Jerry Mitchell reports in today’s Clarion Ledger Tim Balducci’s deposition in the Eaton v. Frisby case. The Frisby defendants are apparently conducting discovery about Wilson v. Scruggs and went to South Carolina to depose Balducci. His account is news in a number of different ways. First, he describes Peters telling them as an intermediary that DeLaughter was agressively pursuing the position on the federal bench and expecting consideration by the president (not just Lott) for the decisions he was making. Second, his account of his own role seems at variance with prior accounts. He downplays his own role, making it sound as if Langston was coming up with surprising information and Balducci realized it must be coming directly from DeLaughter. Here’s the most interesting parts.
What was your understanding about what Judge DeLaughter was going to get out of, providing this influence or allowing himself to be influenced by Ed Peters?” a lawyer asked Balducci.
“He was going to get consideration by the President for a federal judgeship,” Balducci replied.
When an open federal judgeship in southern Mississippi was filled, Peters told the Scruggs legal team “DeLaughter was very upset” about not being included for consideration, Balducci said.
Peters told them DeLaughter “wanted some assurances about what was going on, that he had exposed himself by helping Scruggs in the Wilson case and was beginning to wonder if Scruggs was essentially going to renege on him and not uphold his part of the deal,” Balducci said. “And I remember that (former state auditor Steve) Patterson and I and Peters all sort of laughingly agreed with each other that he might renege.”
Balducci said Peters told them U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran had the last call on a judicial nomination and Scruggs’ brother-in-law, U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, would make the next.
“Scruggs told us that, yeah, Trent’s called him to let him know that everything’s going to be OK,” Balducci said. “And that sort of smoothed things over for awhile.”
The lawyer asked, “So Trent called Judge DeLaughter at Scruggs’ request?”
“Absolutely,” Balducci replied.
Lott spokesman Bret Boyles said Wednesday, “Lott made a courtesy call to Bobby DeLaughter as he did with a number of other Mississippians. Bobby DeLaughter’s name was never considered on any list of any kind.”
Peters was given $50,000 in cash, Balducci said. Fellow lawyer Joey Langston and Patterson were also present at the meeting.
Langston and Scruggs pleaded guilty in the case and are expected to testify against DeLaughter, as are Peters, who has been given immunity, and Patterson.
Balducci said he was originally told Peters was hired as “a consultant off the books.”
In a short time after that, “it became clear to me that there was a force at work outside of the normal way that we would go about defending a case.”
Langston wanted day-to-day briefings and preview copies of what motions he would be filing, Balducci said. “He had never, never done that in our professional relationship before.”
“We used to joke and say if you wanted to hide something from Joey, put it in a law book, because he’d never find it,” Balducci said.
“And then it progressed to the point where he would tell me, OK, I want to run this by Peters first before we file it.”
Within a few weeks, Balducci said Langston asked him to come up with a proposed scheduling order, despite the fact DeLaughter had told lawyers he didn’t want any input.
Within a week, DeLaughter entered a scheduling order that “was exactly as I had prepared it,” he said.
Balducci said it became clear “there was some direct influence occurring with Judge DeLaughter, and it was reasonable at that time for me to believe that it was Peters.”
Balducci said he went to Patterson and told him, ” I want you to break square with me about what’s going on.”
He said Patterson responded that Peters “had been retained as a conduit of information between us and Judge DeLaughter to influence him in our favor.”
Balducci said he started sending pleadings directly to Peters – only to get back marked up copies for revisions.
“I knew it was going on for the longest time, but I guess I reconciled in my mind that I wasn’t the one directly doing it,” he said.
In January 2006, special master Bobby Sneed, appointed by the court to evaluate the evidence in Wilson’s 1994 lawsuit, made recommendations that largely sided with Wilson, leading his lawyers to seek $15 million in legal fees.
The Scruggs team was “devastated by it and knew that if Judge DeLaughter accepted that report and recommendation, that it was going to be a big blow to the case,” Balducci said.
He said Peters became a critical player, communicating directly with them on their responses to DeLaughter and telling them things like, “Go forward. You’re going to be successful.”
Prior to DeLaughter entering an important ruling, Peters shared the last page of that ruling with Scruggs’ legal team, Balducci said. That page showed that Scruggs owed Wilson zero.
“So when he (DeLaughter) ultimately did enter that order, it came out in the same form we had already seen it,” he said.
Balducci acknowledged, too, that when this order was issued, he had made a serious mistake legally, failing to provide any documentation or support for his positions.
But he said DeLaughter still accepted their numbers.
“If you look back, in the history of that case, the boxes and boxes, and volumes of documents in that case and all of the orders issued by Judge DeLaughter in that case, that order, singularly, is the only order that he ever entered with no support, no reasoning, no grounds, no basis,” Balducci said.
This is why Scruggs settled the lawsuit, rather than risk the exposure on appeal, he said. “But for that mess up, if you will, the case wouldn’t necessarily have had to have been settled. It could have been just won at the courthouse through the influence of Judge DeLaughter for a lot less money. It was said to me that was a $3 million mistake.”
The day before the trial was to begin, Balducci said he spoke with Langston, who had already met with Peters. Balducci said Langston told him DeLaughter would rule in their favor and the trial would be strictly for “bragging rights.”
The next day in court, DeLaughter announced the trial was only going to be a trial for “bragging rights.”
After the decision in his favor, Scruggs paid $3 million to Langston, Peters and Patterson to split.
Balducci described his actions as “obviously the worst thing that I’ve ever done, and the greatest moral and ethical failure of my life to do that, but I did it. I did it.”
So through all the motions and commotions and conferences and discussions, not one man … not a single man … stood up and said, in so many words, “No. By God no … this is not what I am. This is not just illegal … it is WRONG.”
And had it not been for the federal investigators and prosecutors and a state court judge who probably thought he was being set up for a sting, none of this would have emerged … our state agencies and institutions would have just steamed on.
Justice in Mississippi … an oxymoron.
Well, well, well. Don’t think for one minute these little favors don’t add up. 50 states thousands of courts. Ah, but the stories I love the stories. More than front page title and this. Tim Balducci tells the story of Judge DeLaughter. Right about now it’s priceless.
Did I mention I met with DeLaughter’s rulings. Ben, hearing Oh, God this is wrong in a court would probably cause more concern than something I suspected years ago. DeLaughter and he’s not the only one were aggressively pursuing consideration by the president for the decisions he was making.
Like I’ve said forever there’s not by way of justice any law given the fact it isn’t the letter of law but personal decisions with no concern ruling in the courts. Add to wit. What the power player get’s in return. Maybe George granted an executive order by personal choice. Domino’s?
This thing slipping me as exactly how but I recall a connect with all this to Haliburton, or whatever. Don’t recall for certain it was something I came across while digging around. I mean trolling.
Robert: What???
I just mentioned it thinking someone else had made the same discovery. If I’m not mistaken there’s a Jackson firm connection. B.G.G.H. That isn’t exactly what caught my attention though. I’m sorry but I don’t intend to go searching for it, I’m burnt out on it.
Robert: You can say that again ….
Been surfing. It’s causing a stir. The CL. has Balducci’s testimony re: Judge Lackey and others are commenting with the return of some spin doctors. That would been the President, Lott, DeLaughter what’s next with the deal, how could you. They’re saying someone leaked some secret sealed stuff again. You know.
Ben, for some reason your comments make me think of the old saying ‘There are no atheists in foxholes.’ No one ever really knows how they will respond to a particular situation until they find themselves in that particular situation.
To me, this entire thing is just tremendously sad. I know there were question marks in Ed Peters past, but Bobby DeLaughter and Tim Balducci were (are) bright young men and I just find it terribly sad that they were (apparently easily) corrupted.
But the things they desired — a federal judgeship for Bobby, $$$$$ for Tim — led them astray. Why didn’t anyone stand up and say, “This is wrong?” Because they were so focused on what they wanted, it never occurred to them. I am reminded of the scene near the end of the movie The Bridge over the River Kwai, where Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) sees the explosives, sees the train coming, realizes he’s been helping the enemy, and then utters, “Oh my God, what have I done?”
Robert’s 9:17 comment has to be the single most incomprehensible comment in the entire history of this blog. That makes it number one in contest with 4,317 other comments.
It’s a “drunkard’s walk” of a sentence– word follows word, all right, but three words along you’ve moved in a random direction away from where you’d started.
Does anyone know or have the entire depo that they could post, would be interesting reading, although I believe that the best facts have been posted. But would still like to read the entire depo.
NMC: I say we take a vote.
Is there a minimum readership time required in order to have voting privileges?
Balducci’s testimony appears quite compelling and very telling. It will be interesting to see how consistent his testimony is with the future testimony of Langston, Peters, and Patterson. I suspect that it will be more consistent with Langston (absent the jabs at Langston) than with Peters and Patterson. Peters will likely quibble with his own complicity in this matter, even though he has cut a deal with the feds. And Patterson, who has never really come clean with his involvement in this sordid matter (pled guilty, but said he was innocent and only pled to save his hide), and is a loudmouth weasel of the highest magnitude, will likely try to spin his part in this matter as a mere patsy —set up and misled by the other more cunning conspirators.
In any event, it appears beyond dispute that Judge Delaughter engaged in unethical ex parte communications in at least one (maybe several) matter(s). And this has been known for quite some time. Thus, it is very puzzling as to why the Judicial Performance Commission has not taken action to remove him from office, allowing him to remain on suspension drawing a 100k(+) salary from the state of MS. IMO, this inaction is a serious dereliction of duty which has cost the state of MS a considerable amount of money. Perhaps this money should be paid back to the state by the members of the Judicial Performance Commission, starting from the first date in which a reasonably intelligent and informed member of the MSBar would or should have known that there was clear evidence, by admission of Delaughter and public statements and/or sworn testimony of other witnesses, that Delaughter had engaged in unethical ex parte communications in matters before him.
JACE @ 11:37 You just took 1st, place.
afol’s right but hot diggy dog. How about the pres.and Lott? ie. politics of our recent past. Another ghost of Ms.I know I shouldn’t say this but. “The members of the MSBar who hold reasonable intelligent s”. That would include the fact they knew and did nothing? Meaning What?
Why does private citizen Lott require a spokesman?
Off topic, but the phrase “there are no atheists in fox holes” is very offensive to atheists. Well, at least one that I can think of.
As a refresher, did Balducci and Patterson plead guilty to bribing Delaughter or just Lackey, or was it just Scruggs and Langston?
Observer @ 10:27:
Begging your pardon, Mate … I gotta disagree wholly with your statement that “No one ever really knows how they will respond to a particular situation until they find themselves in that particular situation.”
I’m not the Bishop of Boston and I make no claim to moral perfection, but I know right from wrong, and working a backdoor channel to influence a judge’s decision is wrong. Not just a little wrong, but big BIG wrong. It’s so facially and abhorently wrong that I would have stopped the presses, so to speak, and I would have put the perps on report after having told them I was putting them on report. I believe I know enough trusty agents in the FBI and the US Marshals Service that I could have walked straight into their offices and spilled the beans.
My wife’s husband and my childrens’ daddy may not be too bright and he sure as heck never had his hand around a million dollar payout under the table, but he ain’t a crook.
Random, here is what I recall (I could be wrong and if so, someone please correct me):
Balducci: guilty plea re Lackey judicial bribery matter
Langston: guilty plea re Delaughter judicial bribery matter
Scruggs: guilty plea re both Lackey and Delaughter judicial bribery matters
Peters: guilty plea/deal re Delaughter judicial bribery matter
(not yet sentenced)
Patterson: guilty plea re Lackey judicial bribery matter
Small correction to AFOTL’s rogue’s gallery: Peters has transactional immunity on the DeLaughter matter and surrendered his law license and some cash ($450K, I think without checking back) but has no felony conviction out of this mess and won’t out of Wilson v. Scruggs.
So, Peters has basically weaseled his way out of any time as punishment?
Any of the rest of you think, without naming names, that there are more involved than just the people that have been brought to the public’s attention?
Anybody know if there is a paper trail dealing with the legal documents mentioned?
Ben:
These people didn’t just fall off into this mess, my guess is that this is not the first time, but is one of many, that brought them to this point. Do you think you would have ever heard about this if the issue didn’t concern a large amount of money?
NMS:
Thanks for the great post.
“Peters has transactional immunity ”
Wow. For some reason I had missed that his deal involved complete immunity from ANY prosecution and jail time. Unbelievable. He better be providing the low down on a lot more than just this one case in exchange for this deal. Otherwise, this will amount to a huge injustice. After all, it does not appear that this one Delaughter matter was his first criminal rodeo.
AFOTL and everyone else:
Don’t you think that there were a lot of people that got rolled along the wayside during these big lawyers careers that will never see justice. All we are hearing about involve big names and money.
Sorry NMC….getting off that soapbox.
NMC: can you post the docs off Pacer that deal with Peters’ immunity deal?
anyone know how the deposition became public? did i miss that somewhere?
Transactional immunity? Not use immunity?
Shazam!
Who signed off on that?—Lampton?
Tortfeasor: Don’t know yet if I have documents i can post. There’s a serious seal issue in Eaton and I am trying to find out what the deal is.
Jaxrelief: That’s a really great question. Jerry Mitchell has some sort of great sort that seems to really timely give him info.
Ben: Not a southern district decision.
Anyone remember the name of Peter’s longtime secretary at the DA’s office that took the fall for him in Court over some issue that could have gotten him disbarred a long time ago? Anne? I remember she made more than one drunken statement around Jackson about how Peters agreed to support her after she fell on the sword for him.
Joey knows the jabs directed at him from Tim are well deserved. Tim was his janitor and I’m betting that Joey is just hoping Tim doesn’t completely empty the mop bucket.
[...] they’re still very much an unfolding story. Tom Freeland at North Mississippi Commentor continues to track [...]
[...] they’re still very much an unfolding story. Tom Freeland at North Mississippi Commentor continues to track [...]