The Clarion Ledger intervies Jim Hood today in this story. Here’s the key quote:

State Attorney General Jim Hood said today it would be a conflict of interest for his office to file charges against several attorneys involved in a high-profile judicial bribery scandal.

Filing a state case now could interfere with a federal case that is already in the courts, Hood told The Clarion-Ledger at an editorial board meeting.

“I’m too close to them,” he said. “It would be like prosecuting my relatives.”

The first point is arguable. Perhaps he’s too close to former Special Ass’t A.G.s (Langston, Balducci) to prosecute them. I’m not sure. So we’re still going to do law enforcement in Mississippi, right? He’s going to assure there’s some sort of special prosecutor to handle this isn’t he? And how about Scruggs? Is he really too close to enforce the law? But I’ll leave that aside for now because I think we could have a reasonable debate about it.

But he told the Clarion Ledger that prosecuting these guys would be like prosecuting his relatives?!? He needs to think more about whether that mental clutch is engaged or not before he attempts to start the mouth.

Update:

So as not to strain our credulity too much, the Clarion Ledger has put video of this moment online, and you can watch it here.

Here’s some things I noted down:

Critics like you would say if I went in. Say for example Joey Langston who I’m close to, tried death penalty cases against and the standard is can you be fair and impartial. Would it create an appearance of impropriety that would reflect negatively on the profession, and it would.

I’d have a conflict of interest. I’m too close to them. It’d be like prosecuting a relative.

Hat tip to Ya’llPolitics for pointing this out.

At any rate, Patsy reports that, on the night of March 12, 2001, while Jim Hood was DA for District 3 in north Mississippi, he ended up a two-car wreck on a country road.

According to court records, Hood had his truck towed to Frank Smith[']s Body Shop near home for repairs, intending to negotiate directly with Progressive Insurance Co., the company that had insurance on the offending vehicle.

About 6 p.m. March 21, the Progressive adjuster called Hood at home and said he had prepared an estimate for the repairs: $4,497.01. Hood told the adjuster not to contact Frank Smith at the body shop, saying he would deal with Progressive after driving the repaired vehicle to determine if it had permanent damage.

But Progressive sent its preliminary estimate to Smith the next day.

Fifteen days later, Progressive was faxed a letter saying it had harmed Hood by interfering with his contract with Frank Smith.

Over the next two weeks, Hood and Progressive apparently bickered back and forth about what Hood thought needed to be done to the vehicle and what Progressive was willing to do.

Progressive appears to have offered Hood $6,815.65 for the repair job, according to a letter from Hood’s father and attorney, Jim Hood Jr.

“My client has reached no agreement with you,” he wrote.

Then things really got interesting.

Now Patsy tells what happened to Progressive agent David Malone when, on April 9, 2001, he went to the body shop to pick up the damaged pieces of Hood’s truck. Though shop-owner Smith handwrote, and Ron Easley (whoever he is) witnessed, that “I told Mr. Malone that Jim Hood told me not to give any of the parts to Mr. Malone,” Malone took the parts anyway and headed back to his office, believing that Progressive had already paid for them. (Six days earlier, his colleague Michael Lee had written to Hood, reporting the “agreed price” of repairs and authorization for a rental and asking for medical information about his injuries.)

But now Easley zipped to the courthouse and, Patsy says, apparently filed a felony theft complaint against Malone (Hood recalls filing the charges himself). Anyhow, somebody filed ‘em because, later that day, Malone got arrested and charged with grand larceny and posted a $2,000 bond, pledging to appear before Justice Court on April 19.

Eleven months later – March 20, 2002 – Jim Hood filed a paperwork for a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Chickasaw County against three Progressive companies and David Malone. William C. Walker Jr. of Oxford represented the plaintiff.

Thus began four years of legal back-and-forth and three bulging case folders in the Houston courthouse.

Progressive said it wanted a dismissal or a change of venue because it couldn’t get a fair trial in Chickasaw County. It also admitted Malone took the parts, as did Malone himself.

In deposition, Hood testified that Progressive had sent none other than Tony Farese to talk to him.

“According to Mr. Farese, his conversation with you, that you sent him to me,” Hood stated, speaking to Progressive[']s lawyer, “and that if I would agree to drop the criminal charges, that y’all would agree to not sue me, and that we would settle this civil claim. And that was the conflict of interest of trying …”

Hood continued, “And I told Mr. Farese, look, I don’t have anything to do with the criminal case. You know, I’m a victim, that’s it. I’m not going to enter into any agreement like that.”

But Hood said he thought Farese’s visit was a veiled threat – that if the issue weren’t settled, Progressive was going to hire Tupelo trial lawyer Jim Waide to file a wrongful arrest action against him about Malone’s arrest.

“And that was an attempt by Progressive through you, to get me to settle a civil action with a criminal claim and create a conflict of interest in me,” Hood added. “I don’t think that was proper.”

He also said he contacted the state Attorney General[']s Office about Progressive.

In late December 2002, Judges Henry Lackey and Andrew Howorth having recused themselves, Supreme Court Chief Justice Ed Pittman appointed Joseph H. Loper, Jr., as special judge in Hood v. Progressive. The trial was to start on Feb. 7, 2005.

I’m not sure what to make of the sentence “Lawyers argued that the lawsuit came from the truck wreck and damages to the vehicle, not allegations regarding a personal injury claim,” but Patsy also says that at some point Hood alleged he’d “suffered anxiety and emotional distress from all the stress of the legal action.” He also claimed that Progressive “was trying to pull a fast one on policyholders with some profit-sharing practice.”

Another a strange phrasing: “On Nov. 24, 2004, Judge Loper ordered mediation on or before Jan. 5, 2005. Right.” (Huh?) How we get from there to here, I can’t say, but Patsy’s next sentence is “On Jan. 13, 2006 – almost five years after Jim Hood[']s truck accident in Union County – Loper signed an agreement order for dismissal of the lawsuit [']with prejudice,['] meaning the legal action was over.”

After everything was said and done, the grand larceny charge against Progressive claims agent David Malone simply went away.

The settlement apparently includes silence on both sides, there is no record to reflect officially what happened with Malone.

Hood insists his criminal-civil approach in the Chickasaw case was an isolated incident and doesn’t reflect his style of handling civil cases, including the State Farm situation.

But he also insists that when somebody does something criminally wrong, they should be charged, even if civil action is ongoing.

As I say, I suspect this story slipped into online view before its time, and it may well be that Patsy intended it to be clearer. But confusing phrases and gaps and all, it raises a familiar question, doesn’t it?

Perhaps it will be encouraging to his background chorus of fellow whistlers, but, beyond that, just who does he think he’s persuading here? (I just can’t help it here: He’s whistling to the choir!). As I read the article, he faults State Farm for failing to follow through in the federal court class action settlement that collapsed, not through anything State Farm did as near as I can tell, but because Judge Senter thought it didn’t protect policyholders adequately and then further negotiations collapsed, and not from the State Farm side. He also announces victory in the State Farm suit against him but never mentions whether that means he’s resumed his grand jury investigation. I would think not, although this really makes me even more want to see that settlement agreement.

Read it and weep! Or whistle, whichever is your wont!

h/t tiredlwyr

This series of posts outlines what is public about the conversations that led to the indictment of Dickie Scruggs and others for judicial bribery. Part 1 outlined Tim Balducci’s initial off-the-record approach to Judge Lackey and Part 2 described conversations between the two from late May until early September. Part 4 deals with the first cash payment of half the bribe, $20,000, and conversations about P.L. Blake’s role. In Part 5, the second cash payment was made.

I’ve indicated information from the indictment (I), the application for a search warrant for the Scruggs Office (SA), from the discovery inventory (D), the Scruggs Motion to Continue reply (MC), Scruggs motion for Discovery (MD), 2nd defense Motion to Continue (MC2), and from the Balducci Plea Colloquy (BP).

November 1st, Balducci goes to Judge Lackey’s office to deliver the last $10,000 and to get the order they were seeking from Judge Lackey. As he is leaving with the signed order, he is arrested and confronted. (SA) He confesses to conspiring with Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs, Sidney Backstrom, and Steve Patterson to bribe Judge Lackey. (BP) He immediately agrees to cooperate with the federal authorities and goes to the Scruggs Law Office wearing a wire. (SA)

At the Scruggs Law Office, Balducci tells Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom, “We paid for this ruling, let’s make sure it says what we wanted it to say.” (I, SA) Balducci talks to Dickie Scruggs, who agrees to take care of an extra $10,000 payment to the judge and says he will “hire” Balducci to prepare jury instructions in an unrelated case to cover the $10,000. (SA, I). While Balducci is there, he, Backstrom, Dickie Scruggs, and Zach Scruggs have a ninety-minute conversation. (MC2)

On November 2, Scruggs has his secretary send an email to Balducci with the documentation of the extra $10,000 paid to the judge. Balducci goes to Oxford and gets the $10,000 and the cover letter and attachments about the jury instructions. (I, SA, D)

On November 5th, Balducci goes to the Scruggs Law Firm and gets a check for $10,000 with a cover letter and attachments relating to the jury instructions that are the cover for the $10,000 payment. (SA).

On November 13, Backstrom and Balducci talk about the bribery scheme on the telephone. (I)

On November 19th, Balducci goes to the Scruggs Law Firm, apparently at the direction of the FBI. (MC).

On November 27, the FBI searches the Scruggs office; according to the application for the search warrant, they are seeking emails and rough drafts of the order they sought from Lackey. Joey Langston is at the Scruggs law offices that day, standing in front talking to the press about the search and saying that the FBI was seeking something but had not found it.

That same day, Patterson is arrested. He talks to Balducci by telephone from the jail and makes statements to the FBI. Backstrom makes statements on November 27th and 28th. (MD). Dickie and Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom are arrested on November 28th.

Note:

The indictment and the application for a search warrant have the email Scruggs had sent on different dates, the indictment on Nov. 5, and the application on Nov. 2. The discovery inventory says Nov. 2, and I’ve gone with that.

The defense did not include any transcripts from November in their motion (Gee, I wonder why).

JACKSON — Many towns have a Bob Bryant, and those that don’t would do well to get one.

For the past several years, Bryant has been the open-government advocate for Crenshaw, a Delta city [sic] of about 900.

“He’s a relentless sort of guy,” said John Howell, publisher of The Panolian, the local newspaper that covers Crenshaw politics. “He’s a real thorn in their side.”

Bryant, a retired Shelby County, Tenn., sheriff’s deputy, is even more frank.

“I worry the crap out of them,” he said.

Y’see, Bob Bryant didn’t like the effect dilapidated properties were having on local land values, so he started showing up at Crenshaw’s Board of Aldermen meetings late in 2005. Attending a few of these convinced him that too much business was going on in closed session “because they didn’t want to fool with the public.”

No one would answer simple questions, like how much the city owed its creditors or how a $300,000 housing grant was being spent, he said.

So Bryant stared filing requests for the city’s financial documents.

“I just went in there looking,” he said. “I wanted to look at the financial records and minutes of prior board meetings.”

Crenshaw officials ignored him until he hired a lawyer to send them a letter warning that the town was violating state law. Now, having kept up his hounding and threats of lawsuits, Bryant thinks he’s seen some improvement but “not near enough.” He thinks the Open Meetings and Public Records laws just too flamin’ weak.

“Once they stonewall you, you’ve got to get into your pocket and hire lawyers. Why should we have to do that?” he said. “You are out here doing the government’s job for them without any resources.”

Leonard Van Slyke, the Jackson lawyer expert in open-government law, agrees:

“There should be an attitude from public officials that we want to make as much information as possible public and exercise exemptions only when necessary,” he said.

The state Public Records law begins with the statement that allowing access to records is Mississippi state policy and that providing access is the duty of public officials. Van Slyke said the law does not require any public official to withhold a document because all of the state exemptions can be waived at the government’s discretion.

Van Slyke said the lack of any system of appeal short of bringing a civil lawsuit is a real shortcoming in state law. It is a tremendous burden on citizens to bring a state or local agency to circuit court just to get access to a record.

Ain’t like that most other places. In Connecticut and Utah, for instance, citizens can appeal to special commissions if they’re denied records. Arizona, Iowa, and Georgia (for only three) either have public records ombudsmen or give the state’s attorney general authority to intervene.

Joyner describes how Jack Ryan, executive editor of the McComb Enterprise Journal, in 2007 joined Southwest Broadcasting, Inc., to sue the city of McComb for violating the state’s open meetings law.

The newspaper and the broadcast company alleged McComb Mayor Zach Patterson and the city’s Board of Selectmen had violated state law by meeting in closed session to vote on pay raises for city employees, increased police patrols in high-crime areas and the creation of a new city department. The city settled the lawsuit in August, agreeing to pay $9,600 to the plaintiffs to cover a portion of the legal fees involved in bringing the suit.

Patterson, who does not have a vote on the board, opposed the decision, as did Selectman Melvin Joe Johnson, who cast the lone vote against settling.

Selectman Johnson told the paper that any violation of the law was unintentional — the board had just gone into closed session to discuss personnel issues.

Ryan said he was reluctant to sue the city and first tried talking to Patterson, who took office in January 2007, about the newspaper’s concerns. The raises and other measures represented a pretty big expenditure for the city of about $13,600, he said.

“People need to know if the city can afford this,” he said.

When city officials did not budge, the media companies filed suit. Ryan said he felt like he had no choice.

“To let that go is to basically say, ‘You can do this whenever you want,’ ” he said.

Brent Cox of the American Civil Liberties Union says public officials in Mississippi “typically react badly” to questions about violations of the Public Records and Open Meetings laws, something he ascribes to the history of secrecy and the hurdles that state law includes to discourage citizens from pressing their rights.

“People don’t have the time or money to begin a lawsuit against a government body,” he says. “We’re willing to do it, but you shouldn’t have to go through the ACLU to get a public document.” Of course, if you live in a state where steam comes out of many ears at the mere mention of “ACLU” — whatcha gonna expect?

Apparently, Bob Bryant was the one-and-only Bob Bryant that Joyner could locate in the whole place. You reckon?

Patsy may not agree, but I’m sure glad she drew this assignment, since she makes what might otherwise have been dull reading, not-so:

TUPELO –Just because an organization “looks” like it’s a public agency, it may not be.

And if it isn’t a public agency, it’s not obligated to be open in any way. That’s the way Mississippi’s laws read as they address issues of open meetings and open records.

What kind of agencies are we talking about?

• Nonprofit community action agencies.

• Nonprofit community development foundations.

• County councils of government.

• Multistate or regional bodies.

• Public and private hospital boards and committees.

• Law enforcement officials.

• Public community college and university foundations.

Those are just a few types of organizations that look “public” but are not. …

Um . . . the state laws under which I’ve lived would disagree, but that’s just them, I guess.

Anyhow, Patsy focuses on two entities in Tupelo’s Lee County, the Community Development Foundation and its “child,” the Council of Governments, both of which get public attention and make public impacts but operate out of general public view.

The CDF is widely heralded as a major player in the region’s landing Toyota Motor Corp., which is building a manufacturing plant northwest of Tupelo. CDF has 1,100 members and some of its officers are elected officials.

But CDF’s business doesn’t belong to the public, even though its impact does. It’s a nonprofit membership organization. If you want to know CDF’s inner workings, you can’t, except for public pronouncements and internally produced publications. …

Organizations like this can do a lot of good, their members say, despite and because of their closed doors.

“CDF is set up to protect client confidentiality,” said David Rumbarger, CDF’s chief executive officer. “We don’t spend public money that hasn’t already gone through the public process.”

He means the public money CDF receives was discussed and vetted at public meetings of local city councils or the Board of Supervisors.

The CDF goes back to 1948, when it was organized as a nonprofit corporation via the Mississippi secretary of state’s office. So, Patsy points out, it’s “had plenty of time to respond to any criticism about its operating structure.”

“If this could be done publicly, they would have made a different decision in 1948,” Rumbarger says. CDF holds its meetings, decides how to spend its resources, and maps its strategy with zero public intrusion because it doesn’t fall under Mississippi’s Open Meetings law. Rumbarger believes it owes its success to its quasi-public flexibility to act speedily when other public entities bog down in controversy. As an example, he cites the long-ago development of a regional water system, a project that raised such public furor “that the various entities affected by the plan asked CDF to take the reins, promote the necessary legislation and develop a mechanism to make it work. That’s what happened and it’s pretty much history at this point.”

(Yes, I suppose “Daddy Knows Best/Speak Only When Spoken To” families are more efficient . . . at scattering offspring thousands of miles distant, at first opportunity and for good. But I digress.)

Lee County’s COG, less formally organized, works much the same, with mayors and other municipal and county officials regularly meeting to discuss common problems — things like as zoning, housing, law enforcement, and such.

While it doesn’t have the authority to make public decisions, its members go back home, hold their public meetings and make decisions based on their experiences at the Council of Governments sessions.

Because COG is outside the jurisdiction of Mississippi’s Open Meetings law, it’s not open to the public.

“I’d rather not speak on why it’s structured the way it is, but my experience with the Council of Governments has been good,” said Verona Mayor Bobby Williams, the immediate past chairman of Lee COG.

(Interesting quote there, Mayor Williams. No telling what we might be reading between your lines . . . let me just say that it carries a rather Wagnerian soundtrack here, and Hitler like Wagner a lot, you know.)

Though Mississippi’s public hospitals and their governing boards also are exempt from public meetings, Patsy notes that “things are different in Natchez.” Walter Brown, board attorney for the county-owned Natchez Regional Medical Center, says his board’s meetings are always open to the public, and when the members don’t want the public in on something (that might, for instance, tip off competitors), they just go into executive session.

“A good deal of the work, like dealing with competing salaries, has to be in executive session,” Brown said.

And Brown says he believes in open meetings.

“I think for lots of reasons meetings should be open,” he said. “If I tell you what’s going on, there will be an informed electorate.”

But none of this openness has attracted much interest from Natchez citizens, he said. Very rarely do any members of the public attend the meetings.

Now I’m going to leave Patsy’s closing grafs as-are for your enjoyment:

And if you’re wondering about those millions of dollars raised each year by Mississippi’s public university and community college nonprofit foundations, don’t wonder. They’re not required to tell you much of anything, especially who their donors are and what they’re doing with the money.

They are governed by bylaws and boards of directors, and can pretty much do what they want. They may bear the names of their public institutions, but they aren’t public at all.

How chahmin’.

TUPELO –When Tremont residents Paula and Harold Kennedy tried to get the investigative file on the 2004 murder of the their son Brian, the couple’s requests were denied.

Although the confessed assailant committed suicide and investigators closed the case, the Kennedys were told state law prohibits their access to their son’s murder record. The Mississippi Public Records Act exempts information gathered for a criminal investigation. …

The problem, according to First Amendment expert Leonard Van Slyke, is that Mississippi allows too many exceptions to its Open Records law, and the process for challenging them is difficult and costly — or as Paula Kennedy puts it, “Everybody told us we had to go to court. Every time we requested, they said you’ll just have to file a lawsuit. But at that point the lawsuit was totally going to be at our expense.”

Kennedy learned that she and her husband could expect to pay $10,000 up-front just to retain a lawyer, then probably double or triple that in further expenses before the trial was over. In other words, Van Slyke nails it: though news organizations with money and other resources often (except, I gather, in dear old Mississippi) sue public bodies, ”you rarely see individuals who can take that risk.”

The Kennedys couldn’t. The best they could do was get a lawyer friend to make formal written requests for the records to the agencies holding them, the Kennedys meanwhile launching a letter-writing campaign. Neither of which worked worth a damn. So next they approached state Rep. Steve Holland, D-Plantersville, who helped sponsor a bill to make public the investigative records of all closed cases.

But Holland’s bill was merged with another bill, and the whole matter ultimately died during the Legislature’s 2007 session. Efforts to revive the issue are expected in 2008.

Holland said he was disappointed.

“I would like to see more transparency all up and down the food chain,” he said. “But transparency isn’t something that public entities, and even the Legislature, particularly care for.”

You know who finally helped the Kennedys just a bit? The little ol’ Itawamba County Times, that’s who. The Times (a weekly, I guess) did a story about them, and lo an’ behol’, the victims’ assistant in Jim Hood’s office contacted them. Thanks to this help, last Thanksgiving they finally got some information from the file.

But with the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation still refusing to share its own file, a spokeswoman for the Department of Public Safety said DPS doesn’t believe there is discretion allowed in the exemptions. The Kennedys have “other avenues” to information about their son’s murder, she says.

“We suggested that a victim-witness coordinator and investigator meet with the family to answer its questions concerning the case,” [Delores] Lewis said.

Paula Kennedy said that did not work. The investigator, local law enforcement and DPS administrators “tossed it back and forth” but the family got no further on its request.

Next post: how a good-sized newspaper with a large corporate parent fares in the same kind of fight . . .

Imagine my surprise to learn that Malcolm McMillin has cornered the state capital’s copper market. Since Joyner doesn’t, could one of y’all please explain to me how McMillin — or somebody — pulled this feat off? It’s certainly the first such situation I’ve ever heard of, and right off the famous bat sounds mighty, um, suspect:

In a meeting with reporters in December, new Jackson Police Chief Malcolm McMillin made crystal clear his policy toward providing police information to media.

“We’re not going to have any (crud) over here about what you are entitled to,” he said. “I’ve had good media relations for 16 years and I’m not going to change that now.”

McMillin is in his fourth month as chief of the state’s largest municipal police department, but he brings to the job the savvy of a seasoned politician. That’s to be expected, since he also is the elected sheriff of Hinds County. [Emph. mine.]

McMillin said his administration will be transparent and requests for information will be filled in a timely basis as long as the information does not jeopardize an investigation.

“Want to check the next day to see how many calls we had or how many complaints we had?” he said. “That will be available to you as soon as we compile that. You can have it anytime you want it.”

As if that’s a real favor, something special and noteworthy? Well, apparently in Jackson, for chrissakes, it is:

McMillin’s openness is a stark departure from past practice. Under former Police Chief Shirlene Anderson, The Clarion-Ledger spent the better portion of two years fighting for every scrap of information, including such basic information as the weekly tally of major crimes reported.

During the final year of former Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr.’s administration, the newspaper had published crime statistics every Monday. That stopped in 2005, about five months into Mayor Frank Melton’s tenure.

(Really, y’all got to see the police blotter every Monday? I’ve yet to live in a town whose paper doesn’t publish that daily. Tell ya the truth, I’ve never even thought about it, anymore than I’d notice that, oh happy day, they’ve got the weather forecast right here!)

Anyhow, sez here that Melton — who won the mayorship on promises to reduce crime – ”told The Clarion-Ledger there were internal concerns over the accuracy of the statistics and the city was devising a better method of compiling crime stats that would give a truer picture of crime in the capital city.”

Melton even refused to turn statistics over to members of the City Council.

In May 2006, The Clarion-Ledger and other media outlets in the city obtained leaked crime reports that showed a 16.4 percent increase in crime since Melton took office. In the same month, Melton took the standoff a step further, tearing up several of the newspaper’s requests for city records.

Speaking on a local talk radio program, Melton taunted the newspaper about its requests: “If you send some more over there, I will tear them up.”

Eventually, the city of Jackson settled the suit for $13,000, and apparently its crime rate has lessened since 2006. Hey, I’m just telling you what it says here, and that it doesn’t say by how much. But I’d even more appreciate somebody’s explaining to me, plausibly, why this chucklehead Melton remains in office.

Since you probably can’t, I’ll just leave Jackson and its mayor to each other’s tender mercies and head to the next post and installment in the series . . .

Updated as noted below

At this point, Balducci thinks he is about to close in on a successful bribe, cheating the unwitting Johnny Jones of a fair ruling, and an equally unwitting Balducci is unaware what is happening to him– the federal government is about to spring the trap. With the information they’ve got, on September 26th, they apply for and get authority to listen in on Balducci’s cell phone. The application for a wire tap notes that the government already had in place a pen register that showed 4 calls to Scruggs Law Office and 8 from it on Balducci’s phone, including a 4:02 call immediately after the 9/21st meeting in Lackey’s office.

This series of posts outlines what is public about the conversations that led to the indictment of Dickie Scruggs and others for judicial bribery. Part 1 outlined Tim Balducci’s initial off-the-record approach to Judge Lackey and Part 2 described conversations between the two from late May until early September, a period the defense says Lackey “pursued” Balducci. Part 3 deals with the period that talk moves from hints to an actual cash bribe. In this post are the first conversations involving Patterson, including talk of P.L. Blake, as Balducci works to get the order from Judge Lackey.

• September 24th, Judge Lackey calls Balducci. Balducci begins, “What ya say, Judge,” and Lackey responds, “Lackin’ style.” Lackey says that “In this metal building of mine, it doesn’t work.” [I have no idea what the reference to his office in Calhoun City means.] Balducci says he’s headed over toward Lackey the next day, and asks where he’s going to be. Lackey says he’s going to be in Jackson for a hearing on a matter the Supreme Court asked him to hear “and that Monette agreed for me.” Lackey offers to cancel the hearing if it is a problem for Balducci, who says no and asks if it is a one-day deal. Lackey says it is, and Balducci asks if they can meet on Wednesday (the 26th), and Lackey says his schedule would work for Thursday morning instead; he’ll be in his office and can clear out everybody. Then, Lackey says: “Let me ask you one thing. And I tell ya, I’m, and I hate to even, uh, bug you with it. Can I commit to my folks, that are pressuring me, something by this weekend?”

Balducci: Yes, sir. Uh, I’d say, on the safe side, I’ve already taken care of half the problem, and.. you think we can, based on what you said the other day, do you think we can take care of the other half, next time.

Lackey: Next time whenever. Okay?

Balducci: Yeah, but you can go ahead and commit, that, uh, you got half the problem solved.

Lackey: All right. Well, I appreciate it. Well that sure, I’ll sleep tonight because I have got some, uh… Oh me. Thanks, buddy.

Balducci: Okay, I’ll see you Thursday morning.

• September 27th, Balducci and Lackey phone conversation. No transcript available. Presumably about setting up the meeting for that day.
• September 27th, Balducci and Lackey face-to-face conversation about 10:00 AM, “first rodeo” one. Details of partial transcript are here. There are five pages missing at the start; this is where Balducci delivers the first $20,000 in cash to Lackey and Balducci delivers the order to Judge Lackey. In the part we have, Lackey says, “Well, what did the, let me, let me, let me tell you, I don’t want a nickel of your money, Tim.” Tim says he knows that, and Lackey says, “And if this is not comin’ back to you or if it’s not, uh, Mr. Scruggs’ money, I don’t want a nickel of it because it’s not gonna do Tim any good and he’s not the one I’m trying to help.”

Balducci says he understands, and tells Lackey not to worry. “All that’s been taken care of.” When Lackey suggests Scruggs would have to know, Balducci responds, “… here’s how it works, just so you’ll have some, some comfort, some understandin’ of how it works. Um, they’ll come a time where I’ll sit him down in private and I’ll tell him that I solved a problem for him.” Later, Balducci says Scruggs is “not involved in a direct manner. doesn’t wanna be. Doesn’t need to be. He knows how things work. … I mean he, you know, you don’t, you don’t climb the mount he’s climbed without cuttin’ a corner here and there, so, it uh, you know, like I said, I will be fine.”

Paterson told Balducci “that his wife had just gotten off the phone” with P.L. Blake “who had just gotten out of a meeting that Patterson asked him to have.” Balducci asked for details, and Patterson called back and told him that Blake had “met with Dick Scruggs and ‘he’ knows its going to be ‘40. Patterson assured Balducci that P.L. was confident that Scruggs would take care of Patterson and Balducci, and Patterson said “We got your horse sold” or words to that effect.

• September 27th, Patterson and Balducci conversation, right after Balducci has left the meeting with Judge Lackey. There is a partial transcript, detailed here. At the beginning of the conversation, Patterson describes talking to P.L. Blake about getting the $40,000 from him (although Balducci implied to Judge Lackey in the meeting they’d just had it would come from Balducci’s own slush fund). Patterson then says, “Do I go ahead and take care of it or what? And he said, yeah, go ahead and take care of it. I said, well, we’ve already taken care of half of it.” Balducci, having just left Lackey, says, “I’ma just reinforce that this morning. I just stopped by his [Scruggs's] office um, to pick up that thing that Sid [Backstrom] had gotten for me… ” “I called to Bethie,” says Balducci, “and she said he’s gonna be there this morning, so I’m going to go back on my way through.” Balducci says that he’s leaving Oxford heading south. “So what I’ma do is I’ma come back through here, I’ma stop and see him. I’m gonna lead with this issue and then I’m gonna tell him I need you to make two calls and get him to make those two phone calls.” I think Balducci is saying that he’s going to start with the “problem” he’d solved and then ask Scruggs to make a couple of calls.

In the Patterson plea colloquy, there are two phone conversations with Patterson and Balducci for which the transcripts aren’t out yet. It is unclear which quotes come from conversation. According to the colloquy, Paterson told Balducci “that his wife had just gotten off the phone” with P.L. Blake “who had just gotten out of a meeting that Patterson asked him to have.” Balducci asked for details, and Patterson called back and told him that Blake had “met with Dick Scruggs and ‘he’ knows its going to be ‘40. Patterson assured Balducci that P.L. was confident that Scruggs would take care of Patterson and Balducci, and Patterson said “We got your horse sold” or words to that effect.

• 9/27, Balducci and Patterson, telephone conversation. There is no transcript for this one. It’s after the meeting at Scruggs’s. The FBI wiretap applications say that Balducci tells Patterson “Done. Handled. All is well.” He also says, “Well, heh, what I can tell you is from this trip this morning, all is done and all is handled and all is well.” Balducci says that he has done the follow up, has met with Scruggs, and that although P.L. and Scruggs have not talked, P.L. will be giving Scruggs a call soon.
• October 7th, Balducci called Patterson. Patterson said he had just talked to Blake, and that Patterson would be calling “the guy in Oxford tomorrow” who was “expecting a call.”
• October 8th, Balducci called Patterson, who said he was about to call Scruggs. Later the same day, in a conversation about “the firm’s financial problems”, Patterson “reassured Balducci that, ‘We’ve got 40 coming from Scruggs’….”
• 10/10, Patterson calls Balducci’s cell phone and asks Balducci to find out “when the order will be signed.” Balducci asks if there is a problem with the deal, and Patterson says “P.L. wants to know.” Within a few minutes, Balducci calls Patterson and says the situation will be taken care of. There is no transcript of the conversations with Patterson in the defense transcripts; this is from one of the applications for a wiretap.
• 10/10. A short time later, Balducci calls Lackey.

Balducci: You got just a second?

Lackey: Have plenty of time.

Balducci: Good, um, listen, I was just calling to, uh, ask you you know, uh, I was gonna get those sweet potatoes delivered to my friend down there.

Lackey: Oh yeah!

Balducci: And I was wondering do you have any idea when you might get those that that bushels of sweet potatoes, uh, down there, uh where I can get them, uh, over to him?

Lackey: Okay? Uh, Let me, uh, I will, yeah, it should be, uh, should be tomorrow or the next day, if that’s okay?

I should interject here that not only is Judge Lackey’s office about 8 miles from the sweet potato capital of the world, this would have been about the time (October) for new crop sweet potatoes, and anyone who knows about that part of the world is aware that getting one from a local, you’re liable to get better ones (the varieties people grow for their own eating rather than to sell to Krogers and Walmart, for instance). Back to your regular programming.

Balducci says that he’d told him “I’d just call and check on it to make sure so you figured by the end of the week they’d be ready.” Judge Lackey says “Yes, sir,” and Balducci says, “OK, well good, good.” Lackey asks about a trip Balducci is planning. Balducci says, “I appreciate you taking care of that,” and “Let me know if I need to get back up with you too.” Lackey says, “I think, uh,” and Balducci responds, “I’ve got to see ya about finishing up on that other deal, so, uh.” Lackey thanks him, and they say goodbye.

Update: The paragraph about the 9/27 Patterson and Balducci calls from the Patterson plea colloquy was added.  The conversations on October 7th and 8th were added from the same source.

In our 3 on Your Side investigation, we revealed $400,000 donated by indicted trial lawyers Dickie Scruggs and Joey Langston last September to the Democratic Attorneys General Association — a PAC. That political action group sent $550,000 to help Jim Hood win re-election in 2007.

Hood says our report was unfair. “Had I known they were going to have these legal problems, I certainly would not have accepted anything directly, any direct contribution. We never told them to give any money there, and secondly, the Democratic Attorneys General are my colleagues.” …

So we ask if Hood should return their generous contributions. “Would you look at that $400,000 those two indicted attorneys gave and say ‘I’m going to give that back?’”

Hood responded, “That’s up to DAGA.” [quotemarks sic] To call on me as a democrat [sic] and disarm and not accept money from PACs is unfair. It’s unfair to run it on one particular person when you don’t go look at others.”

When asked if his office should have pursued criminals [sic] charges against those caught up in the judicial bribery scandal[,] Hood responded, “If I went after one or more of those individuals it would create an appearance of impropriety. That I do not do.” …

I dunno, maybe in the hands of a better writer, Hood’s answers wouldn’t look quite so non sequitor. But I do wonder whether Thompson’s and his uses of the word “unfair” might have come one-two in their real conversation. Did Thompson separate them in emulation of Jerry Mitchell’s patented method of breaking solid chunks of story into widely-spaced pieces? If so, what was her agenda in doing so?

Hey, this is just idle speculation on my part. But I will say that, while the arrangement of Hood-quotes here doesn’t sound like the natural flow of talk, it does make him sound even hinkier than usual.

Look at the whole thing (there’s not much more to it than this), and let’s hear what you think. I gather some of you consider Marsha Thompson a fine reporter. I suppose seeing her, not just her writing, must help . . .

Shelton: a new low for Mississippi?
February 4th, 2008
“[Y]ou get down to the area though where . . . . let’s see if I can bluff a plea out of this guy by indicting him. . . . . I’ve always had personal problems with it, to indict a case that I know deep in my heart that if I have to go […]

Shelton, Part 1: the Bar tribunal’s findings
February 4th, 2008
Here you will find, ”Englished” and as streamlined as I dare get it, a condensation of the findings of fact (64-page pdf) submitted to the Mississippi Supreme Court by the complaint tribunal in In Re: Petition for Reinstatement of J. Keith Shelton. The Court instructed this tribunal – Beverley M. Franklin (presiding), Katherine S. Kerby, and William C. Cunningham, judges […]

Shelton, Part 2: The Bar tribunal’s findings
February 4th, 2008
Returning to the Shelton saga (64-page pdf), it’s time to meet our protagonist: Byram, MS, lawyer J. Keith Shelton . . .
Jennings Hires Mr. Shelton to Represent Him in Possible Claims Against Judge Patton Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for Possible Violation of Jennings’ Civil Rights
In the late fall of 1996, attorney Keith Shelton met with […]

Shelton, Part 3: The Bar tribunal’s findings
February 4th, 2008
This post covers two sections from the complaint tribunal’s findings of fact (64-page pdf), a short one and a long one, picking up our story on or about March 26, 1997. Keith Shelton has just returned from visiting Judge Houston Patton to report to his client, James Jennings, his bleak appraisal that the judge had […]

Shelton, Part 4: The Bar tribunal’s findings
February 4th, 2008
In Part 4 of folo’s digest of the complaint tribunal’s findings (64-page pdf) in In Re: Petition for Reinstatement of J. Keith Shelton, we reach what I consider the most explosive piece of the story, (coincidentally?) the only one to brush against U.S. v. Scruggs and its cast of legal ne’er-do-wells eagles. As all-wrong as […]

Shelton, Part 5: The Bar tribunal’s conclusions and recommendation
February 4th, 2008
So what did the tribunal make of the story you’ve just read? In the section of its report (64-page pdf) titled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, you’ll find such passages as:
The facts and circumstances of Mr. Shelton’s initial arrest and the events from that point until Judge Green dismissed the charges against him are disturbing at best […]

Shelton (and Jennings!): a folo-up
February 5th, 2008
UPDATED BELOW
For those of you who, having read all or parts of the Shelton series, are now struggling with (100% understandable) WTFs about how Shelton and Jennings ended up indicted for bribery/conspiracy if they got the money:
I refer you to the pdf of Robert Taylor’s testimony with exhibits beginning at page 54 of 84, including in order:
The indictment […]

Shelton: The mother of all WTFs
February 5th, 2008
Judging from the comment threads I’m seeing here and elsewhere, I need to talk more about how in the everlovin’ blue-eyed whirled Keith Shelton and James Jennings got indicted, even on an Ed Peters dare.
The indictment you can read for yourself at page 54 of its signer Robert Taylor’s testimony in deposition. Minus some of […]

Shelton: Must be my morning for hmmming . . .
February 11th, 2008
Um. Well. I must own that not in a million years would I have expected — or sought — a shout-out from the Alan Keyes camp, but well . . . uh . . . look here or here (same text cross-posted on two sites).
HMMM.

Shelton: the dysjustice continues
February 21st, 2008
Well, here we are at Thursday afternoon again, and for the tenth week in a row since the Mississippi Supreme Court received from the state Bar the full-throated recommendation that J. Keith Shelton be reinstated immediately to the practice of law — at 1:30 PM when the week’s worth of decisions were announced, they got nuttin’.
True, […]

Shelton: more cause for Hinds County chagrin
February 26th, 2008
Ahem. An anonymous reader has my thanks for a most interesting new piece of the Shelton saga that I understand was part of the record before the complaint tribunal (and now, of course, the Mississippi Supreme Court):
Here (two-page pdf) is a February 12, 1997, letter to James Jennings from the late Ruma Haque, then board […]

Fresh word on Scruggsiana being AWOL in this morning’s Google News (at last check), I’m tracking instead some interesting developments in the Democratic Party. According to Pollster.com’s February 14 poll-of-polls, Barack Obama now for the first time edges Hillary Rodham Clinton 47.1-46% nationally. In other words, at this point the Dem race couldn’t possibly be a hotter dead-heat.

But the really remarkable image at that link is the trajectory of Obama’s support (indeed, the only other place I’ve seen a rocket-launch shape like that is folo’s sitemeter under the influence of U.S. v. Scruggs). If this trend holds, especially in Texas and Ohio, it will probably moot this morning’s batch of news — but since assuming anything is a bad move in politics (primary voters being as unpredictable as any other jury), let’s see what’s up for now . . .

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post lede their online editions with the possibility of a brokered convention whose outcome would rest on the unknown will of  “superdelegates” (796 Dem elected officials and other party insiders), rather than the already-expressed will of their home states’ voters. So, if neither Obama nor Clinton has bagged the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination by convention time (the last Dem caucus being Puerto Rico’s on June 7), what will they do?

According to WaPo, the superdelegates of the Congressional Black Caucus face a special gut-check. Many,

under enormous pressure from their constituents, are grappling with the question of whether they should abandon their support of Hillary Rodham Clinton and back Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

On Thursday, Rep. John Lewis (Ga.), a civil rights icon who endorsed Clinton last fall, wavered publicly in his backing of her after a series of private conversations with other members of the [CBC]. He and his aides declined yesterday to say whether he had formally withdrawn his endorsement or plans to support Obama in his role as a Democratic superdelegate, but colleagues said such doubts are echoing throughout the CBC.

“A lot of members who made commitments a year ago based on prevailing thought are having some real trepidations,” said Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), who has remained neutral in the race.

Clyburn, a senior member of the House leadership, said he had spoken to numerous CBC colleagues in recent weeks who have questioned their support of Clinton.

“It’s emotionally a problem for all of us,” he said, adding that he had dreamed of a black president decades ago when he was a civil rights activist. “This is a moment I thought about sitting in a Columbia jail in 1961.”

But Obama needs to continue to rack up wins through March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas before a large number of black lawmakers who back Clinton will switch sides, Clyburn said. “After that, if current trends hold, then you’ll see movement,” he predicted.

(John Lewis’s movement alone made things pretty interesting for NYT reporter Jeff Zeleny yesterday, according to Talking Points Memo.) 

Back at WaPo, David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies tells reporters Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane that Obama’s Tuesday victory in Virginia (beating Clinton by 50-49 percent among white voters overall, by 55-43 percent among white males) came as a pleasant shock to the CBC. In fact, this development has Alabama’s Obama-backing Rep. Artur Davis predicting that his colleagues will eventually abandon HRC — not only because they won’t want to end up “on the wrong side of history” but also because of their own political interests.

“Members have to decide whether they are going to stand in the way,” Davis said, warning that even longtime lawmakers could see their decisions translate into a primary challenge at home.

Leaving the CBC members to their grapple, NYT’s Don Van Natta Jr. and Jo Becker track the moves of Al Gore and other “senior Democrats” of late. And guess what? They’re doing their best NOT to move.

Instead, they’re planning ”to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention, party officials and aides said Friday.”

Democratic Party officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton could be decided by a group of … superdelegates.

The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election.

But they also provided an early glimpse at the complex set of tradeoffs facing party leaders, from their desire to make their own influence felt to their worries about offending the candidates and particular constituencies — not to mention the long, sometimes troubled relationship between Mr. Gore and the Clintons. …

A senior associate of Mr. Gore’s said that surrogates for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had tried to lock up the former vice president’s endorsement. But he has steadfastly refused to even hint at which candidate he might favor.

Among the current quietists, NYT counts John Edwards:

At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said. Although a number of his supporters had been urging him to endorse Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton has actively sought his backing, Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said.

That’s intriguing, since I’d have sworn Edwards leaned to Obama. I wonder what he wants. Well, whatever that’s about, according to McClatchy Newspapers, nor is Howard Dean, head of the Democratic National Committee, well positioned to make the deciding call:

“Traditionally, the head of the [DNC] would be the peacemaker, but I’m not sure Howard Dean has the stature or the power to play that role,” said Kevin Wagner, an assistant professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University.

Neither Dean nor his staff would comment on his potential role.

“It’s premature to speculate when we still have more than a thousand delegates still at stake,” said Stacie Paxton, Dean’s spokeswoman.

BUT. . . as the politics blog in her hometown San Francisco Chronicle reports,

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — who may be the most super delegate of all as chair of the Democratic national convention in Denver — gave an interview with Bloomberg TV’s Al Hunt in which she laid down the law for super delegates:

Don’t veto the people’s choice.

“I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that,” she said, adding quickly, “I don’t think that will happen.” …

“I do think that they have a respect — it’s not just following the returns, it’s also having a respect for what has been said by the people,” Pelosi said. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided.”

Yepper, it sure as hell would, Nancy. So let’s hope Ohio and/or Texas settle this and save y’all from gambling with our voterly wrath.

UPDATE: The DNC has now sent word to Talking Point Memo’s Greg Sargent suggesting that Howard Dean hopes to stick to the centerline on this one. In their statement, Dean says of the superdelegates, “Their role is to exercise their best judgment.” More at the link, including what kinds of folks end up as superdelegates . . .

UPDATE as noted below.

In Part 1, I described the filing of the Jones, Funderburg suit against Dickie Scruggs and the decision by Scruggs to have Tim Balducci contact Judge Lackey about the case off-the-record in hopes that Balducci’s prior relationship with Judge Lackey would influence the judge. I noted that sometime about late May, the case (and contact) went on hold, partly because the FBI agent working with Judge Lackey was out of the state doing military service for 6 weeks. On July 9th, a hearing on the Scruggs motion to arbitrate occurred.

There are three recorded conversations in this period: On May 29th, a phone call between Balducci and Judge Lackey, and then a meeting between the two on May 30th, and then on June 28th, a meeting between Judge Lackey and Tim Balducci. I haven’t found anything in the indictment, the governments applications for wiretaps or warrants, or in the transcripts offered up by the defense about what happened in these conversations.

What there is is pretty peculiar: Rather than produce transcripts, Keker’s team filed an affidavit of one of the lawyers, saying that he had reviewed the transcripts, that between May 4th and September 18th, there were seven instances in which Judge Lackey called Balducci but none the other way around. He doesn’t give the dates. One, May 9th, occurred in Judge Lackey’s chambers, so Balducci must have come there. Another is the May 21st “bodies buried” conversation, in which it hardly seems that Lackey is pursuing Balducci. Notes on what we have about the other four are below.

The affidavit also says that Balducci did not call Lackey about the recusal, and that they did not talk for eight days after the recusal.

You’ve read about the calls before May 28th. There is no transcript available to me from the May 28th phone call.

• May 29th, Judge Lackey face-to-face in New Albany with Balducci. Apparently, Judge Lackey was wearing a wire. In an affidavit filed with the motion to dismiss, Scruggs lawyer Brooks Dooley states that no transcript has been produced from this conversation, but that he has listened and transcribed it to the best of his ability. He says that “Judge Lackey explained that he had recused himself because he had been seen at a court function speaking with a member of the Daniel Coker firm, which represented the defendants in the Jones case. Balducci did not to try to dissuade Judge Lackey or other wise convince him to stay in the case. To the contrary, Balducci told Judge Lackey he should ‘do what your heart tells you.’” In the 2nd motion to continue, the defense stated that Balducci said in this conversation: “I damn sure didn’t want to do anything to jeopardize my relationship with you. I didn’t want to do anything in the world ever to do that relationship any harm. … I want to make sure that you and I are ok” and “it would break my heart if I thought I had put you ina bad position… when you called the other night I could tell that you were troubled by it. That’s why I told you ‘do what your heart tells you.’”
• May 30th: Judge Lackey and Balducci talk, and the Jones case is not mentioned, according to the defense 2nd motion to continue.
• June 28th: Judge Lackey and Balducci talk, and the Jones case is not mentioned, according to the defense 2nd motion to continue.
• July 9th, the hearing on the motion to send the case to arbitration occurred.
• August 3rd, Lackey calls Balducci and does not reach him.
• August 9th, Lackey calls Balducci at the office of another lawyer, Richard Babb, who is in Ripley, Mississippi, part of Lackey’s judicial district and about 30ish miles from New Albany, where Balducci’s office is. Lackey asks Babb about someone named James Irvin and another named Jay Keenan, both apparently relating to local elections of about the time. There’s a gap of about 10 pages in the conversation. The conversation picks up again with Lackey and Balducci talking about Balducci’s man-crush letter to the president of the local bar, and then Lackey asks if Balducci is in private. Lackey asks about Scruggs and arbitration, and Balducci says that arbitration is Scrugg’s's number one goal. Then Balducci makes the remark about being afraid of Jones in court “blowing his snot bubbles and stuff.” More details are in this prior post, here.
• August 27th, Lackey and Balducci, no available transcript or information.
• September 11th, Lackey calls Balducci, does not reach him because he’s in Washington. Lackey says “If you run into Chaney, tell him I’m going to pass on the duck hunt. Uh, but I do need to talk to you about this matter that we’re both concerned about and interested in. I’ve got something I want to run by you and see what you think about, and, uh, I’ll see if I can catch you Thursday, I know, or Friday….”

The conversations discussed above must be the ones that Scruggs’s lawyers argue involve Lackey’s “pursuit” of Balducci. In all this back-and-forth, Balducci has made clear what he and Scruggs want; where it goes other than that is still an open question.

Update:  Some additional details from the May 29th conversation and accounts of the May 30th and June 28th conversations, all between Balducci and Judge Lackey, were added from the 2nd defense motion to continue.

So here’s a basic tutorial in how to make the “special effects” you see online — the boldface, italics,

indented blockquotes,

hyperlinks, and anything else that’s beyond the site’s ordinary typeface (we get beyond basic, and I’m in over my head, so that’s all I’m gonna try to show you). 

First, look at those left- and right-arrow symbols, the “uppercases” of the comma and period keys on your keyboard. Those are essential elements of HTML coding — it just doesn’t happen without them.  The other essential character in every pair of coding signals is the / (without which, whatever coding you’ve started will go on forever, which tends to make other people cross with the careless one).

Right, here we go . . .

To make something bold, just in front of that word or phrase, type <strong>. Where you want the boldface to quit, type </strong>. Thus:

<strong>bold</strong> = bold.

To italicize something, right in front of the word or phrase, type <em> and right behind it, </em>. So

<em>italics</em> = italics

To make an indented blockquote, type right in front of the passage <blockquote> and at its end </blockquote>.

<blockquote>indented blockquote</blockquote> =

indented blockquote

Now here’s the most intricate one, but once you get the hang of it, it’s easy too. To make a fancy-schmancy hyperlink instead of just simply cutting-&-pasting the URL of a source you want us to see,

1. type <a href=”[X]“> (note the space between the a and the h, and the pair of quotemarks after the equal sign; see next step for what [X] will be — I just have to put that here now to trick the site — don’t ask). Between the quotemarks,

2. drop in the URL of your source (copied from the address field at screen top). Then

3. right after the right-facing arrow, type whatever text you want us to see, either your own phrasing or perhaps the source’s headline. Finally,

4. snugged-up after the end of that phrase, type </a>. So:

<a href=”http://www.folo.us&#8221; mce_href=”http://www.folo.us”>linked text</a> = linked text

Go ahead, experiment (I’m headed to bed soon, so whatever trouble you get into won’t bovvah me, heh) — have fun, you bigtime computer-programmer, you!

Updated (x2) as described at the end

I’m going to put together a series of posts that set out the chronology of the wire transcripts along with related events. I’ve two goals: One is to give everyone a narrative. The other is as a framework to understand Scruggs’s argument that the crime was induced by “outrageous government conduct.” This also allows me to correct some things—I’ve found the “bodies buried” quote in context, for instance. The indictment places it in the conversation of May 9th, but there’s almost identical language in the May 21st conversation, and the context makes it even more interesting (and underscores the honor-among-thieves issue), because what Balducci is saying is that he knows Scruggs won’t “use” the information on Lackey later, because Balducci has worked with Scruggs for several years and knows where the bodies are buried. Here’s the story:

• March 15^th, Jones, Funderburg files a sealed lawsuit against Scruggs and the other Katrina Group lawyers over Katrina fees. The suit is hand-delivered to Scruggs. The case is before Judge Lackey, the senior Circuit Judge in this district.

• March 28^th, in a meeting at the Scruggs office, Balducci makes an offer to contact Judge Lackey, who he says is his friend, about the Jones lawsuit. Nothing is said about him formally appearing in the case, and he never did. This meeting is mentioned in Scruggs’s motion to dismiss.

• March 28th, phone call and face to face, Balducci and Lackey. Balducci calls Lackey for a meeting. This is the “put down your robe” conversation that rattled Lackey and led him to call the U.S. attorneys. There is no tape and therefore no transcript. I’m not sure what happened between this and the next one. It’s mentioned in the motion to dismiss and the Lackey proffer.

• In April and May, the parties brief several motions that revolved around whether the case was going to arbitration. By May 4th, the parties had agreed to set a hearing on those motions before before Judge Lackey on May 24th.
• May 4th, Sidney Backstrom emails a proposed order to Balducci designed to accomplish what Scruggs wants.
• May 4th, phone call, Balducci calls Lackey. Lackey is eating peanut brittle (Balducci guesses chewing tobacco…). Lackey says he has the order compelling arbitration, which Balducci had sent him. Balducci says, “That was just some thoughts, ideas and suggestions that I thought I’d put on paper… see if his honor thought that would look like somethin’ he might be interested in.” Lackey says he wants to close the door and asks, “Could we hunker about, say… 3 or 4 o’clock.” They agree to meet, Lackey asks about Balducci’s children and says he wants to see them when he’s in New Albany. Does this mean there is a missing face-to-face meeting later that day?
• May 4th, Balducci faxes the order he’d obtained from Backstrom to Judge Lackey.

• May 9th, face to face meeting, Balducci and Lackey. The indictment says this is the “bodies are buried” conversation, but there’s an almost identical quote in the May 21^st transcript. This is the one where Balducci first (as far as we know) talked about his “relationship with Dick” being “such that he and I can talk very privately about these kinds of matters and I have the fullest confidence that if the court…is inclined to rule in favor, everything will be good.” It also has Balducci running his mouth about Johnny Jones. A description of what is in this transcript in full is here. A huge amount of this very important transcript is missing.

• May 21st , telephone call, Lackey to Balducci. Lackey starts by saying: “Look, look, look, look. I’m just havin’ a, you know, it’s… I’ve never been involved in anything like this and I guess I just need, uh, reassurance, I guess is what.”

Balducci: Yes sir.

Lackey: Uh, you and I know you told me this and I’m satisfied with it but I just want to hear you say it again. You and Scruggs only one know anything about this?

Balducci: Absolutely, Judge. Absolutely. There is nobody in this world, ain’t but three folks in this world that know that I’ve even seen you. And it’s me and you and him. And that’s it.”

Lackey: Well, thank you. Well, that’s good. I uh…

Balducci: And listen, I don’t want you to do anything you’re uncomfortable with, either. Now it’s one of those situations where, frankly, I think we’re right and I think the law’s on our side and I think probably had I never even approached you, we’d probably had the right, uh, result for us on this thing.

Lackey: Yeah.

Balducci: But, um, uh, you know. I don’t want you to do anything you uncomfortable with. I mean I respect you too much for that, now. My goal was simply to try to tell you, you know here, that I had an interest in this thing… and uh, if I could help, you know, guide you to where I thought this thing would, would legally could come, but now, you do what you, listen you do what you feel comfortable with, now, I don’t. I’m not, I don’t want you to do anything that you don’t feel comfortable … but I can assure that if you, if .. you know, if you come down on the side that, that my interest lies, that, that’s the end of it, that there’s no …

Lackey: He wouldn’t have to… uh later on use it for for any other purpose?

Balducci: No sir. He ain’t that way and let me assure you, as I told you the other day, uh, me and Scruggs, there, there’s bodies buried along the roadside between the two of us on plenty of deals and uh.. you know, even if he were inclined to such, he couldn’t and would but I can, and all I, that’s all I can tell you is that there’s I have complete confidence I wouldn’t never reached out to ya if I didn’t have complete confidence in that.

Lackey: All right.

Balducci: I wouldn’t put you or me in that situation.

Lackey said that he wanted to be sure that he and Lackey were on the same page, and Balducci said he did not want to make Lackey uncomfortable, “if it’s not somethin’ that you feel right about, then you know, do what your heart tells you.” Lackey says that he appreciates it and “had to talk to you again, and, uh [laughs] I wish you the best.”

Balducci says he has “complete confidence that this is completely fine.” They agree that they will be in touch.

• May 21st, Judge Lackey writes to Jones’s lawyer and Scruggs’s lawyer that he is recusing himself and that the hearing set for May 25th is cancelled.
• May 29th, Balducci and Lackey. Missing transcript

At this point, I don’t see how it can be said that the government has embarked on the supposed “outrageous” scheme to produce the crime. Lackey is still listening and letting Balducci lead. From the Balducci/Scruggs side, several things are clear:

• Scruggs and Balducci have made a conscious plan to hire a lawyer off-the-record to secretly approach the judge and give him a draft order without telling the other side. This is a completely outrageous breach of the rules.
• Balducci is talking to Judge Lackey in conspiratorial tones, talking about the fact that Scruggs can be trusted because Scruggs and Balducci had done things for years and each know where the bodies are buried.

There’s extremely clear impropriety but no offer of a bribe at this point.

Update described and additional comments:

2nd update: The May 4th Backstrom-to-Balducci email is mentioned in the government application for a search warrant of the Scruggs firm. I added that.  The same day, I’ve added that Balducci faxed the order to Judge Lackey. That’s from the indictment.
I updated to add some procedural history that shows some timing: First, that the motion to go into arbitration was moving to a hearing on May 25th. The day the hearing was set, Balducci called Judge Lackey. Then, on May 21st, Judge Lackey has the conversation where Balducci talks about “bodies buried”, and Judge Lackey recuses himself from the case.

Some facts from Grady Tollison’s account of Judge Lackey’s story, which is found here, shed some light. First, there are a couple of details about that first conversation: That Judge Lackey thought the purpose was personal, that Balducci had some personal or family problem; Lackey noted that he’d known Balducci briefly when he’d practiced in Oxford as a public defender. Balducci said he was there about the Jones case, said unfavorable things about Tolison, and then said he was there “for his good friends Nutt and Scruggs.” He said that the best thing that could happen for Nutt and Scruggs was a summary judgment for them.

After faxing the order in early May, Balducci told Judge Lackey that there was a change in strategy, that the best thing to do was to delay the case because Jones was in a financial bind. Lackey did delay for six weeks, for two reasons: The request, plus the fact that the F.B.I. agent in charge was on a six-week leave for military service and wished to be involved on his return with the next phase.

It’s not completely clear from this account where the six week delay entered into this. I also wonder about what role the FBI agent’s decision may have had in the recusal/unrecusal. What is clear, though, is that the hearing was continued from late May and got rescheduled. The hearing occurred July 9th, which is roughly a six week delay from when it was originally scheduled.

Well, we thought we had a good system of HTML-coding buttons for new folo’s comment box, but the one we got didn’t work so hot. Webmaster riddenword is, I understand, looking into other possibilities, but for now you still gotta do it by hand if you want to tart-up something in a comment.

So here’s a basic tutorial in how to make the “special effects” you see online — the boldface, italics,

indented blockquotes,

hyperlinks, and anything else that’s beyond the site’s ordinary typeface (we get beyond basic, and I’m in over my head, so that’s all I’m gonna try to show you). 

First, look at those left- and right-arrow symbols, the “uppercases” of the comma and period keys on your keyboard. Those are essential elements of HTML coding — it just doesn’t happen without them.  The other essential character in every pair of coding signals is the / (without which, whatever coding you’ve started will go on forever, which tends to make other people cross with the careless one).

Right, here we go . . .

To make something bold, just in front of that word or phrase, type <strong>. Where you want the boldface to quit, type </strong>. Thus:

<strong>bold</strong> = bold.

To italicize something, right in front of the word or phrase, type <em> and right behind it, </em>. So

<em>italics</em> = italics

To make an indented blockquote, type right in front of the passage <blockquote> and at its end </blockquote>.

<blockquote>indented blockquote</blockquote> =

indented blockquote

Now here’s the most intricate one, but once you get the hang of it, it’s easy too. To make a fancy-schmancy hyperlink instead of just simply cutting-&-pasting the URL of a source you want us to see,

1. type <a href=”[X]“> (note the space between the a and the h, and the pair of quotemarks after the equal sign; see next step for what [X] will be — I just have to put that here now to trick the site — don’t ask). Between the quotemarks,

2. drop in the URL of your source (copied from the address field at screen top). Then

3. right after the right-facing arrow, type whatever text you want us to see, either your own phrasing or perhaps the source’s headline. Finally,

4. snugged-up after the end of that phrase, type </a>. So:

<a href=”http://www.folo.us&#8221; mce_href=”http://www.folo.us”>linked text</a> = linked text

Go ahead, experiment (I’m headed to bed soon, so whatever trouble you get into won’t bovvah me, heh) — have fun, you bigtime computer-programmer, you!

Langston’s guilty plea, states [a Jerry Mitchell] article, arose from his involvement in one of [Dickie] Scruggs’s many fee disputes with fellow lawyers. The asbestos fee scandal will apparently result in Langston testifying that he worked with both Scruggs and son Zach in an attempt to improperly influence Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter, who issued rulings favorable to Scruggs in the case.

Also according to the article, Judge DeLaughter has denied any impropriety, so there’s one potential buyer right there.

Last year, a $4.6-million Gray Head home and land parcel owned by Enron principal Ken Rice, who is now serving a 27-month sentence in federal prison for securities fraud, was seized by U.S. marshals and put on the auction block.

Now, while it may indeed be that case that head-for-the-hills sounds like a plan to Bobby DeLaughter right about now, I just have my doubts that Peaks Real Estate Sotheby’s International Realty counts him a good prospective buyer for Joey. Somehow.

Mr. Brewer and Mr. Brooks were convicted based on faulty and possibly fraudulent forensic science. At the center of this injustice is Stephen Hayne, a medical examiner who performed autopsies on the victims in both cases. Hayne has said that he conducts 1,500 to 1,800 autopsies annually, or roughly 80 percent of all criminal autopsies in Mississippi. His credentials and the results of his work have been solidly discredited for several years, but he is under no oversight because the State Medical Examiner position created by the State Legislature in the 1980s has sat vacant for more than a decade. We are writing today to ask that you immediately fill this position. The case of Mr. Brewer and Mr. Brooks make clear why this oversight is necessary, and the State Legislature made clear two decades ago that it believes this is an important function.

By law, the State Medical Examiner must be a board-certified forensic pathologist. The State Medical Examiner is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the Commissioner of Public Safety. The State Legislature created the position in order to organize and standardize the work of medical examiners across the state and to raise the level of forensic services statewide. Two pathologists served as State Medical Examiners in the mid- to late-1980s, and in 1987 Stephen Hayne was appointed Interim State Medical Examiner. Because he is not a board-certified forensic pathologist, he was set to be removed from the interim position, so he resigned. Two subsequent State Medical Examiners were appointed, until Mr. Hayne and his allies forced the last State Medical Examiner from office in the mid-1990s. This critical position has been vacant since then.

Although a full investigation of cases involving Mr. Hayne has not been conducted, it is clear that in the cases of Mr. Brewer and Mr. Brooks, Mr. Hayne ignored the applicable science and objective facts. He provided improper testimony to help convict two innocent men in capital murder cases. In each case, he wrongly described indiscriminate scratches and bruises as human bite marks. He then compounded the error by securing an incorrect confirmation from his frequent employee and colleague, Michael West. Recently, a peer-review panel of top forensic odontologists from England, Canada and the United States issued a report completely rejecting Hayne’s and West’s conclusions in the cases of Mr. Brewer and Mr. Brooks. Moreover, Dr. Michael Baden, one of the nation’s preeminent forensic pathologists, also criticized the autopsy and in particular took issue with the testimonial assertion in both cases that even in the absence of blood in any of the relevant tissues, the injuries were inflicted ante-mortem. Assuming for the moment that Hayne’s errors were the result of incompetence rather than intentional fraud, one would expect that any board-certified forensic pathologist – a certification that Hayne lacks – would know that presumptively, the absence of blood in the tissue is indicative of post-mortem rather than ante-mortem occurrence. In short, Stephen Hayne’s improper forensic work and testimony contributed to serious miscarriages of justice – and the mechanism created by the State Legislature to prevent such problems was rendered useless because it has been vacant for so long.

Pathologist Stephen Hayne fires back: “When you don’t have facts, you have a tendency to engage in character assassination.”

Dr. Hayne asks for facts, apparently not satisfied with the blast from Innocence Project lawyers. Here are some more facts. I ask readers of this article (which ought to be required reading for those who care about justice in this state) to consider whether problems with the judiciary in Mississippi may go beyond judicial bribery cases.

H/t to Noudoucit for the Clarion-Ledger story.

Neither his own web site and his wikipedia entry really do him justice. The kids at Starkville High School’s Mississippi writers and musician project do a better job.

Update (important afterthought):

Perhaps the legislature should have delegated Bobby to write us a state song to replace our embarrassing old one. ending one legislator’s annual project to replace it.

Also, Mississippi Innocence Project director Tucker Carrington will be on Mississippi Edition today on public radio, talking about the 2 Noxubee County cases. Listen live here and pick it up in their archives later their archive of the Mississippi Edition shows.

Update:

A couple of comments from Tucker Carrington:

The passage of the DNA task force bill out of subcommittee is huge.  It’s a real meaningful step in the right direction.  I shouldmention that there was/is some real leadersip on this issuein jackson — senators Gray Tollison and Sidney Albritton–and Bobby Moak and Cecil Brown in the house.  And I should also mention the leadership of Jim Hood in the Brewer/Brooks cases.  When apprised of what had occurred with respect to the dna match and our belief in the inability of Noxubee authorities to do the right thing — he stepped in.

Passage of the task force, though good, means that hard work remains ahead to make sure that the whole idea is not consigned to some committee type purgatory — and then if the task force does good work that the good work is not ignored next year.  We  need constituents to reach out and continued stateleadership on these issues.

But also in the S-H you’ll find Emily Wagster Pettus’s AP story on the “comprehensive ethics and open-government bill” that could come up for debate today in the Mississippi Senate. “To me,” lieutenant guv Phil Bryant (R) tells Pettus, “It is the most important bill that I have been a part of. It was the top of my [campaign] agenda. We’ve talked about a sweeping ethics reform in this state. Its time is now.”

You can read all you want about the various measures proposed — but me, I lost interest the minute I hit this early sentence: “The fine would remain $100 for a board that is found to have violated the open meetings law.”

Sure, they’re serious.

Boudreaux been fish’n down by de bayou all day an he done run outta dem night crawlers. He be bout reddy to leave when he see a snake wit a big frog in his mouf. He know dem big bass fish like frogs, so he decide to steal dat froggie.

Dat snake, he be a cottonmouf water moccasin, so Boudreaux hafta be real careful or he get bit. He sneak up behine dat snake and grab him roun de haid. Dat ole snake don’t lak dat one bit. He squirm and wrap hisself roun Boudreaux’s arm try’n to get hissef free. But Boudreaux, he gotta real good grip on his haid, yeh.

Well, Boudreaux pry dat snake’s mouf open and get de frog and put it in he bait can. Now, Boudreaux know he cain’t let go dat snake or he’s gonna bite him good, but he got him a plan. He reach into de back pocket of he bib overalls and pull out a pint a moonshine likker. He pour some drops into de snake’s mouf. Well, dat snake’s eyeballs roll back in he haid and he body go limp. Wit dat, Boudreaux toss dat snake into de bayou, den he go back to fish’n.

While later Boudreaux feel sumpin tapp’n on he barefoot toe. He look down and dere be dat cottonmouf water moccasin, wid two more frogs.

~~~~~~~~~~~

So lissen here, cha: ol’ Boudreaux an folo’s pet cottonmouf Misss Sssally an NMC an I, we all wish’n you a three-frog Valentine’s Day (especially you, Kingfish)!

Balducci calls Patterson, who (apparently about to call him) says “Must have ESPN.” Patterson begins by saying: “One thing I wanted to tell you before I forget it, if, if you stop by, particularly since you’re stoppin’ by there to see Dickie, um, I mentioned very cryptically to P.L. one day last week that I have I had a pretty good problem that I had solved and I was gonna go head and solve it. What should I do And he said solve it and if you need help, let me know.”

This spectacularly echoes Balducci’s explanation about how Scruggs would learn of the bribery effort. Balducci regularly responds “Yep” throughout.

Balducci then responds, “Well, that’s exactly what I was gonna tell him today, is that I was just gonna tell him that I’ve taken care of somethin’ you and I had gotten handled and that I was gonna get you to talk to P.L. and let P.L. visit with him at some point.” [I can't tell who "him" is?]

Patterson: I’ve already done that, I mean, all I’ve, P.L. doesn’t know what it’s about or anything, he just, he does the amount, but..

Balducci: What’d you tell him?

Patterson: Forty.

Balducci: Ok, so you didn’t pad it?

Patterson: No, uh…

Balducci: Great job. Way to go.

Patterson: Yeah, I just told him the truth.

Patterson then said “do I got ahead and take care of it or what? And he said, yeah, go ahead and take care of it. I said, well, we’ve already taken care of half of it.” Balducci, having just left Lackey, said “I’ma just reinforce that this morning. I just stopped buy his office um, to pick up that thing that Sid [Backstrom] had gotten for me… “

“I called to Bethie,” says Balducci, “and she said he’s gonna be there this morning, so I’m going to go back on my way through.” Balducci says that he’s leaving Oxford heading south. “So what I’ma do is I’ma come back through here, I’ma stop and see him. I’m gonna lead with this issue and then I’m gonna tell him I need you to make two calls and get him to make those two phone calls.” I think Balducci is saying that he’s going to start with the “problem” he’d solved and then ask Scruggs to make a couple of calls.

Patterson: Yeah. Uh, mention IUPE to him. And uh, see what his reaction is. I think it’ll be very positive.

I have no idea what this is about. People in another comment thread have noted that there is a Mississippi uniform company called IUPE.

Patterson and Balducci then talk about someone transcribed as “Z” who never called Ballducci back (he’s mad!), and the conversation shifts again to calling folks in Richmond, and that someone named Donald McKetchen is talking about the way a bill is being marked in the Senate and what the caps will be. This, Balducci says, is good news. They disagree over that and who has better intelligence.

Then Balducci says “I’ve been on the phone with Biden this mornin’, that would be Jim Biden. I’m not tryin’ to be like Joey.” The then make plans to leave “with Norman” from New Albany on Saturday morning “and we’re gonna get there” [not sure where] “around noon, and we’re gonna be with the Bidens around noon. Then we’re gonna meet the black farmers at three” and have dinner at Seven. Sunday, Balducci and Patterson may meet alone “with Stith.”

There is information about the black farmer issue here. Somewhere along the line I read that Patterson and Balducci were signing up clients for when the bill described in that story was passed.

Here’s the thing. I’m trying out Google ads as a way of supporting the work of providing folo. But I can’t directly control their content (some of which, um . . . bemuses . . . me). I’m looking at Google’s ways of filtering less-appropriate ads, but basically, how it works is this:

Their software scans every word on a blog-page and somehow electronically matches Google clients’ ads to not only the blog-content but even the location of the viewing computer. (Last night folo webmaster riddenword, a Texan, and I, a Floridian, discovered that we were being shown two different sets of ads on the same folo page. How ’bout that?)

Anyhow, the ads are here because I need an income either from blogging or some other work. Because I vastly prefer producing this blog to any other work I’ve ever done, I’m hoping that running these ads will somehow allow me to continue it.

And if that means Ann Coulter hangs out here awhile today, all I can say is: We’re a vast improvement over her usual companions. Meh.

Most lawyers reading that pleading think it has echoes of an entrapment defense without coming out and saying it; I think this has come up in comments. I had not given too much thought to why they don’t come out and say it, other than it’s procedurally not going to quite work– entrapment is a defense (as in, put on after the government proves their case) and doesn’t stop the prosecution altogether the way their motion seeks to do. This morning, listening to a couple of law professors talking about the motion on Mississippi public radio (it was a good story, btw; watch for this morning’s Mississippi edition when it comes on line), I thought– is it even possible to make out an entrapment defense without the defendant testifying?

Which brings me to the article. Here’s the most interesting quote:

So what the defense is alleging sounds an awful lot like entrapment, but it never uses that word. Here’s why, I think. If a defendant mounts a formal entrapment defense, he must prove that, first, the government induced him to commit the crime and, second, that he had no predisposition to committing it.

There are lots of difficulties that come with invoking that defense, but chief among them is that the defendant opens the door to the government’s trying to prove other “similar” bad acts, even though the defendant hasn’t been charged with them in the indictment. (These become relevant to proving the defendant’s “predisposition” to commiting the crime)

The government already gave notice on January 28 that it will, in fact, try to introduce evidence of at least one such “similar act.” Prosecutors want to show that Scruggs was involved in a conspiracy to improperly influence a Hinds County state court judge, Bobby DeLaughter of Jackson, in early 2006. On January 7, Scruggs’s longtime friend (and erstwhile defense co-counsel in the federal bribery indictment), Joey Langston, in fact pled guilty to conspiring to corruptly influence DeLaughter at Scruggs behest. (Judge DeLaughter himself has not been charged with any wrongdoing, and has strenuously maintained his innocence.)

Can Scruggs prove he lacked predisposition without testifying himself? If he testifies, it opens up all kinds of problems, including those noted above (asking him about other crime evidence and the possibility that the government can use anything he gets excluded in his suppression motion by way of cross-examination.

The article goes on to suggest that Scruggs can’t really depend on a normal defense and must be planning on proving government misconduct and hoping for jury nullification. It’s my instinct about jurors in the division there in Oxford aren’t going to be much inclined toward that.