Well, as noted in the prior post, another shoe has dropped, only not quite where we expected it.
Roberts Wilson, victim of the Ed Peters/Joey Langston scheme in Wilson v. Scruggs before Judge DeLaughter, has sued Scruggs in a civil case in the federal court in Northern Mississippi. He’s also sued Peters, Steve Patterson, Tim Balducci, Zach Scruggs and a series of John Doe defendants.
The case has been assigned to Judge Biggers, who handled Scruggs I. I have to assume the plaintiffs lawyers will be pleased by this.
But more amazingly, his complaint names Judge DeLaughter and a “former United States Senator”– which can only be Senator Trent Lott– as participants in a conspiracy to defraud Wilson in the Wilson v. Scruggs case.
The complaint alleges that Scruggs’s law firm and the conspiracy were racketeering enterprises– essentially alleging that Judge DeLaughter and the unnamed senator were part of a racketeering organization.
To understand the suit, you have to understand the Wilson cases–his claim ended up being split between multiple courts. There was a claim before the state court (and Judge DeLaughter) for asbestos fees, and a claim before the federal court for constructive trust, that the non-paid asbestos fees were used by Scruggs to fund his tobacco litigation, and therefore Wilson was entitled to a share of the tobacco fees.
Since all of these cases are called Wilson v. Scruggs, as is the new one, it’s going to be hard to keep them all straight.
I suppose we are lucky that the other lawyer who sued Scruggs over asbestos fees was not named Wilson.
First interesting issue is that Zach is sued. When the facts in Wilson were to be 404b (other crime) evidence in Scruggs I, there was an argument made by Zach’s lawyers that the evidence should not come in or Zach should get severance because he had nothing to do with the bribe in that case. While the US Attorney seemed to accept that in responding, I noted at the time that he’d written Johnny Jones (one of his father’s lawyers) an email that they could win the case with a brief written on a napkin.
Second interesting thing is that Joey Langston is not sued. It was noted in the government’s 5K motion for Langston, I think, that Wilson had settled with Langston.
The complaint notes that Balducci resides in Monroe County (where I think his wife’s family lives). The case is in federal court because of diversity jurisdiction (Roberts Wilson lives in Tuscaloosa).
Some nice language:
Wilson relied on the words, verbal and written, of the Hinds County Circuit Court to have been rendered by an officer sworn to impartiality and wholesomeness and not a corrupted, bribed individual. …
Wilson relied on the robe and seat behind the bench as a representation by the Hinds County Circuit Court that the judicial officer sitting there was impartial and not a corrupted, bribed individual…
It’s signed by Charles Merkel and includes as counsel Vicki Slater and Bill Kirksey, all lawyers who represented Wilson during the last stage of his case before DeLaughter.
Civil RICO. Triple damages, right? Wonder how many countries Scruggs has the money salted away in.
Treble damages, Observer.
Treble?
Yepper, ccvz — “treble” works in music and Legal.
I have no inside information at all. But don’t you think that if the feds were merely going after Bobby DeLaughter he could have been indicted a long time ago? I had just about decided this wasn’t going back to tobacco, but I’m wondering if this may be bigger than DeLaughter.
“The Treble” is also a soccer trophy in Europe…so I”ll have to look up the ‘Legal’ version.
Don’t know about the feds, MSlawyer, but this civil RICO complaint refers to “16 years” worth of Scruggs skulduggery. If they haven’t got it on their own, Merkel-Slater-&-Kirksey are about to hand it to ‘em nicely wrapped and bowed.
ccvz, “treble” is just Legal for “triple.”
Might it be that a one of the John Doe defendants used to own a grain elevator in Plainview, Texas? (If you love grain elevators, the De Bruce elevator (the current owner) in Plainview is almost a work of art.) An understanding of the Scruggs Affair surely requires an understanding of what P.L Blake did with those “clippings” he was cutting to be able to command and claim $50 million of the Scruggs’ winnings. I hope I am not the only one who is curious about such strange doings. What I am thinking is that $50 million is a good deal of money and to get it one must do something, one must be of some value — to at least someone. If I am off-base would someone please tell me, and if you will, tell me why.
What about the other players on the tobacco team? Wasn’t every dollar Dickie kept from Wilson a dollar he split with his tobacco partners? Who out there thinks Dickie went to bat for his tobacco partners out of the goodness of his heart with no strings attached? In other words, didn’t they have a dog in the Scruggs v. Wilson fight? Just wondering who the John Does may turn out to be?
Here is a picture (hope I go the link right) of that beautiful elevator.
http://debruce.com/products_businesses/grain/?id=19
Sounds like an interesting complaint. I’ll have to read it. Should I put on Barber’s Adagio for Strings for a suitable accompaniment?
Roger: No … please … that is as beautiful a piece of music as has ever been written. Don’t expose it to the caustic fumes of this litigation.
what do civil rico mean for scruggs and the others?
They have two big problems with their RICO pleading: (1) far too vague to withstand 12(b)(6) motions, and (2) failure to file the mandatory RICO statement along with the complaint. They can possibly amend the complaint to fix (1), but the failure to file the RICO statement will cause major problems.
notalawyer, RICO is a statute congress passed in the 70s that sets up a criminal and civil scheme, both, for suing defendants who show a pattern of violating a series of federal laws for things like wire fraud.
The idea was to give prosecutors a tool for taking out organized crime. “Organized crime” doesn’t mean just the mob– it can also mean groups who set up a business of committing securities fraud.
It has tools that are very punitive– financial confiscation and the like– and it has civil remedies (that is, remedies for individuals hurt by organized crime conspiracies) that are very serious– damages are tripled, and punitive damages are allowed.
For there to be a RICO (Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act) the court has to find more than one instance of a crime– more than one act of wire fraud, etc.
I assume that the Wilson plaintiffs will say that there was a pattern of criminal conduct by Scruggs.
NMC thank you.
RogerWilco wrote:
“(2) failure to file the mandatory RICO statement along with the complaint. They can possibly amend the complaint to fix (1), but the failure to file the RICO statement will cause major problems.”
There’s a standing order in the Southern District (part of the local rules, in an order by Judge Tom Lee from 10 years ago) requiring a RICO statement with the filing in the complaint. Is that required in the Northern District?
Adding in to what Roger said:
I would expect a RICO complaint to show what the predicate acts were, and that it had happened more than once, and with some clarity. This is more like a fraud complaint than a normal complaint.
This particular complaint outlines the judicial bribery scheme with DeLaughter but not with any particular precision. If I’d been writing it, I’d have made clear that there were wire transfers to Peters, Patterson, Langston, etc., making up the predicate acts to prove wire fraud. But I haven’t been involved in drafting a RICO complaint in a while.
I’d have probably also made clear that there was an enterprise that attempted to bribe another judge, and that many of these same players were part of it.
edited “more like a fraud complaint” sentence to fix word mixup
Funny you should ask. I just went back and checked. I think I’m wrong. I hereby amend my comment at 14 above to exclude any and all reference to a RICO statement, which seems to be required only down south, not up yonder.
NMC, I agree with your comment at 18. You need times, places, numbers of telephone calls, email transmissions, letters, etc. You can’t just say they had a 16 year criminal enterprise and fill in the predicate acts later.
Great article.
You actually get it. Any verdict in the Delaughter case leads to a construtive trust verdict in the federal case which could affect all Mississippi Tobacco fees. This is why the Delaughter case was so dangerous and should have been settled by Dickie. He was not playing with all his own money.
And yes, a good question has always been PL Blake, PL Blake who ya holding that 50 million for boy? (Sung to some great blues maybe with a harmonica/)
Relax, guys we are still a notice state and they can amend the complaint. What are the convicted felons to say, we dont know why we have been sued? (Plaintiff exhibit One the Langston confession.)
Civil Rico is very tough, but punitive damages will not be and they can be at least ten times actual or about 170 million.
Looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. I would say the cows are coming home but I never did get that one. Where did they go to begin with anyway?
Who is going to write this book anyway?
The writer in me says, sadly: Will no one acknowledge the pun in my post?
I got it Lucky he wasn’t named Wilson
I trust that Mr. Merkel was pretty well convinced of the veracity of para. 24 before he put his name to that Complaint?
Dunno enough about defamation law to know whether allegations in a civil complaint can give rise to libel actions, & I’ve spent too much time on Westlaw tonight to feel like looking it up.
if you go back to looking things up, Anderson, start with
*The Sullivan doctrine (that one has to have actual and legal malice to be liable for defamation of public figures, e.g. US Senators)
*the privilege protecting court pleadings, an even more substantial privilege protecting documents filed with a court.
I know enough facts to strongly suspect they’ve passed the tests either of these imply, and anything else imposed by Rule 11.
Might the defendants ask Judge Biggers to recuse himself?
why? because he had another case? that’s no basis for recusal.
I’m intrigued by para 22, where it says that Scruggs is “mutually liable with his attorneys” for misdeeds. That’s interesting.
Injustice, in my (painful, bitter) experience, RICO allegations have a pretty high specificity hurdle. Defendants have good luck getting them dismissed. The “we’ll amend later” assertion doesn’t go over so well with RICO complaints.
I’m not a lawyer, obviously, and don’t know the specific rules for recusal which is why I asked. But it seems reasonable to me to ask if Judge Biggers can be the most impartial available arbiter after having made the rulings and said the things he said in Scruggs I.
This may already have been ask, but is it a normal practice to have Civil Rico before The Feds even bring indictment against Delaughter, Peters, Lott and Various John Doe’s?
Now, NMC, There were two missing numbers you found doing research…Could something be underseal, nah, and where does P L Blake fit in here.
Would be nice to go all the way back to John McCains office where Moore/Scruggs/Lott hatched one of the Biggest Golden Eggs in History…
Works for me, NMC. But I hope they have the goods. Since Lott’s not even a defendant, para. 24 struck me as a tad gratuitous.
(I think the allegations might be libelous even under NYT v. Sullivan, but it was the pleadings privilege I was uncertain about. Everyone seems to feel free to lie in complaints, so it appeared there was *some* kinda privilege there ….)
Oh, It is being told this morning The Feds are working on a deal with Madoff because Cox and The Fox’s turned their head so many times, and it would cost so much money to prosecute him in a trial, maybe a deal is being worked in Scruggs 2.
Ben @ 12, Considering that Barber’s Adagio for Strings moves much like a funeral durdge (and was even often used as such during funeral processions of fallen WWII soldiers), I think that Rog’s suggestion might be quite appropriate if not just a little premature.
And it’s so beautiful, I’ve asked my bro to play it for my funeral if he’s around to do so. Have you heard the choral version, known as “Agnus Dei”? Also wonderful, but I guess I slightly still prefer the Adagio.
DWP No.29:
I’m not an attorney either. But, I think it would take some kind of extrajudicial (outside of the judicial process)comments, actions or bias by Judge Biggers for his recusal.
It takes something that might cause the average man on the street to feel the judge is partial toward a party or biased against a party.
What he does and says in court usually does not fall within these parameters.
Thanks, NAAS 35, that’s the answer to what my feeble self was trying to ask.
After reading the complaint, all I could do was
. Give them what they deserve, Mr. Wilson. Aut Pax Aut Bellum