It is quite clear that Judge Vinson did not believe the ludicrous explanations of Scruggs and Mississippi AG Hood to account for their actions, writing that “there is a cloud of impropriety surrounding what Scruggs did and the nature of his eleventh hour arrangement with Hood.” But, he wrote, “the question is not whether Scruggs acted ethically; the question is whether he can be held criminally responsible in a contempt proceeding.” He ruled that the court has no personal jurisdiction over Scruggs in this case, noting that he was not a party or attorney-of-record in Renfroe v. Rigsby; and that his actions could not be construed as aiding and abetting the Rigsbys because they were not in violation of the injunction, having given the documents to Scruggs five months before the injunction: “It is legally and logically impossible for Scruggs to have aided and abetted the contempt of parties who committed no contempt.” He further ruled that even if the court had jurisdiction, Scruggs did not violate the clear “law enforcement exception” language of the injunction despite the suspicious timing of Hood’s request for the documents and other suspect actions by Scruggs and Hood: “Again, as then-Judge (now Justice) Stephen Breyer has observed, courts must read injunctions ‘to mean rather precisely what they say’.”

Dismissal of US v. Scruggs Alabama Contempt Case

Torkelsen is currently serving a 70 month prison sentence for stealing SBA funds in an unrelated case. His ex-wife Pamela was also indicted in that case and became a cooperating witness, not only against her ex-husband but against Milberg Weiss. A 2006 Law.com story here provides some interesting background.

The government’s notice of Latifi’s aquittal, which Judge Johnson ordered it to post, is here and Martin’s original indictment press release has disappeared from the website. It can still be viewed here.

It was not Gilabert’s first brush with Judge Wilson. He and his mother-in-law had been indicted for obstruction of justice for allegedly telling a mortgage broker to lie to FBI agents investigating the sale of two plots of land in Valencia. That case went to trial this past December, but Wilson acquitted them after calling the broker’s testimony “an abomination … maybe the worst I’ve ever seen.” (story here).

Still pending is the prosecution’s Friday motion requesting an anonymous jury, or alternatively a sequestered district-wide jury. The defense response late Monday opposes an anonymous jury but does not take a position on a sequestered jury.

In other Scruggs-related news:

• The AP has picked up the story (here) on the FBI Balducci memo bombshell; while in the Yeah, Right department, AG Hood tells WLBT that his decision not to prosecute State Farm was not influenced by outside forces.
• In an interview with Anita Lee, former Sen. Trent Lott tells the Sun Herald that he is not a target of any judicial bribery investigation, only a possible witness.
• In the Jones v. Scruggs civil case, the Katrina legal fee dispute that gave rise to the bribery case, Mississippi state Circuit Judge R. Kenneth Coleman on Tuesday postponed further action until the criminal case is completed. He made two other significant rulings: that the court has authority to impose sanctions on the members of the former Scruggs Katrina Group (now the Katrina Litigation Group, sans Scruggs), and that Scruggs’ actions would affect all the member firms (Legal Newsline here).
• The role of former Hinds County DA Ed Peters in a trade secrets lawsuit will be investigated. The case, Eaton v. Frisby (earlier), does not involve Dickie Scruggs, but like the Scruggs-related US v. Langston proceeding, it involves alleged improprieties by Peters and Hinds Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter (Clarion-Ledger).

Balducci further explained, prior to this March 2007 meeting [with Scruggs], the Scruggs Law Firm (SLF) was trying to settle some Katrina Insurance cases with the State Farm Insurance Company (SFIC). SLF and SFIC were near a settlement, however, Dickie Scruggs (DS) learned that the Mississippi State Attorney Generals office had threatened to indict SFIC due to some impasses between the Attorney General’s office and SFIC. SFIC was not going to settle the civil cases with SLF, if the company was going to be indicted by the Attorney Generals office. DS asked Steve Patterson (SP) to speak with Attorney General Jim Hood since SP and Hood had a long standing relationship. DS offered to pay Patterson Balducci $500,000 if they could get Hood to relent on indicting SFIC. Balducci accompanied SP to a meeting with Hood and Hood later agreed not to indict SFIC. SLF eventually settled with SFIC and that settlement yielded approximately $26 millions in attorneys fees….

So instead of the view that Hood threatened State Farm with criminal prosecution to benefit Scruggs’ civil cases, this scenario has Hood nearly screwing up Scruggs’ settlement with State Farm and has Scruggs (via Patterson) pressuring Hood to call off any criminal prosecution. If true, it certainly makes Hood look less competent than ever, if that’s possible.