Paul Quinn writes:
A lawyer close to the case has said Peters has been cooperating with governments investigation into Scruggs II. Another attorney involved in the case said the U.S. Attorney’s and Department of Justice likely worked out a plea arangment as part of his cooperation. Turning in his bar card was likely part of the agreement.
But Peters coulda just voluntarily resigned from the bar … that would have obviated the necessity for the bar complaint. There was a 2007 complaint lodged against him, and now a hurried-up 2008 (or was it ’09?) complaint. Why the disconnect? Why another complaint? And he didn’t plead guilty to the bar complaint … he pled to criminal charges. I never did trust Ed Peters. I wondered why the local bar didn’t turn him out more than two decades ago. It’s a puzzlement.
The AP version (spotted in the SH) says something else:
deleted
only one complaint, the one filed with the Bar in ’07. this just finally resolves it.
Boy– I’m curious about that complaint. There wasn’t a whole lot of time in 2007 for a Scruggs related bar complaint, unless someone involved in one of the civil cases jumped ahead of the feds with a complaint.
I’m guessing– BUT JUST GUESSING– this bar proceeding may have been related to Kirk v. Pope and not Wilson v. Scruggs.
any thoughts?
That would make sense . . . and then along came the Scruggs stuff as a surprise. Might partially explain why he hied himself to Oxford so fast, rather than make a stand, if he already knew he was cooked on KvP.
Dickie and Zach better learn to like prison food.
My guess was wrong– see the update on my Patsy Brumfield post.
We can’t infer much from the 07 date. We don’t know much of anything about the bar complaint that was the proceeding on which Peters surrendered his license.
I’ve got one other possible source for info and am working on it.
This has sort of gotten me confused…so I’m just going to comment before I leave work so I’ll continue to get some updates / additional comments.
NMC: I know who signed the judicial complaint, but I won’t ID them here. Your guess in #5 I have reason to believe IS wrong.
You may well be right Boy. (correcting an attempt to comment during a business meeting)
Boy, was that a weird li’l sentence, NMC.
I was literally in a conference call when I wrote it.
Almost the blogging equivalent of sleepwalking
It wasn’t me but, oh … the sense of humor God has – Ed being involved on the wrong end of a JUDICIAL BRIBERY case!!!! Now that’s rich, I tell ya’!!!
Hi, Keith. Feeling pretty good this AM, are you?
Not really, Lotus; were vengeance my sole consuming motivation, then it would be a great day. But it’s not. And after reading NMC’s post where he exposed a litany of Ed’s previous acts of malfeasance (albeit quite a short list compared to all of Ed’s incidents for which NMC claims to have had records), it’s pretty much the opposite. Evil triumphs because good people do nothing. And in my case, it was quite surprising how many instances there were of opposing attorneys who attempted to use the criminal charges against me to gain an advantage for their clients against mine. So … no, it’s a pretty sad day in view of the fact that it has been so long in coming. Now, it’s time to look for a more optimistic future, hopefully now with every barrister and deliverer of jurisprudence reminded of why we have the rules that we have, and the public reminded of “innocent until proven guilty” instead of “guilty, because i read it in the paper”.
Good points, Keith, though when thinking about all the judges who had YEARS AND DECADES to do something about Ed Peters but didn’t, I’m not satisfied that “good” is the word. “Guilty because I read it in the paper” will probably extend its run, alas.