mitchell&#8217;s report</a>, which, via the mention of Joey&#8217;s health problems, gives me a thought. If he gets sick while in prison, Joey could very well end up in my MO hometown, which has a big medical center for federal prisoners. There&#8217;s at least one other, in Chillicothe, OH, I believe, but Springfield might be the handier.</p>
<p>Interesting factoid: Because it happened on November 22, 1963, most people never heard that Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz, died at Springfield Federal Medical Center. (More recently, so did the Teflon Don, John Gotti.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Habeas</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/12/16/langston-question-why-did-this-guideline-out-at-27/#comment-51821</link>
		<dc:creator>Habeas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:24:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/?p=8601#comment-51821</guid>
		<description>How do you value a U.S. Senator&#039;s promise of being considered for appointment to the federal bench when the nomination never materializes?  I agree with NMC that the government and the court had a more tangible measure because of the $3M divided up by Langston and his [still alleged]  co-conspirators.  That seems to fall within the category of &quot;value received&quot; by those offering the bribe -- but not as a direct result of DeLaughter&#039;s decision in the fee case, but as the value of the services of Langston et al. as perceived by the direct beneficiary of the decision -- Mr Scruggs.  Could it be that the government was a bit uncertain as to the way this benefit should have been calcualted and so opted for a lower $ figure to which Langston would not have been in a position to dispute?  
     Would it have anything to do with the uncertainty as to whether DeLaughter&#039;s decision was legally correct (as he maintains it was)? 
       I have questions but no answers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do you value a U.S. Senator&#8217;s promise of being considered for appointment to the federal bench when the nomination never materializes?  I agree with NMC that the government and the court had a more tangible measure because of the $3M divided up by Langston and his [still alleged]  co-conspirators.  That seems to fall within the category of &#8220;value received&#8221; by those offering the bribe &#8212; but not as a direct result of DeLaughter&#8217;s decision in the fee case, but as the value of the services of Langston et al. as perceived by the direct beneficiary of the decision &#8212; Mr Scruggs.  Could it be that the government was a bit uncertain as to the way this benefit should have been calcualted and so opted for a lower $ figure to which Langston would not have been in a position to dispute?<br />
     Would it have anything to do with the uncertainty as to whether DeLaughter&#8217;s decision was legally correct (as he maintains it was)?<br />
       I have questions but no answers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ccvz</title>
		<link>http://www.folo.us/2008/12/16/langston-question-why-did-this-guideline-out-at-27/#comment-51809</link>
		<dc:creator>ccvz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:06:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.folo.us/?p=8601#comment-51809</guid>
		<description>I have no idea if you&#039;ve nailed it or not but I like the way you got there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have no idea if you&#8217;ve nailed it or not but I like the way you got there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
