Jerry Mitchell’s story in today’s Clarion Ledger looks at deposition accounts from Steve Patterson and Tim Balducci (both from Eaton v. Frisby), along with pleadings filed by Dickie Scruggs and concludes that the various government witnesses do not have a consistent account of what went on with Judge DeLaughter. He then concludes that the government is going to have to depend on Ed Peters to make sense of all this unless there’s a smoking gun (in saying that, Mitchell seems to have forgotten that Peters filed a pleading he signed, pro se, asserting that everything he did in Wilson v. Scruggs was “objectively reasonable”).
Balducci told lawyers in his deposition that Patterson told him Peters “had been retained as a conduit of information between us and Judge DeLaughter to influence him in our favor” and that Peters provided the legal team with copies of the judge’s rulings in the case before they were filed.
But Patterson, in his deposition, said he knew nothing of any meetings between Peters and DeLaughter regarding the Wilson lawsuit.
Through his lawyers, Scruggs seemed to discount the prosecution’s case in their response to Wilson last week in the civil action: “Wilson assumes that Scruggs corruptly influenced Judge DeLaughter in his rulings. Scruggs has pleaded guilty to attempting to corruptly influence Judge DeLaughter in his rulings, but Wilson has presented nothing to connect this attempt with actual influence or to any such influence with any harm to Wilson.”
Scruggs’ attorneys call for Wilson’s lawsuit to be dismissed, or at least put on hold until after DeLaughter’s trial. “Wilson apparently assumes that, having pled guilty to a crime, Scruggs now has an obligation to feed Wilson’s appetite for money,” they wrote.
Unless there is a “smoking gun” that hasn’t been seen, Steffey said DeLaughter’s trial turns on the believability of Peters. The judge is accused of sharing a draft copy of an order with Peters, who then shared the document with Scruggs’ legal team.
But Patterson, in his deposition, recalled no improper contact between DeLaughter and Peters. Patterson said Peters told him DeLaughter was a real hard worker and that they better research their cases right “because Judge DeLaughter will darn sure pull it and read it and you’ll be very offended if you’re stretching it in any way.”
The story also describes Patterson’s reaction on hearing that Trent Lott had called DeLaughter about a position on the federal bench:
Patterson heard about Lott’s call to DeLaughter from Scruggs’ then-attorney, Joey Langston of Booneville, who contacted him late one night at his hunting lodge.
What happened was unnecessary, “politically stupid (and) made no sense,” Patterson said. “For the senator to have made that call I thought was a bit gutsy.”
Asked what he meant, Patterson replied that he meant it was unnecessary. “Everyone, I think, at the time thought that Judge DeLaughter had the integrity, and had the judicial temperament, had the education, had the background that would make a great federal judge. But the fact that he was sitting on this case with … the senator’s brother-in-law at the time, presiding over it, I thought it was just a little over the line for that call to be made in that way.”
He said he felt the call was “using a cannon to kill a gnat.”
Steve suggests there was nothing odd about paying Peters in cash– that Peters wanted cash to pay contractors fixing up his fish camp:
As for the $50,000 in cash that Peters received in a Fed Ex envelope from Langston to join the Scruggs’ legal team, Patterson insisted the money was strictly meant for a place Peters had in Cocatre, La.
“Nothing sinister about it whatsoever, other than he was trying to remodel a fishing camp, and you know, you can pay contractors with cash pretty easily in Louisiana,” he said.
The story ends pretty hilariously:
Patterson described himself as close friends and political allies with Peters.
He suggested Peters could have gotten his information on the Wilson lawsuit from his many sources at the Hinds County courthouse, where he served as district attorney for more than two decades.
“He had ways of finding things out that did not necessarily necessitate him going and having ex parte communications with DeLaughter,” Patterson said. “Ed Peters ran the politics of the Hinds County courthouse, had for many years, and was capable of finding out … any kind of information that he wanted virtually.”
In fact, he said, “Ed Peters was known affectionally around the courthouse as ‘John Wayne.’ ”
That came as news to longtime Hinds County Circuit Clerk Barbara Dunn. “Oh, my, I’ve never heard that,” she said. “He doesn’t resemble him at all.”
Alan Lange reads the Jerry Mitchell story and concludes that this is Scruggs/Patterson vs. Balducci, and that the former has an ax to grind and the later doesn’t.
I see ax grinding from every participant, which is not to say I find Steve much of a believable guy.
I’m not positive Patterson and Balducci’s accounts are necessarily as contradictory as it appears in one respect– Patterson would not necessarily have been “in the loop” about what was going on tactically in the case in the way Balducci would had to have been.
Clearly, enhanced interrogation techniques are called for ….
I think one logical, and perhaps likely, explanation for many of these inconsistencies is that Patterson is lying. He was on tape in the Lackey judicial bribery matter, directly assisting in the scheme to pay the bribe, and yet still maintained that he was not guilty of any significant wrongdoing (despite his guilty plea to the contrary). He is in a serious state of self-serving denial. IMO, his credibility is near zero.
Balducci has come clean. Langston appears to have come clean.
But, Patterson is too much of a scalawag to ever come clean. Such is why I was surprised to see the deal he got from the feds —- most deals of that type require a high level of cooperation. I would say his “cooperation” has been very limited.
Peters? Remains to be seen. But all indicators are that his level of cooperation is more like Patterson’s than that of Langston and Balducci. We shall soon find out. With the sweet deal Peters got, we should be expecting a LOT of gut spilling cooperation, even a smoking gun —-before he retires, unindicted and unconvicted, to those fishing camps paid for with ill-gained cash from all of his sleezy and illegal activities over the years.
Of course, if we had a competent and functioning MS AG —one who did not have “family” relations with all of these criminals to a degree that he claims creates conflicts of interest that prevent state investigation/prosecution —- then more badly needed “justice” could perhaps be achieved at the state level. There has not been a single state investigation or prosecution related to any of these Scruggs related matters to-date. That is not only unbelievable, but unacceptable.
I think that Steve Patterson needs to return to the Holy Land for some more edification.
I think the difference is that Joey and Tim came to be criminals after practicing law for a while and found it not as lucrative absent some help in knowing the outcome. With Patterson, he was always a criminal, therefore, he has no need to “come clean.”
NMC, just my opinion: Steve Patterson may not have been “in the loop,” but he did create the loop.
patterson used balducci to gain favor with lackey. patterson used peters to gain favor from delaughter. federal prosecutors call patterson a minor player. no. patterson was pushing all the right buttons and setting up the perfect earwigging. patterson is a serial manipulator: the ultimate politician.
Somebody email this person who commented on the clarion ledger article and report back:
bettyware wrote:
Oh, the courts and the judges are going to do whatever they want to do anyway. The state of Ms has way to many corupt judges and lawyers. Email me if you want to hear more….
bwaremomjsm@yahoo.com
7/12/2009 12:02:03 PM
From the CL: Patterson heard about Lott’s call to DeLaughter from Scruggs’ then-attorney, Joey Langston of Booneville, who contacted him late one night at his hunting lodge.
What happened was unnecessary, “politically stupid (and) made no sense,” Patterson said. “For the senator to have made that call I thought was a bit gutsy.”
Asked what he meant, Patterson replied that he meant it was unnecessary.
Allow me to channel Patterson’s meaning. What Patterson really meant: It was unnecessary because Joey, Ed, and I already had the DeLaughter situation covered. We had all bases covered in that case. We didn’t need Lott to expose himself by making the call to DeLaughter; that was just “politically stupid.” As I said, we had all the bases covered; we didn’t need Lott’s input in that situation. But, for some reason, with Trent being so “gutsy” and all, he felt like he needed to get involved by adding some ammunition himself.
Then look at Patterson’s other statement about DeLaughter sitting on the case and the senator’s brother-in-law presiding over it. Is that a Freudian slip? What Patterson actually states here is that all DeLaughter is doing is sitting (or present) in the courtroom with Dickie Scruggs presiding over the case.
OWIL at 1:59, NoMiss at 2:14, and ampal at 2:32
I agree with all three.
Don’t see any other shelf for this: 60 minutes did a story tonight on the reliability and efficacy of eyewitness testimony. Humility and forgiveness also covered. Worth watching.
Comments not letting the hyperlink post, but the broadcast is on the 60 minutes site.
Sure would like to see these depositions myself.
Will Lott’s “spokesperson” shed some light on the cannon/gnat testimony, since Lott appears to have vanished into a cave somewhere? Speaking of caves, even Osama bin Laden makes his own statements from his in Northwest Pakistan, doesn’t he?
[...] Finally, the Scruggs judicial scandals may have faded from the national headlines in the past year but in Mississippi they’re still very much an unfolding story. Tom Freeland at North Mississippi Commentor continues to track developments. [...]