NMissCommentor » Judicial Bribery Scandal

Scruggs to Judge Davidson: Decide my petition, because I could be getting out soon.

NMC — Tue, 22 May 2012 13:32:19 +0000

Dickie Scruggs has filed a motion in Scruggs II asking the court to go ahead and decide the case. Writing with uncharacteristic brevity, his lawyers note that his release date on the five year sentence in Scruggs I would be in November of this year and that he’d be eligible for half-way house or home detention under the Bureau of Prisons regulations on May 23rd. They also note that briefing on the case was completed in April, and ask for a decision so either Scruggs can go ahead and get out or appeal to the Fifth Circuit. They close by quoting the author of The Daily Study Bible.

Here’s motion. Meanwhile, Sid Backstrom yesterday filed a motion to end supervised release.

What could this possibly be?

NMC — Mon, 21 May 2012 19:20:14 +0000

After lunch, these two entries hit the docket in Scruggs I about five minutes apart:

05/21/2012	408	MOTION for Leave to File Pleading Under Seal by Steven A. Patterson. (llw)
05/21/2012	409	ORDER denying 408 Motion for Leave to File Pleading Under Seal as to Steven A. Patterson (5). Signed by Neal B. Biggers on 5/21/2012. (llw)

The first item is not available through Pacer, at least yet. The judge’s order simply says NO!

Update:

Looks like my first joke-guess was the closest. He wants to do an Ole Miss alumnae European trip. The probation service says fine, and Judge Biggers approved it. Here’s the motion and here’s the order granting it.

Scruggs and the Government file their briefs….

NMC — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:26:29 +0000

The court asked for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yesterday, the Government filed an eight page brief, and the Scruggs side filed a forty pages proposed findings. There’s a “don’t think about the elephant” quality to the Scruggs proposed findings. The elephant is the testimony from Peters, Paterson, Langston, and Balducci that it mattered to DeLaughter to have Scruggs help about the position on the federal bench.

Additionally, a major premise of the Scruggs brief raises a couple of nagging questions. Scruggs argues that the big dispute in the Wilson case was whether post 1992 settlements were part of the payment agreement. Scruggs argues that, in 2002, Judge DeLaughter decided they were not. So– why was this zombie law suit still cruising along in 2006 if the big dispute was resolved in 2002? And if Scruggs had won the major point, why did he need to pay the big bucks for secret access to the judge?

The Government has always taken the position that it did not need to go into the details of the Wilson case or the question whether Judge DeLaughter’s rulings were correct. Given the undisputed proof of illegal influence and access and the clarity of the proof of the exchange (to paraphrase Steve Patterson, the proof that they paid for the cow), I can somewhat understand why. But, still, I’d have been curious to hear what the Wilson side thought about whether the big issues in this lawsuit were decided before late 2005.

Here’s the Scruggs proposed findings. Here’s the Government brief. Scruggs also filed a brief on his jurisdictional issue.

Marking time during the rain delay, the Ole Miss and Southern baseball squads did some skits and then danced.

NMC — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:43:32 +0000

Click here to view the embedded video.

Apparently college baseball rain delays have it all over professional ones, entertainment-wise. It’s been going on at least a couple of years, and variations have included piggy-back jousting. Yes, really: Jousting. A New York Times sports blogger writing about the jousting noted: ”Really, if my kid gets injured doing this, he is better off lying to me and telling me he was in a bar fight.”

I’m sure folks out there know more about this than I do. How long has this been going on?

h/t Lee, who got it from Gawker.

Judge Davidson orders that the DeLaughter proffer will be under seal

NMC — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 21:39:16 +0000

As I noted, when the hearing adjourned, an open issue was a proffer of what Bobby DeLaughter’s testimony would have been if he’d been made to testify. In order to appeal the judge’s decision to not grant immunity to DeLaughter, the Scruggs side have to show what they would have proved had Delaughter been allowed to testify, so the Fifth Circuit can evaluate whether the testimony would have matter if it had been allowed. That’s what a proffer is.

At the close of the hearing, a written draft of a proffer was circulating, and the Government stated that DeLaughter’s lawyer did not agree to some of it.

Judge Davidson has just entered an order that the proffer, when it is submitted, will be submitted under seal, which means we will not be able to see it.

Here’s the order.

A summary of the posts about the Scruggs II hearing last week

NMC — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:53:16 +0000

I’ve made a number of posts about last weeks hearing in Scruggs II, involving Dick Scruggs’s effort to set aside his guilty plea for corruptly influencing Bobby DeLaughter. The issue in the hearing was whether Scruggs could prove that he was innocent of the charge of bribing the judge.

One major post was a summary of what the live witness testimony said about the effort to dangle a judicial appointment before DeLaughter. This summary does not include additional facts that came in through three FBI interview statements from interviews with Ed Peters and Bobby DeLaughter; posts about that are listed below, in the section about the exhibits. Those interview memos had the biggest news of the hearing, because they have statements Peters and DeLaughter made in December of 2007 as all of this was just becoming public.

Here are links to posts about the hearings themselves:

Day One of the hearing

Morning testimony, which was Trent Lott

Afternoon testimony, primarily Steve Patterson

Day Two of the hearing

Steve Funderburg’s testimony

Langston’s direct examination and cross-examination

Balducci’s testimony

Why DeLaughter did not testify

Here are links to posts about the facts in FBI interviews and Peters grand jury testimony that were introduced into evidence:

What Ed Peters’s grand jury testimony shows about DeLaughter rand the judicial nomination.

To set the context of the interviews, I posted a timeline of the period in which the interviews occurred.

Peter’s first FBI interview memo

DeLaughter’s first FBI interview memo

DeLaughter’s second FBI interview memo

I posted about Mike Moore’s assessment of the second day of the hearing, as reported by the Daily Journal.

What’s left to write about is the timeline introduced by the Scruggs side, and the arguments they made from it, along with a few other notes about opening statements, and then whatever develops about the Scruggs proffer of Bobby DeLaughter’s testimony. A week from Tuesday, both sides will be submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. I’m expecting to post about all that.

Finally, Outsider posted a poem about all this in a comment over the weekend.

12-21-07: DeLaughter comes clean(er) with the FBI

NMC — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:41:07 +0000

You might want to read this chronology before reading this post. You also probably should read about DeLaughter’s first FBI interview.

DeLaughter’s second FBI interview memo closes with passages that makes me wonder, again, why this was placed in evidence by the Scruggs team:

At the time, DELAUGHTER did not think that PETERS’ and LANGSTON’s help to receive judgeship position was influencing, but looking back upon it now, he believes that PETERS and LANGSTON did attempt to influence him. [Although, he expressly denied he was influenced by Peters.] DELAUGHTER agreed that a federal judgeship is a thing of value.

After saying he ruled based on the law, and not according to Peters’s influence, he says this:

However, DELAUGHTER did state that he was glad this case did not go to trial because he probably would have sided with PETERS on the “gray” matters of the case.

This does not seem to help advance Scruggs’s side.

Perhaps it was placed in evidence because it contains a little misleading timing switch that later gets straightened out:

After the trial was over, DELAUGHTER telephone SCRUGGS and asked for his help in getting a federal judgeship position. SCRUGGS said that he would help, but it was not related to the favorable outcome of the case.

Just to be clear about that relationship. Or lack of one.

I’m going to say right now that I never liked and have grown very weary of the word “judgeship” and would note to readers that I have found all kinds of ways to avoid using it other than in direct quotes.

The memo is a long one. After describing his career, his relationship to Kirksey and Peters, and some history of the Wilson case, he described the contact by Peters:

Just before SCRUGGS filed a motion for partial summary judgment, DELAUGHTER was contacted by PETERS. PETERS told him that he had been contacted by LANGSTON. PETERS told him that LANGSTON was going to represent SCRUGGS. SCRUGGS was not happy with DUNBAR and that LANGSTON was taking over the representation. PETERS asked DELAUGHTER how WILSON’S attorney, KIRKSEY was going to affect his rulings in the case. DELAUGHTER told PETERS that KIRKSEY’S involvement would not affect him at all. PETERS said he would tell LANGSTON that DELAUGHTER will not be influenced by KIRSKEY. PETERS told him that he is helping LANGSTON and may become more involved in the case at a later date. However, Peters never did enter an appearance in the case.

Once DELAUGHTER was contacted by PETERS about the SCRUGGS/WILSON matter, their communication increased. Most of the communication was by telephone. He stated that he talked to PETERS on more than three occasions as he had indicated to two female FBI Special Agents. He did not purposefully mislead them.

What a misunderstanding!

I thought for a moment about the significance of the FBI agents being females. Is he suggesting they used their feminine wiles upon him?

In January of 2006, before DELAUGHTER ruled upon a motion that involved fiduciary duty, PETERS called him again. PETERS told him that LANGSTON could help him get the United States Magistrate position that was open in the United States Federal Court, Southern DIstrict of Mississippi. DELAUGHTER did not see how they could help because magistrates are screened by a committee. DELAUGHTER told PETERS that their help would be fine, but that there would be no “quid pro quo.” PETERS did pass this message to LANGSTON.

It’s fascinating how denials of a quid pro quo became a regular recital in conversations with or about this judge, the way some lawyers say “May it please the court.”

DeLaughter noted that the magistrate position was filled, and then a district judge slot came open. Peters told DeLaughter about motions Langston was filing and brought advanced copies for DeLaughter to review. Peters did not ask for modifications to the motions from DeLaughter

DELAUGHTER stated that it was not normal business practice to see an advance copy of motions.

I suppose that’s a relief, if true.

DELAUGHTER only did it because he was asked to by PETERS.

He claimed to not remember making suggestions on the advance copies, but did send a draft opinion to Peters on the Scruggs partial summary judgment motion.

DeLaughter then described a visit from Chip Reynolds, who worked for Lott. DeLaughter brought up the judicial position, and Reynolds said he needed to send a letter and resume to both senators. The Scruggs side will argue that this shows that DeLaughter knew that convincing Lott was not enough. This was discussed by Reynolds in his brief testimony after lunch in the first day of the hearing this week.

Peters called DeLaughter later in March and said “to expect a telephone call from Senator LOTT.” Peters had made some calls to tell people of DeLaughter’s interest in becoming a federal judge, and Patterson had told Peters he needed to tell both Mississippi senators he was interested. DeLaughter called Senator Cochran and tried to call Senator Lott.

On March 28th or 29th of 2006, DELAUGHTER did receive a telephone call from Senator LOTT. LOTT said, “My no good brother in law, Dickie, is here and said that you are a fine judge.”

Every account has Scruggs making this contact by telephone, not being physically with Lott.

LOTT asked him if he was interest in being a United States District Court Judge. He said that he was interested. LOTT states that he could make no promises.

The statement closes with DeLaughter’s view of the punitive damages issue in the case, an issue not related to the Scruggs II trial (although it’s an issue worth sorting through for anyone wanting to fully understand this mess.

Here’s the second DeLaughter interview memo.

12-10-07: Bobby DeLaughter misleads the FBI but then thinks better of it

NMC — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:56:53 +0000

You might want to read this chronology before reading this post.

Two FBI interview memos from Bobby DeLaughter were placed in evidence in the hearing. With DeLaughter not testifying, it is not clear to me the evidentiary import of these documents. Whatever that may be, there are some statements in the second one that do not help Scruggs’s side a bit and raise real questions in my mind why they were submitted.

DeLaughter was interviewed in his chambers in Raymond on December 10th, the day of the search of Langston’s office and the day before Peters was interviewed.

He described taking the Wilson case after being appointed to replace Judge Hilburn, who “signed a number of orders” in the case just before leaving the bench and “indicated he did not want to leave DELAUGHTER to resolve issues he had already been handling.” He described the history of the use of a special master case, and the constructive trust theory Wilson was asserting on the tobacco fees. He described the settlement conference, and that the case settled during voir dire.

He was asked about Peters’s involvement:

He advised that soon after Bill Kirksey entered an appearance in the Wilson case he was telephonically contacted by Peters. Peters stated that he had received a telephone call from Joey Langston asking if he (Langston) should be concerned about Kirksey and DELAUGHTER. Kirksey and DELAUGHTER are former law partners. DELAUGHTER advised Peters that his former association with Kirksey would have no effect on him and he would do his best to follow the law. He told Peters that he would recuse himself from the case if asked or if a motion was filed. …DELAUGHTER recalled a second telephone call from Peters advising him that he (Peters) had conveyed the information regarding Kirksey to Joey Langston. Langston still voiced concerns about DELAUGHTER being fair with the case. …

DeLaughter stated that, during the pretrial period, a magistrate position came open, which Peters tried to help DeLaughter get. DeLaughter was a candidate but turned down.

Up to this point, DeLaughter was pretty much succeeding in not falling through the thin ice. But he went a couple of steps too far.

Langston told Peters “We can help with this,” referring to the Magistrate position. DELAUGHTER did not know how Langston could help in that the position was selected by a group of District Judges.

Yeah, lets swap things around a bit– make the earlier magistrate campaign into the one here, so the obvious thing that would occur to anyone– that this involved Scruggs using that brother-in-law connection– just would not come to mind. I mean, what could Langston do to get to a bunch of federal district judges? This is immediately followed by a nice bit of protesting too much:

He instructed Peters to “make damn sure to them that there would be no quid pro quo.”

Damn straight.

He advised he would not show favoritism.

Just advanced copies of orders and editing suggestion on drafts of pleadings. But lets not bring that up right now.

He never spoke regarding the Wilson case after the above identified calls.

This would be DeLaughter’s biggest oops.

DELAUGHTER was asked why Langston would call Peters regarding the Wilson case. He advised that he did not know why, however he and Peters worked together for many years and are good friends.

He said he had one other call from Peters “during the Magistrate process which was only related to the process and procedures.”

I am not sure what that means.

At the end of the interview, he was asked if he received any money from anyone for decisions in the Wilson case and said he had “absolutely… not” and was never offered any during his career for a decision in a case.

So by this point he had lied about the number of and content of conversations with Peters about the case, and done his best to mislead the agents about the quest for a judicial position through Dickie Scruggs’s influence or help.

Thereafter, having had the benefit of counsel, he decided that discretion called for an attempt to revise and extend his remarks, and he scheduled another meeting with the agents, along with his lawyer, Cynthia Speetjens. In addition to the FBI, also present were Bob Norman, Tom Dawson, and David Sanders from the U.S. Attorney’s office, and Tim Kelly from the Justice Department Office of Public Integrity. They met in the US Attorney’s office in Oxford.

DeLaughter had a real dilemma here. As a sitting judge, he probably was the only person in this circle who was as big or bigger target than Dick Scruggs. There was little chance of working out a favorable deal for him. I’m sure he was fully aware he’d talked his way into deeper trouble. Could talking some more help?

Here’s that first FBI interview memo.

12-11-07: Ed Peters doesn’t come clean with the FBI

NMC — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:39:30 +0000

You might want to read this chronology before reading this post.

On December 11, the day after the FBI had raided Langston’s law office and visited Bobby DeLaughter, they dropped by Ed Paters’s office for a visit. He didn’t have a lawyer, but decided to talk anyway.

In his interview, Peters “stated he represented STEVE PATTERSON in an indictment recently filed in the Norther District of Mississippi and could not talk to the FBI if the questions pertained to Patterson.”

Peters was asked about his role in the Wilson case and said he could not provide specifics without talking to Langston and Balducci. He referred them to Langston to learn how much he was being paid on a “consulting contract he had with Langston,” a “one year contract… to provide advice on court matters to include reviewing motions and jury selection.”

He “stated that the money [paid by Langston] went through his bank accounts and could be traced.”

Oops!

PETERS was asked if he contacted, on behalf of LANGSTON, the Judge assuaged to the WILLIAM ROBERTS WILSON V. RICHARD F. SCRUGGS case. Peters stated he did not have any contact with the judge in the case.

MAJOR double oops! This is immediately followed by:

At this point in the interview, PETERS advised he would like to speak with an attorney before proceeding with any further questioning.

No doubt!

Beyond the two unfortunate variances from the truth, his statement that he was representing Patterson in Scruggs I is pretty interesting news.

I’ll say that, given what Peters knew, his personal prisoner’s dilemma wasn’t much of a dilemma. There’s what he could surmise was happening with Balducci having flipped, that he knew he’d lied twice to the FBI, and that he knew enough of the players (e.g. what a flake Patterson could be, and how many of them were going to be perfectly willing to cut anyone else’s throat– as it were– to help themselves), it’s no wonder he decided to quickly move to take the advantage of being the second witness in from the cold.

Now, I have a question for folks: Why the heck would the Scruggs team have put this interview into evidence? What possible help does it give them? Are they trying to discredit Peters as a witness (his grand jury testimony)?

Here’s the FBI memorandum from the interview.

Next up: DeLaughter’s chats with the FBI.

Scruggs I and II erupt: Some notes on the November 2007-January 2008

NMC — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:41:47 +0000

During the trial this week, three FBI interview memos surfaced for the first time: 2 interviews with Bobby DeLaughter and an interview with Ed Peters. All of them occurred in mid-December of 2007. To fully appreciate the context of these interviews, a timeline of events in late November of 2007 through early January of 2008 is important. It might also be helpful to relative newcomers.

Unless noted otherwise, this timeline is based on one I did on the old Folo blog, which has a few more details. There are links there for sources, although those to the Clarion Ledger won’t work any more because they remove things from the web after about a week.

Monday, November 26: Saying he had spent Thanksgiving with 30 family members that, “I just realized, I’ve missed those opportunities to spend with my family,” Trent Lott announces he is retiring from the Senate. He noted that he and his wife had been to the First Baptist Church in Jackson and heard a sermon based on Scripture that said there is “a time for everything under Heaven,” Lott said. “It seemed to be speaking to us,” he said.
Tuesday, November 27: The FBI searches the Scruggs Law Firm. Joey Langston arrives and talks to the press in front of the building during the search, and states that the F.B.I. is looking for a particular document in a Katrina case that they did not find.
Wednesday, November 28: The indictments of Dickie and Zach Scruggs, Tim Balducci, and Steve Patterson for bribery in Scruggs I are unsealed and the defendants (except Balducci) arraigned. According to Langston’s testimony in Scruggs II, at the arraignment, Tom Dawson took Langston aside and said that Langston was implicated in some other-crime evidence that the Government might use in the trial. Langston claimed not to know what case it could be. The next day, Langston makes a statement to the press about Scruggs I. By Friday, the word on the street is that Balducci had flipped. He plead guilty on Wednesday, December 5th.
Either Saturday, December 1 or 8: According to Curtis Wilkie’s book, “on a dreary Saturday in early December” after the arraignments and before the search of Langston’s office, Langston and Patterson fly to Jackson to meet with Peters and talk about Wilson. Paterson also asks about help from Peters on Scruggs I.Peters says, “Boys, I’d cut my own throat for you,” then makes a slashing gesture across his neck. Note to self: Examine the question of whether this outing is consistent with Langston’s testimony that it took him some time to figure out what the other crime evidence was about.
Monday, December 10: Langston office searched by Feds. Weirdly, on December 11th, Jim Hood made a statement distancing himself from Balducci but embracing Langston: “Our contracts have been with the Langston Law Firm, not directly with Timothy Balducci,” Hood says through a spokeswoman. On the same day, Bobby DeLaughter has a talk with the FBI in his chambers in Raymond.
Tuesday, December 11: Ed Peters has a talk with the FBI. The visits to Peters and DeLaughter seem pretty clearly surprise visits and neither has a lawyer. It’s not clear whether Peters had been given a heads-up from DeLaughter that he’d had a visit the day before.
Sunday, December 17: Jerry Mitchell goes public that the FBI focus has turned to Wilson v. Scruggs, Peters, and DeLaughter.
Wednesday, December 20: Bobby DeLaughter talks to the FBI again. This time he has a lawyer present. He still hasn’t quite figured out that talking to the FBI is a dangerous gambit.
Wednesday, December 20: Jerry Mitchell reports that DeLaughter has received a grand jury subpoena.
Sometime before Christmas, according to Curtis Wilkie’s book, Peters and his lawyer go in and he begins negotiating to cooperate. Also in this period, according to Langston’s testimony in Zach’s Scruggs I hearing, Langston starts looking for a national-level criminal defense lawyer. He also testified that serious plea negotiations did not begin until after the first, just days before he struck a deal.
Tuesday, January 8: Langston enters his secret plea agreement. The Clarion-Ledger reports that the grand jury is meeting this week in Oxford and DeLaughter is scheduled to testify before it. He is later reported to have said that he knew that an attempt had been made to influence his orders and that he is not sure whether he was influenced.
Wednesday, January 10: Patterson enters his plea agreement. It was unsealed four days later. Three days later, someone in comments on the Folo blog says that he’s heard Peters had been granted immunity. Patterson entered a plea five days later.

I’ll post next about what they said in the interviews.