Recall from yesterday that the Frisby defendants have alleged that Eaton’s Mississippi lawyer signed an agreement with a fact witness, Milan Georgeff, to pay him in connection with his testimony. Back to that chronology:
November 2005 – Milan Georgeff, the main fact witness upon whom Eaton had predicated its case, produced a copy of Eaton’s agreement to compensate him. …
Eaton had previously filed sworn answers denying that it had any such agreement and had not produced or identified the agreement or the more than 50 documents which related to the inducements promised to Georgeff.
January 4, 2006 – Defendants moved to dismiss case based on the fact that Eaton had provided financial inducements to a fact witness and had intentionally and falsely concealed that fact during discovery.
March 31, 2006 – Preliminarily finding the agreement with Georgeff improper, Judge DeLaughter directed that Special Master Dunbar consider the discovery violations to determine whether they were intentional and who was responsible.
Let’s see: Eaton’s Mississippi lawyer signs an agreement to pay a fact witness. It files sworn discovery responses denying the existence of the agreement in the Mississippi lawsuit where it is represented by that same lawyer. In what sense of the word could this be anything other than intentional? That whole question of “who was responsible” is a little more interesting, I suppose, if the question is what the client has to know to be credited with the misconduct of its agent/lawyer.
I want to inteject some dates from other cases here. The next sequence of events begins in December, 2006. That’s three years after the shenanigans involving Peters and DeLaughter began in Kirk v. Pope. Lets consider a moment what went on there, and how their methods might have changed in the interim: Peters’ involvement in the case began after it was lost and gone to judgment. To stop the plaintiff from being able to execute on the judgment, Peters went to DeLaughter in his home and got an ex parte order stopping the judgment, and then, in a subsequent series of orders, unraveled much of what the plaintiff had obtained in the lawsuit. Peters involvement (after that secret meeting, which was at a point Peters had not entered an appearance in the case) was of record. Between the two events, Peters and DeLaughter had begun operating off-the-record.
January of 2006– Langston and Balducci entered an appearance in Wilson v. Scruggs.
Spring of 2006– Langston, Balducci, and Patterson hire Peters secretly and off-the-record.
Summer of 2006– Langston and Balducci working through Peters as an intermediary craft orders with DeLaughter that demolish Wilson’s case against Scruggs.
December 5, 2006 – Special Master Dunbar issued a Report and Recommendation (under seal) detailing his conclusions that Eaton and its attorneys had committed serious and intentional discovery violations. It was clear that Eaton and its lawyers would have been subject to serious sanctions – including perhaps the loss of law licenses – if Dunbar’s recommendation was approved by Judge DeLaughter.
Early December, 2006 – When it became clear that Special Master Dunbar’s R&R would find that Eaton and its attorneys had committed serious, intentional discovery violations, Eaton hired Ed Peters as a “secret lawyer.” Ed Peters made no appearance as counsel. Eaton intended to conceal the involvement of Peters.
January 17, 2007 – Judge DeLaughter cancelled the argument related to Jack Dunbar’s R&R previously scheduled by agreement of the parties.
February 2, 2007 – Mike Allred filed a notice of withdrawal as counsel for Eaton. It later became clear that Allred had continued to serve as counsel – and that Allred’s withdrawal as counsel of record was purely cosmetic.
Late 3/07: Tim Balducci and Steve Patterson meet with the partners at Scruggs Law Office, and Dickie and Zach Scruggs suggests that Balducci go privately to contact Judge Lackey, the judge in Jones, Funderburg v. Scruggs, to secretly influence him on the case. Balducci meets with Judge Lackey on 3/28.
So here are a couple of interesting questions: These two uses of Peters secret services (cough) seem entirely unrelated– I’ve never heard anyone suggest any sort of connection between the plaintiffs lawyer in Eaton and either Langston’s crew or Scruggs. I know Patterson was apparently the connection between Langston and Peters, but haven’t heard any suggestion of a connection there– and for political reasons, would not expect one.
So how exactly did this use of Ed Peters, secret agent lawyer, get marketed? How widely did the word get around? And when did the shift from on-to-off record occur?
Or are these three cases the whole universe, and there’s nothing else to wonder about?
So how exactly did this use of Ed Peters, secret agent lawyer, get marketed? How widely did the word get around? And when did the shift from on-to-off record occur?
Or are these three cases the whole universe, and there’s nothing else to wonder about?
My answer is: I don’t know. But I have heard for years from Jackson folk that Peters was the Hinds County legal system’s big fixer. Not just one folk. Not just two or four folks. But a lotta folks. I don’t think for one minute that the 3 cases to which you refer constitute the universe of his “tune-ups,” but I have no evidence or proof one way or another … just idle street talk and whisky talk. The people who had broken things that needed repairs knew how to get them done. In my opinion, that is.
Like Ben, I had heard for some time before the Scruggs case that Peters had “fixed” various criminal matters in exchange for cash. Before Scruggs (BS) I had dismissed the rumors as just talk from people disgruntled with the judicial system. It is hard to believe that Kirk, Eaton, and Scruggs represent the only cases where Peters and DeLaughter conspired to achieve a paid for result. All of which leads me to wonder, What was Peter’s price in Eaton? How much of that, or any other fee, did DeLaughter receive?
Since the start of these events, I have wondered what the possible connection was, or how did one know that Peters was the behind the scenes person to go to, i.e. would conduct ex parte communications and influence Judge. Obviously it was more than just talk as Langston and Patterson knew exactly why they were hiring Peters. Would like to know more.
peters knows the inner workings of the legal bargaining system. who can say eaton or pope went looking for peters? how about peters going to them FIRST deep off the record? he’s a smart cat who quietly marketed himself and his close relationship to bobby. peters was looking at cases with lucrative judgements and clients with deep-pockets. that’s the link: money. scruggs, pope, and eaton had money.
When would the statute of limitations begin to run on a case against Peters? From the time of the crime, or from the time that it was discovered a crime had been committed?
Peters and DL probably decided together who to hit. They drank from the same bottle.
Why has their been no MSBar investigation into Allred and the other Eaton lawyers who would have been identified in Dunbar’s report? This type of intentional discovery violation and unethical witness agreement should result in disbarment or at least long suspensions for all involved.
It is time for this “old guard” in charge of the MSBar to retire into that good night. We need some new blood willing to do what is necessary for some serious house cleaning.
Damn.
My theory is that Peters and DeLaughter realized – probably while enjoying some good ole ex-parte fellowship – what an “opportunity” they had before them. They simply waited for cases to be assigned to Bobby, sized up both sides, decided which side had the most to lose, had the most money, etc. and then Bobby put them into a corner and squeezed. Peters would show up when all seemed lost and provide a “solution”….for a fee. The simplest answer is usually the correct one; no need to contemplate vast conspiracies in this “partnership”. It would be interesting to determine how many cases Peters was involved in (of record or not) for all judges in Hinds county, since Bobby took the bench, and how many were only before Bobby. I suspect there is a high one-to-one correlation between those two metrics. In other words, Peters was a one-judge lawyer.