In a prior post I suggested that Judge DeLaughter’s decisions in Eaton v. Frisby suggest a possible defense– that DeLaughter wasn’t doing Peters’s bidding in exchange for anything DeLaughter got. The real qeustion, though, is why DeLaughter was doing the dance with Peters and the devil. Somslawyer responded in comments:
I find it hard to swallow that DeLaughter was that big of a chump. Why on earth would you share information with one side, knowing that, at the least, you’ll be removed from office and probably disbarred if caught, with absolutely nothing to gain from it? DeLaughter had to get something of value, even if only psychic value, from the exchange. What was it?
I responded to Somslawyer:
Somslawyer, I’m totally with you– I just don’t believe that DeLaughter “played” this way without getting something concrete and something more. I am strongly suspicious that Ed Peters held out on the government– that his story is some sort of firewall, giving them the minimum.
Will the defense be able to overcome the conviction anyone would have to that effect? I don’t know.
Several hard hurdles: 1) DeLaughter has to get a juror to draw a distinction between clearly improper behavior and criminal behavior and let DeLaughter off the hook for the later even though he’s guilty of the former. 2) With all this money coursing through the system, DeLaughter has to get a juror to hold the government to proving DeLaughter got something for what he did– DeLaughter has to convince the juror to overcome a natural presumption he got something and require that to be explicitly proved.
One of the biggest factual and possibly psychological dilemmas in this case is why DeLaughter did what he did. Because of what he did in Eaton and Kirk v. Pope, it’s obvious he didn’t require a position on the federal bench to do Peters’s bidding. The call from Lott was some sort of bonus benefit.
And what was the usual quid pro quo? Or what was the psychology operating with this judge that caused him to behave this way? Nothing known in the public sphere answers that question for me.
So I’ll open a discussion: Why was DeLaughter doing this? Is there any evidence that’s come to light that I’m forgetting that suggests a reason? Anyone?
Allow me to toss out a few disassociated facts.
Fact One: I was reported in the C-L quite awhile back that DeLaughter was restoring an antebellum home (in the Raymond area, I believe) on which he had a $250K balloon note.
Fact Two: Ed Peters, as the longtime DA for Hinds County, was privy to a lot of dirt on a lot of people, and had access to lots of people. Even though he was not DA when all this was going on, he had to have still had at least some ability to call in chits.
Fact Three: Or more of a comment, really. I still think that for some of the people involved, the Colonel Nicholson reference from “The Bridge on the River Kwai” fits — they were so caught up in what they were doing that didn’t realize the nature of what they were doing until all hell broke loose and they said “My God! What have I done?” NPR ran a very good series a few years ago about ethics and about how easily well-educated people who know better can delude themselves and justify their own horrible conduct.
It’s my opinion that Delaughter has a tremendous ego. I have spent time in his court room and he came off like a pompous ass. He seemed at times to get a thrill out of confusing the lawyers, on both sides of the issue, with a tone that was arrogant and very grandiose. They could not have picked a better ‘hot head’ to play DeLaughter’s part in that ‘Ghost of Mississippi’, “look at me” movie. It was if he was a super hero with all the knowledge and everyone else were dumb evil white folk or dumb stupid black folk!
Remembering back to the Folo days when all this broke, the name PL Blake kept coming up in terms of being the money bagman. There was much speculation as to where the money came from and where it all went – but little doubt that he was the conveyor of the goods among and between the group.
(Time to don your tin foil hats – as Lotus used to say) My speculation has always been that there was a cabal of participants with a hidden stash of money that was was/is used to further the interests of the group as well as individual members in the form of payoffs, bribes, payouts.
If someone could lay out a chart of all the known participants, line up their bank transactions, tax returns, and financial dealings with a calendar and FOLLOW THE MONEY, the motive might become fairly clear. Hard to believe the prosecution doesn’t have a rather large wall somewhere full of yellow sticky notes with times, dates, names, etc, covering the wall.
If your speculation, NMC, that Peters’ story is a fire wall is correct, MONEY has to be what is behind the firewall.
Warning: This post of mine has very few facts and a lot of unsupported suppositions. I don’t know anything except what I have read on various websites that discuss this case.
My suspicions of Ed Peters and his apparent marketing of his inside knowledge as to the thinking of DeLaughter have begun to overwhelm me. To state it exactly, I believe that Ed Peters let folks know that he had inside knowledge of DeLaughter’s thinking. If that is true, the question is whether or not DeLaughter knew it and was a willing participant. The phrase “follow the money” comes into play. As far as I know no money has been linked to DeLaughter. But, Peters, if he is as slippery as I think he is, may provide a monetary or the promise of future monetary reward to DeLaughter. I don’t know. But, the super sweet deal that he got from the Feds leads me to believe that he can make that connection.
Observer’s comment about the balloon note is well taken. I was a real estate appraiser for 8 years, meaning I have some experience in how and why people finance real estate purchases. People have various reasons for financing real estate with a balloon note, but one of the most common is the expectation of a future increase in income/inheritance. By itself, the balloon note is not suspicious. In the context of allegations of corruption, the balloon note is very suspicious.
Being accused of not providing honest services such a prior act may have provided DeLaughter with present monetary gains and more to come. As there is little to suggest that the events of consideration of federal judgeship or the courtesy call from Lott was not out of the norm. If such an action of dishonest service could have provided DeLaughter a healthy reward $$$$$$ would he have simply decided to help his old pal, Peters, a better standing in the $$$$$$ club?
Then if this is the case is DeLaughter expected to spill the beans on such a prior event which I now speculate could be a very huge amount or is he simply being expected to part with some of it $$$$$$$ quietly? Admittedly diabolical.
Headscratchin’: I think your thoughts on PL are interesting. Remember, this is all loosely tied to tobacco money because of the constructive trust litigation that was pending in federal court (remember the lake house SJ?). If one was to try and tie in all the players who had a share in the pot that the constructive trust was reaching for, and therefore a reason to protect it, I think it would prove to be quite a mess.
I’ve read alot about Delaughter’s past including his days with Binder, Kirksey and early days with Peters. He hit a pretty big PI case early on in his career and rather than chasing those rainbows he chose to go into public service. I’ve practiced in front of him and always thought I would get an academic and juducally correct result whether I was right or wrong. I’m convinced his conduct with Scruggs v Wilson and other cases was unethical and in violation of the Judicial Canons, and who knows whether a jury will translate that to a criminal conviction. What I wonder is whether anyone has thought about the possibility that Peters was the only one who really knew everything.
Think about this scenerio:
Peters tells the Scruggs group that he can influence Delaughter and that a phone call needs to be made from Lott. Then he goes to Delaughter who he talked with on a regular basis anyway (so its not out of the norm) and starts his usual earweigging. He doesn’t tell Delaughter about the million dollars, but does tell him he might be able to influence a call from Lott and that he ought to enter a certain scheduling Order and ignore the special master’s reccomendation. He doesn’t tell Delaughter anything about what is at stake, but Peters does tell him either way it goes he is going to talk to those Scruggs boys and get in Lott’s ear.
The scenerio, if it occured, is as scary as it gets to anyone invlolved in a legal system and it should be illegal in my opinion. If it turns out to be the explanation, then I would imagine they will end up emrboiled in a battle of Minor proportions over the meaning of quid pro quo.
I’ve read alot about Delaughter’s past including his days with Binder, Kirksey and early days with Peters. He hit a pretty big PI case early on in his career and rather than chasing those rainbows he chose to go into public service. I’ve practiced in front of him and always thought I would get an academic and juducally correct result whether I was right or wrong. I’m convinced his conduct with Scruggs v Wilson and other cases was unethical and in violation of the Judicial Canons, and who knows whether a jury will translate that to a criminal conviction. What I wonder is whether anyone has thought about the possibility that Peters was the only one who really knew everything.
Think about this scenerio:
Peters tells the Scruggs group that he can influence Delaughter and that a phone call needs to be made from Lott. Then he goes to Delaughter who he talked with on a regular basis anyway (so its not out of the norm) and starts his usual earweigging. He doesn’t tell Delaughter about the million dollars, but does tell him he might be able to influence a call from Lott and that he ought to enter a certain scheduling Order and ignore the special master’s reccomendation. He doesn’t tell Delaughter anything about what is at stake, but Peters does tell him either way it goes he is going to talk to those Scruggs boys and get in Lott’s ear.
The scenerio, if it occured, is as scary as it gets to anyone invlolved in a legal system and it should be illegal in my opinion. If it turns out to be the explanation, then I would imagine they will end up emrboiled in a battle of Minor proportions over the meaning of quid pro quo.
On August 28th,1998 Vicksburg chemical made an offer of $ 84 million to settle class claims, 251-98-1061 The action was filed on R.M. A trial on behalf the class failed 251-96-493.
These actions were had by judge Graves. The awards a known $ 276 million were maintained on R.M.’s family of three as the class action acts continued. R.M’s family filed repeatedly for relief in other courts but were denied relief. One reason given that the jurisdiction was held by the Hinds county court.Judge Graves entered an order in July of 1999 denying dismissal. After the failed trial agreements for the class were better negotiated.
Returning to the Hinds county court in 2005 all actions of claims were held by judge Green and immediately transferred and transformed the 1061 action into the failed 493 action to Bobby DeLaughter who accepted the action and dismissed the 1061 and R.M’s family claims Sorry it’s insane but it’s also true. These actions met with judge Pickering as well.
Two concerns remain the assumed early death and possibly attorneys were able to gain the $ 2 billion which they had sought listed in five volumes. It’s just a fact these actions were had and their was a lot of money involved.
The way in which Bobby DeLaughter handled the situation about the gun that killed Medger Evers reveals a lot about his character (or lack of) to me. It has been proven that DeLaughter knew about the presence of the (lost) gun for years. Rather than revealing what he knew, he waited until the timing was right to help his career to reveal the gun’s presence in a way which was totally self-serving. He deceived the widow of Evers for years, yet revelled as her hero after the trial which convicted Evers’ murderer. How cruel to have spent so many years with the knowledge of that gun while Evers’ widow and family grieved. How deceitful to the Evers family and the public to pretend he had an “aha” moment in describing his memory of the gun.
DeLaughter deceived everyone in the cruelest way. And he used all of us in a very self-aggrandizing manner through the trial, book, and movie. Perhaps he thought being a federal judge would allow him to be even more self-aggrandizing and egotistical.
will someone decipher robert
I will try to decipher Robert.
He lost a case and he is mad about it.
Is the question: “can you make sense out of Robert’s comments” going to be come a theme on this blog?
NMC at 12:46
No way that question becomes a theme….I can follow themes, but I can’t follow Robert. Some folks just cant let their case go.
is there a decent timeline of the DeLaughter stuff somewhere? A timeline of events might could spark some associations to other happenings where DeLaughter could have been promised other things…. things no one wants to admit to or alert to where the Lott deal could have simply been used to divert attention from.
My gut instincts are telling me that something is rotten in this Delaughter matter. IF Peters’ trial testimony is anything less than compelling and damning to Delaughter, then I think my gut may be proven right.
Here is what I am thinking. Delaughter and Peters are old, longtime friends and still are. That Delaughter was to get benefits from these illicit deals in the future, including consideration for the federal judgeship (which came unraveled with Lott backing off likely due to some timely inside info about future events). Peters was one of the first to run to the feds to try to make a deal —the deal was delayed due to Peters’ reluctance to offer enough for the deal he wanted. Later, the current deal in place was reached —perhaps out of necessity by the prosecution after it became clear that Peters was the only direct link between the Scruggs team and Delaughter. This was all part of the plan by Peters and Delaughter. Peters would offer just enough to get the deal for himself, but not enough to insure a successful prosecution —- leaving the door open for a successful legal defense by Delaughter in Court, or a last minute favorable plea deal. Money from other deals was successfully hidden and protected from forfeiture to the feds. While this plan would not allow either to continue their legal careers (due to the obvious, serious ethical breaches), it would allow them to avoid jail, and help them to defend against the inevitable civil claims. They don’t have to worry about state prosecution since our AG is a member of the “Family”. In the end, both Delaughter and Peters will be taken care of financially and retire to the fishing camps in MS and LA. The feds, their innocent victims, and citizens of MS are the suckers left wondering: “what the hell just happened?”.
I hope that I am very wrong.
AFOTL wrote:
>
Here is what I am thinking. Delaughter and Peters are old, longtime friends and still are. That Delaughter was to get benefits from these illicit deals in the future…
<
I think that’s the general assumption, and I understand why. But that entails DeLaughter trusting Peters on something less than a handshake– a handshake implies a promise one could testify about in court and therefore have some hope (barring statute of frauds issues) of enforcing. What DeLaughter was getting was a promise he could never tell a soul had been made. From Ed Peters.
Surely DeLaughter was not so big a fool to think that was worth a thing. Perhaps he was, but I really think there’s something else out there. Was the speed with which Peters came in (followed shortly by DeLaughter, after that FBI interview) solely because they were terrified about Balducci turning government witness? Or was (as I’ve suggested) Peters trying to set up a firewall? I have no idea the answer, and haven’t seen a convincing suggestion yet.
The insurance that Peters sets up and maintains a firewall for DeLaughter is dependent upon DeLaughter maintaining his firewall for Peters et al on other issues. There have been a lot of deals and bodies in Hinds county for a long time. So long as there is no breach in the line, as AFOTL states, we will never know.
NMC wrote: “I think that’s the general assumption, and I understand why. But that entails DeLaughter trusting Peters on something less than a handshake– a handshake implies a promise one could testify about in court and therefore have some hope (barring statute of frauds issues) of enforcing. What DeLaughter was getting was a promise he could never tell a soul had been made. From Ed Peters. ”
And such is precisely what I think likely happened and is still being played out —- an agreed upon Plan “B”, in other words, in the event of being ratted out (by Balducci or someone else).
And I would submit that it is very possible that these two have hidden assets gained from these illicit activities —maybe not even in their own names — that they will collect or retrieve later when all of this is over and the coast is clear.
IF Peters’ trial testimony and evidence appears to be very weak compared to the sweet deal he received, then this will pretty much mean, IMO, that something along the lines of what I stated above has been and is at work here. I don’t believe for a moment that a smart schemer like Delaughter would have been stupid enough to engage in this type of obviously improper behavior without something substantial in return for himself. And the apparent fact that Peters was always the “buffer” between Delaughter and the Scruggs team (and perhaps other unknown groups/individuals), points toward this theory. Such deliberateness and care points toward a joint enterprise. Any prosecution of Delaughter would be dependent upon Peters, giving Peters the clout to gain a favorable deal without having to give up too much, and giving Peters some degree of control over the outcome of any prosecution of Delaughter. Peters was the one who did most of the “dirty work” in their schemes—and was likely the planned “fall guy” from the outset in the event the proverbial shit hit the fan.
Like I said, I hope that I am proven very, very wrong here and am totally off base. But, I fear that I could be more right than any of us would like to believe. After all of the sordid facts we have learned through the course of these Scruggs related proscutions, nothing would surprise me now. We shall soon find out.
Nothing to add, except that DeLaughter and Peters presumably were smart enough to know that a demonstrable quid pro quo might be the difference b/t jail and no jail, and thus gone to some length to conceal same.
Is the question: “can you make sense out of Robert’s comments” going to be come a theme on this blog?
Perhaps a spinoff blog, “What’s the Frequency, Robert?”
Robert: I can’t disagree with a word you say. Keep callin’ ‘em like you see ‘em.
What if Peters has always been the puppet master? Let us just go with the notion that DeLaughter has pretty much ALWAYS taken Peters’s advice. In the beginning the advice always worked out and things fell into place accordingly. This seemingly spot-on advice would encourage DeLaughter to keep taking the advice. Basically, maybe Delaughter is dense and not as smart and some on the blog seem to think, and maybe Peters was playing DeLaughter.
“What if Peters has always been the puppet master? Let us just go with the notion that DeLaughter has pretty much ALWAYS taken Peters’s advice. ”
This “I’m really a dumbass” defense just does not seem plausible.
AFOTL, I couldn’t agree more. But, I am afraid if I retained some of the commentors here they would advise me to use just that defense, right after I said “you know me, I’m WTBAL”.
And the apparent fact that Peters was always the “buffer” between Delaughter and the Scruggs team (and perhaps other unknown groups/individuals), points toward this theory. Such deliberateness and care points toward a joint enterprise.
I’m reminded of the role that Mike Moore as Attorney General played in the tobacco settlement. Because Moore was to become a future U.S. Senator, it was always the plan that Moore “kept his skirts clean,” so Scruggs, et al, “protected” Moore from the details of many of the backroom deals. Moore knew those dirty deals were being made, and Moore knew that he directly benefited from those deals, but because he was to play a more important role in the Scruggs racket as U.S. Senator, he just couldn’t be put in a position to have to perjure himself if asked about the details (in case a foul-up occurred.)
Perhaps DeLaughter was set up to play an important role in the future Scruggs’ racket as a federal judge. Therefore he became the “puppet”–just doing what he was told to do without question–knowing that he was to play a bigger role later as a federal judge. But, in the meantime, he was just to do what he was told and he could cash in his chips later. So he did become a bit impatient when he wasn’t named a federal judge when the next vacancy came up, but the Scruggs’ racket appeased him by assuring DeLaughter that it was still coming—just keep doing what we tell you to do.
Just as Mike Moore left the AG’s office to cash in on his share of the tobacco fees before he ran for U.S. Senator, DeLaughter could cash in as a federal judge–not in salary, but in bribes in cases that the Scruggs’ racket would have before him.
Just think if everything had gone according to plan at the federal level: U.S. Senator Trent Lott; U.S. Senator Mike Moore, and Federal Judge Bobby DeLaughter. Now consider that group’s “family”–using AG Jim Hood’s description, of course.
NoMiss, I am confused as to what your “points toward this theory” statement refers to. Madison @ 9:50 calls DeLaughter “dense”, so that’s not it. Anderson @ 2:43 surmises that Peters and DeLaughter made sure that no quid pro quo could be discovered, so I am going to assume that is “this theory”.
You began to lose me at the end of paragraph 2, and in paragraph 3 I think you went too far in describing some grand conspiracy. In para 2, once Moore is elected Senator, and in para 3, after DeLaughter is a federal judge, they don’t give a crap about Scruggs. Although I didn’t know a lot about Scruggs prior to Katrina, I think of lot of folks in the legal community did. He doesn’t seemed to have formed many long-lasting relationships with lawyers and judges. Non-lawyers, on the other hand, have established long term, profitable relationships with him, but, not lawyers or judges. If you, as a lawyer or judge, get in between Scruggs and his money, or between him and a pile of somebody else’s money, you get screwed. He rewards non-lawyers who help him get money, but other lawyers not so much.
I think Mike Moore would continue to give a care about Scruggs since his “hidden” tobacco settlement fees come through Scruggs (remember how Moore said he gets paid “at the end of the day.”) As far as DeLaughter is concerned, Scruggs wouldn’t be interested in a long-lasting relationship with DeLaughter but how much Federal Judge DeLaughter could help Scruggs win “favorable” rulings in his court. (note Eaton v. Frisby)
My thinking is greatly influenced by Michael Orey’s book “Assuming the Risk: The Mavericks, The Lawyers, and the Whistle-Blowers Who Beat Big Tobacco.” Scruggs’ conspiracy is very broad and was getting broader until the Balducci-Lackey incident. If you read the Orey book, you will see the makings of a deliberate conspiracy, using U.S. senators and Miss. legislators (Steve Patterson entered there.) So far as Katrina, anyone who flies his personal jet to a distant airport to deliver an empty yellow envelope as part of a ruse to deceive an insurance company into thinking that he was delivering explosive “insider” information–well, form your own opinion. That’s all these are–just opinions.
P.S. Paul Minor was an attorney with whom Scruggs had a long-lasting relationship.
I haven’t read the book, but I am very intrigued as to how the tobacco settlement came to be.
And, no, I don’t recall how Moore said how he gets paid. I would appreciate an online source, if you can. Thanks in advance.
Additionally, wasn’t Eaton v. Frisby a state case of stealing corporate secrets that was in front of DeLaughter. A N.C. company and a MS company, if I recall correctly, so it could’ve (would’ve) ended up in federal court, eventually. Even if DeLaughter became a federal judge, he would have had to recuse himself due to his previous involvement, right?
“Peters and the devil” NMC isn’t that redundant?
The best way to understand the dark road to the tobacco settlements would be to ask PL Blake, that is if he would tell you the truth (not very likely).