Recall that the first substantial public evidence that Ed Peters had “come in” and become to some degree a government witness was a forfeiture action filed between Christmas and New Years in 2008, in which the Government alleged that he had surrendered to them $425,000 that remained of his million dollar fee for helping Joey Langston and Tim Balducci get to Judge DeLaughter in the fee dispute between Roberts Wilson and Dickie Scruggs. After the suit was filed, Roberts Wilson jumped in, asserting that these ill-gotten gains should have been his, because they came from Scruggs and would have been money paid to Wilson if the Wilson v. Scruggs case had been resolved honestly.
The suit was initially before Judge Biggers, who recused himself because he had issues before him in Scruggs I. A Texas federal judge was appointed to take this and other civil cases relating to Dickie Scruggs in the Northern District, and this case was set for trial later this Spring.
Today, a consent judgment was entered in the forfieture case. By its terms, $280K of the money will be paid to Roberts Wilson, and the remaining $145K will go to the United States Treasury. This has to be viewed as a good result for Wilson.
Here’s the US v 425000 consent judgment
My question is what happens to Ed Peters in the suit Wilson has against him and Patterson et al?
The $280,000 should have come from Peters’ own pocket book – not from us taxpayers !!!
This stinks !!!
Memo
To: All ND AUSA’s
Fr: ND USA
It is imperative that we keep Ed Peters off of the witness stand. Some things must never see the light of day. Make a deal.
Ed is reportedly fishing. I’m awaiting his book on “How to bait your hook” A story on fishing the states judicial sewers.
Man! Oh, excuess me but had you not been dishonest all that money you now have would be mines.
Check out the feds, they get their cut. Still not bad for Wilson’s part. Ahh, victory over the money for nothing but scams
bunch. I mean defeating the honest criminals who bribed the honorable court and honest judges.
“the ill-gotten gains would have been his had the case been resolved honestly” That is to say, the dishonest horsesh1t affirmativly changes the outcome. Huh boo-boo? Still looks like there’s a difference in honest and/or dishonest services here. There is a diffrence yall. I just had a thought, five honest bank robbers all from Hinds County. The word honest just isn’t applied enough.