Hard to find “pearls” in the mud bath! ;)

… Anyway, someone asked (probably in the other thread!) “what about Ed Peters?”

Philip Thomas thinks that Dawson’s book casts doubt on whether the deal with Peters was justified.

The book does not cite facts that make it sound like the government needed Peters to get to Langston. Instead, it looks like they could have gotten to Langston with Balducci’s and Patterson’s testimony. From there, they could have gotten to Peters with the testimony of Balducci, Langston and Patterson. Then, Peters would have had to turn on DeLaughter in order to reduce Peters’ prison sentence. Immunity to one individual was not necessary.

More at the link.

Jim Hood could sue him on behalf of the State. Oops, he would be family.

These attorneys have knowingly and intentionally violated state,federal and constitutional civil rights. They have involved judges, senators, govenors and others FOR POLITICAL PROTECTION TO THEIR UNGODLY CRIMES.

As I’ve notice lately after 14 years I see a little concern.

But, I think here, with respect to NMC, Steve is protesting a bit too much over not much. And I would (and likely will) tell this directly to Steve.

I disagree with Steve regarding his denouncement of anonymnity. For some of us, it is necessary in order to be able to speak freely, while preventing thugs like Ed Peters from coming after us, in a subversive way, to try to destroy our livilihoods (I use Ed as an example here, because he came after me a few years ago —before all this Scruggs related stuff broke — re a FOI request I made for documents that apparently embarassed some of his “friends” when I put the docs on a public internet board — a little sunshine was my only motivation).

I do agree with Steve’s point about the problem with Dawson’s profiting from his former service as a prosecutor by writing this book. I think any profits he makes from this deal should be donated to some charitable organization that works to promote legal and social justice (eg Innocence Project, etc.). Likewise, I find Trent Lott’s new profession of lobbying (after serving in Congress for so long as a House member and in the Senate)toublesome in this regard —it seems that Lott is using his prior service to now profit as one of these political leeches. Are Lott’s profits going to a charitable group to promote social and legal justice? If not, perhaps Steve can work on his former boss in this regard —at least as hard as he has come down on Dawson.

link to Improving Prosecutorial Accountability, a study by the Washington-based Justice Project that profiles the growing problem of prosecutorial misconduct and ways to build in checks and balances into the judicial system.

It’s called prosecutorial misconduct. Our blog has documented cases across the country, from big-mouthed prosecutors in New Jersey, to hiding-the-evidence AUSAs in Alaska, to poltical witch hunting feds in Alabama and California.

And yes, Dawson is a bold-face liar.

According to a radio interview, he told listeners he wasn’t involved in any criminal cases since January. Dawson was on contract until June. Surely, Dawson wasn’t knitting or fashioning costume jewlery.

(I infer that the President by executive order cannot do what Congress is forbidden to do in the First.)