This morning’s Jerry Mitchell/Paul Quinn story (with Chris Joyner-interviewing-Mitchell podcast) steers readers to Eaton v. Frisby as the answer to our puzzle yesterday: Which of many possible cases generated the MS Bar complaint that finally did-in Ed Peters’ law license?
… Mississippi Bar officials won’t discuss which case was involved, but Peters’ actions in Eaton Corp. v. Jeffrey Frisby, another Hinds County lawsuit involving DeLaughter, were reported for Bar scrutiny. Federal authorities also have investigated that case.
Special Master David Dogan III concluded in November [folo post here] that DeLaughter improperly communicated with Peters in that $1 billion theft-of-trade lawsuit. DeLaughter has been suspended from the bench since last March, pending a state Commission on Judicial Performance investigation into complaints against him.
Ed Blackmon Jr. of Canton, an attorney in that case, said he’s not surprised Peters turned in his license, “given the criminal investigation going on.”
Blackmon and other attorneys for Frisby have argued that rulings began going in favor of Eaton after Peters became secretly involved. Michael Wallace, an attorney for Eaton, has argued in court the company had no role in any action Peters may have taken. …
Blackmon said the whole episode proves “reality is stranger than fiction. John Grisham could not have made up this story any better.”
Mitchell includes Mississippi College School of Law professor Matt Steffey’s surmise that “Peters’ action may signal he could dodge charges in exchange for his cooperation.” That’s the second time I’ve heard something similar, a trustworthy source having yesterday reported close-in talk of a Peters/DoJ agreement to a $1 million fine in lieu of criminal plea. If true, such an arrangement would fall well short of completed justice, don’t you think?
Nor does Bar attorney Adam Kilgore’s statement to Mitchell pass the straight-face test. Kilgore proposes that, “This is the ultimate punishment. It doesn’t get any more serious than losing your license and to not be able to practice law.” Tell it to Dickie, Zach, and Sid, addressing them by prisoner number, Mr. Kilgore (after you clean up your grammar).
The C-L’s podcast (tempo and structure evoking the creaking chains of a porch swing) has Mitchell visiting with Joyner and Aaron Spencer about the tangle of Peters-DeLaughter-and-Scruggs cases, including Eaton, Wilson, and Beckwith. They conclude that “it doesn’t look good for” Bobby DeLaughter, but only if you’re really bored can I recommend clicking on that.
Going off-topic (unless the topic is “Mississippi bads”), I must also share this email that duckweedpond forwarded:
I regret to inform you that the Fannie Lou Hamer home in Ruleville was destroyed by fire on New Years Day. At this point I have no details but will update you as soon I have further information.
Cynthia Palmer
Coordinator
Veterans of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement
I’ll really hope that’s just a terrible shame, not somebody’s sin.
Kilgore is a real piece of work.
Did the Eaton / Frisby case invole the fabled email DeLaughter sent out (maybe to Peters)?
Which fabled email, ccvz?
Now on this rumored fine-instead-of-plea idea: would/could a federal magistrate confiscate money from someone who hasn’t pled to a felony?
Lotus @ 3:
I think I’m confusing the Eaton case with the Wilson case. I thought I had remembered reading that DeLaughter sent an email to Peters – I’m not sure if it was to ‘approve’ an order or what, but I want to say that email may come back to bite DeLaughter (if it hasn’t bitten him already).
Am I making that up? Anyone?
Eaton involved an email– it’s how the defendants learned Peters was poking around in the case. He replied to an email he’d been sent and thus sent a copy to a defense lawyer’s secretary (who responded saying she appeared to have got it by mistake and hoping that Peters had a nice weekend).
But it was Wilson where DeL emailed an order that Scruggs edited? Or was that a Lackey order I’m thinking of? Maybe both?
I wonder if Mitchell has this one correct. I assume there is a complaint against him in Eaton.
Civil forfeiture can occur separate from criminal prosecution.
I have a good question and maybe some of your criminal lawyers can answer? We all asked the significance of Langston being sentenced and many thought just the Court moving its docket, but, unless I have missed something, why have Balducci and Patterson not been sentenced?
Different judge, different docket.
A tax question. Reportedly Peters agreed to give up the $1 million but it was only worth $425,000 after taxes and stock market losses. Does this imply he had paid taxes on the million when received or did the gov’t take the tax money from the after market loss balance and report the net at $425,000. My implication being possible tax evasion if not originally reported as income.
I would assume the government would expect him to pay taxes out of his pocket, not out of the ill-gotten gains, so my assumption is he’d paid them before the feds got to the account.
Why do you assume he’d do something so honest as to pay proper taxes on a secret criminal windfall, NMC?
I’d bet a lot he treated it on his taxes like a retainer or legal fee– and that he did that with all the money he got for influencing DeLaughter. That kind of money moved around in wire transfers invites scrutiny. Keep the public part clean (like Balducci and Scruggs treating the $40K bribe money as an invoice for working on jury instructions).
He’s a smart guy. He’s going to paper over this stuff to make it look as legit as he can and keep the non-legit stuff off paper.
NMC, I wonder if your source confused the forfeiture with a fine and drew the conclusion you reported. I doubt that any prosecutor in a case of judge-tampering would go for a fine only from the prime “tamperer.” The bigger fish being served up would have to be a LOT bigger than the people involved in Eaton v Frisby, by my way of thinking.
I would be willing to bet that, if he reported this as income at all, it was done in an “amended” return, after he got wind of the problems coming down the road. Like lotus @14, I would have to seriously question any assumption that he initially did the right thing, tax wise, on any ill-gotten monetary gains.
And IF this guy avoids jail time, it will be one of the biggest travesties of justice in our state’s history. His dirty fingers are all over many matters currently under criminal investigation, and likely others still undiscovered or not publicized. And, as NMC has pointed out in a previous thread, Peters has a long track record of really bad behavior, which has produced public reprimands by courts, etc, but miraculously has not resulted in criminal prosecution. His day is long overdue. I just don’t see how any prosecutor or Judge can ignore this man’s sordid history. This ain’t his first rodeo.
Soms– I’ve been wondering really seriously about the use of the word “fine” in the rumors about Ed Peters’s deal. A “fine” implies a plea, and the rumors hand-in-hand suggest that he’s walking away without a conviction.
I’m also wondering whether there even could be a workable plea– any binding plea would have to clear the local district judges, and I can’t imagine them looking kindly on a deal that would leave them unable to incarcerate Peters, while I can’t imagine Peters making a deal that isn’t binding.
So if I had to guess, I’d guess the $1M reference is to a forfeiture, and possibly even to the balance remaining (the $425K).
I second the thought of Peters getting off without any time served would be an injustice.