Dickie Scruggs

Timothy Balducci and Steve Patterson were each sentenced to 24 months in prison on Friday by Senior US District Judge Neal Biggers in Oxford for their roles in the first Dickie Scruggs case involving the attempted bribery of Judge Henry Lackey. In both cases it was a downward departure from guidelines. Folo reports the real news here: AUSA Bob Norman needs both men to testify in person on March 23 before a grand jury in the ongoing investigation. Both men were ordered to report to prison on March 25 (Daily Journal, Clarion-Ledger).

Here (h/t folo). One count of conspiracy, one count of honest service mail fraud, two counts of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. The only other name on the indictment was Dickie Scruggs, whose named was removed in connection with his plea on Tuesday. However, count one names four other co-conspirators: Ed Peters, Joey Langston, Tim Balducci and Steve Patterson. Langston has already been sentenced to prison and Ed Peters has surrendered his law license and forfeited his proceeds, while Balducci and Patterson will be sentenced tomorrow for their roles in Scruggs I.

The indictment is still sealed this morning but Judge Bobby DeLaughter was arraigned before US Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander in Oxford and pleaded not guilty to all charges. We do know that it’s a five-count indictment, Daily Journal says it will be unsealed later today. Tom Freeland at folo reports that DeLaughter was in leg irons and handcuffs. More: Clarion-Ledger.

Dickie Scruggs pleaded guilty yesterday in US District Court in Aberdeen to a one count information charging him with honest services mail fraud. He was immediately sentenced to seven years in prison by US District Judge Glen Davidson. The sentence will run concurrently with the five year sentence he is already serving in connection with Scruggs I.

It was announced that his name had been removed from the list of names in a sealed indictment, confirming rumors that a sealed indictment exists, possibly containing more than just Judge Bobby DeLaughter’s name. USA Jim Greenlee afterwards said it would be unsealed shortly.

Scruggs has become a cooperating witness, and Tom Freeland at folo quotes AUSA Bob Norman: “His cooperation has opened several doors we need to investigate.” Could one or more of them lead to Washington?

From the courtroom: Tom Freeland at folo, Alan Lange at Y’all Politics. Also see: Daily Journal, Clarion Ledger.

The Clarion Ledger reports that he’ll be appearing on Tuesday in US District Court in Oxford to enter a guilty plea in the ongoing second case (h/t folo). He’s apparently en route from prison in the custody of the US Marshals Service. Meanwhile, Scruggs I defendants Tim Balducci and Steve Patterson will be sentenced next Friday.

With Joey Langston sentenced, the other shoe is about to drop in Scruggs II. On Tuesday, WLBT reported that former Hinds County DA Ed Peters has surrendered his law license. Tuesday evening, NMC at folo posted (.pdf) an order from US Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander seizing $425,000 from Peters; the funds are already in the possession of the United States Marshals Service:

The court is satisfied that based on the Verified Complaint For Forfeiture In Rem, as well as the Verification of the Complaint by Samuel D. Wright, Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi, United States Department of Justice, filed with this court on December 31, 2008, there is probable cause to believe that the Defendant property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(c) because it is property that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud), which constitutes a “specified unlawful activity” by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (c)(7)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1), collectively.

The Daily Journal has more here on the underlying complaint. Nothing has been announced yet, but it’s apparent that Peters has reached a plea agreement with federal prosecutors. This means that the hammer is about to drop on Judge Bobby DeLaughter and (again) on Dickie Scruggs. Will Scruggs II also ensnare Trent Lott and the mysterious P.L. Blake? Stay tuned.

Chief US District Judge Michael Mills on Tuesday sentenced Joey Langston to 36 months in prison for his role in the public corruption scandal now known as “Scruggs II” (Daily Journal, Clarion-Ledger). Langston pleaded guilty in January to a one-count information charging him with bribing Judge Bobby DeLaughter. He received the maximum sentence allowable under his plea agreement despite a a motion for downward departure filed by prosecutors last month citing his extensive cooperation. The implications for Bobby DeLaughter and Ed Peters (not to mention Dickie Scruggs) are ominous.

More: the Daily Journal hints at upcoming Scruggs II indictments, NMC’s courtroom commentary at folo, sentencing transcript (.pdf).

Eaton v. Frisby is a civil trade secrets case not directly related to Dickie Scruggs as far as we know, but it came to light as a result of what’s now known as the “Scruggs II” case. It’s under investigation by the FBI in connection with public corruption allegations against Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter and former Hinds County DA Ed Peters. Frisby maintains that DeLaughter started ruling in favor of Eaton once Peters secretly entered the case on behalf of Eaton.

In a Monday Clarion Ledger story, Jimmie Gates reports on a report filed under seal earlier this month by David Dogan III. Dogan was appointed Special Master in the case after an earlier turn of events we covered here, when DeLaughter removed the first special master under suspicious circumstances and the replacement special master resigned.

In the report, Dogan asserts that Peters maintained improper contact with DeLaughter and recommends that emails and documents showing the communication be produced in connection with the lawsuit.

The documents to be produced show a design, and in certain cases direct evidence, of engaging in contact with Judge DeLaughter on an ex parte basis. Such conduct is not permissible and is, as a matter of law, improper.

In addition to the federal investigation, DeLaughter is the subject of a continuing investigation by the Mississippi Judicial Performance Commission, which suspended him with pay. Circuit Judge Swan Yerger is now handling the lawsuit.

The Daily Journal reports that Joey Langston will be sentenced for his role in “Scruggs II” on December 16 before Chief US District Judge Michael Mills. Langston pleaded guilty in January to a one-count information charging him with bribing Judge Bobby DeLaughter. I anticipate more pleas and/or indictments shortly. Here’s our recent coverage.

The “other” criminal matter involving Dickie Scruggs is the case in which Joey Langston pleaded guilty in January to bribing Judge Bobby DeLaughter via former Hinds County DA Ed Peters on behalf of Scruggs to influence the Wilson v. Scruggs civil suit. Prosecutors are referring to this case as “Scruggs II”. We’ve heard nothing recently until last week, when prosecutors filed a motion for downward departure from the maximum sentence permitted under Langston’s plea agreement. The motion was supposed to be filed under seal; it was inadvertently made public and quickly withdrawn.

While it’s no secret that Langston pleaded guilty (.pdf) and agreed to cooperate in exchange for a maximum sentence of 36 months, the withdrawn filing contained details not intended to be made public. Still, we can tell you that the case is very much alive (Clarion-Ledger, AP/Sun Herald).

We recently noted Zach Scruggs’ ludicrous attempt to redefine his disbarment. On Thursday, the Mississippi Supreme Court rejected his motion:

EN BANC
2008-BD-00486-SCT

The Mississippi Bar v. David Zachary Scruggs; Disposition: Motion for rehearing filed by David Zachary Scruggs is denied. Easley, Graves and Randolph, JJ., would grant.

Is this the end of the matter? Or will Zach file a new motion disputing the meaning of “denied”?

(h/t folo)

On July 28 Zach Scruggs was permanently disbarred from practicing law in Mississippi. His March 21 plea hearing transcript contains this exchange:

THE COURT : All right, Mr. Scruggs. Of course, the legal profession that you say you love so much, you will not be a part of it the rest of your life. You understand that?
THE DEFENDANT : Yes, Your Honor.

But that was oh so long ago! Now Zach doesn’t see it that way at all. He now claims that Mississippi Bar rules “do not provide for permanent disbarment.” He has asked the Mississippi Supreme Court for clarification and has filed a motion in US District Court asking for a stay of federal disbarment until the question is resolved (Daily Mississippian, Daily Journal).

Rule 6 of the Mississippi Bar’s Rules of Discipline doesn’t contain the word “permanent.” However, it doesn’t appear to provide for reinstatement except in cases of reversal of conviction (or judgment).

Last week’s surprising announcement that Thomas and Pamela McIntosh were dropping extra-contractual and punitive damage claims against State Farm indicated that the case was about to settle. On Monday, a confidential settlement was announced and US District Judge L. T. Senter dismissed the case (.pdf). While the McIntoshes’ attorney Chip Merlin claimed that the settlement had no bearing on other pending State Farm lawsuits, State Farm’s press release, although certainly biased, really hits the nail on the head by describing the case the “centerpiece of Dickie Scruggs’ flawed Katrina legal strategy.” The Sun Herald has more here.

That hammering sound you hear on the Mississippi coast isn’t coming from people boarding up for another Gulf hurricane–it’s the sound of more nails in the coffin lid of the former Scruggs Katrina Group’s once-grand plans to extort unwarranted punitive damage settlements from State Farm.

In McIntosh v. State Farm, on Monday the new attorneys for Thomas and Pamela McIntosh on Monday filed a Motion For Dismissal With Prejudice Of Extra-Contractual And Punitive Damage Claims, conceding among other things that the majority of their damage was caused by flood, that State Farm promptly paid their wind damage and the full limits of their flood policy, and that there is no credible evidence of bad faith or other conduct that would give rise to punitive damages. State Farm quicky responded and US District Judge L. T. Senter wasted no time approving. Per Anita Lee’s Sun-Herald story there’s still an issue of actual wind damages.

And if you should hear a whooshing sound, that’s just the wind being knocked out of the Rigsby sisters’ sails in ex rel. Rigsby, the qui tam case.

The action in the US v. Scruggs bribery case which sent Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sid Backstrom to prison is now at a lull pending the (not yet scheduled) sentencing of Tim Balducci and Steve Patterson. However, there’s still the matter of the case in which Joey Langston pleaded guilty in January to bribing Judge Bobby DeLaughter via former Hinds County DA Ed Peters on behalf of Scruggs to influence the Wilson v. Scruggs civil suit. A federal grand jury which will meet in Oxford beginning August 19 is scheduled to hear the case. Langston, Patterson and Balducci are expected to testify. All three met last week with officials from the DOJ’s Public Integrity Division.This case has the potential to reveal much broader patterns of corruption; a certain former US senator could have a Lott of anxiety come next week (Clarion Ledger).

Meanwhile, the now-suspended DeLaughter is under investigation in at least three other cases unrelated to Scruggs but involving Peters. C-L stories here and here discuss recent developments in two of them.

The Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday announced the permanent disbarment of Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sid Backstrom, as expected (Sun Herald).

Dickie and Zach Scruggs were compelled to give depositions last week in McIntosh v. State Farm. It was reported (to no one’s surprise) that they invoked their Fifth Amendment rights. They wanted the depositions sealed, which State Farm opposed. On Wednesday, the transcripts were made public, and many of the questions posed by State Farm attorneys were certainly eye-openers, alleging details of a wide ranging scheme involving Trent Lott, Jim Hood, the Rigsbys and others. Y’all Politics has the details and the Sun Herald also has a story. State Farm on Tuesday filed an emergency motion to compel testimony, but considering the possible further criminal implications for both Dickie and Zach Scruggs, it would be surprising if the motion were granted.

Meanwhile, in a rewrite of Tuesday’s story, the Sun Herald reported Wednesday that the Rigsbys have obtained new counsel in the qui tam case, Gilbert Randolph of Washington.

It’s beyond our scope to delve into all the filings in ex rel. Rigsby, the qui tam case filed by Kerri Rigsby and Cori Rigsby Moran, formerly represented by Dickie Scruggs. But the latest ones are of importance because if true, they confirm what those of us without blinders have suspected all along: that the whole production was staged by Scruggs from the beginning, well before either he or the Rigsbys insist they met each other.

State Farm has filed a response opposing Provost Umphrey’s entry for the Rigsbys, as they earlier indicated they would. In support of certain of the arguments in that motion, State Farm also presented transcripts from adjuster Tammy Hardison and her assistant Dana Lee, former Rigsby coworkers at E. A. Renfroe. We won’t go into all the jaw-dropping details, but David Rossmiller has an excellent and hilarious review of the content. We agree with his assesment: “The Ride of the Rigsbys is definitely over, finished, bye-bye, ancient history, kaput, ausgespielt.” Anita Lee at the Sun Herald has a story here.

Provost Umphrey of Beaumont, Texas, the law firm which has picked up some of the clients from the now-disqualifed Scruggs Katrina group in the Shows v. State Farm RICO lawsuit, has filed a Motion for Leave to discuss and consider representing the Rigsby sisters in ex rel. Rigsby, the qui tam case. They also ask for an extension of the deadline for the Rigsbys to obtain representation. Oddly, the motion was filed in connection with a different civil action, Alford v. State Farm, yet it seeks relief for Provost Umphrey, not Alford. Attorneys for State Farm quickly filed a notice of intent to respond in opposition to the firm’s attempt to represent the Rigsbys, but will not oppose giving the Rigsbys more time to obtain new counsel The Sun Herald story has links to both filings.

The Bureau of Prisons has ordered Dickie Scruggs to report to the low security federal prison in Ashland, Kentucky on August 4. Zach Scruggs has been ordered to report to the minimum security federal prison camp in Pensacola, Florida on August 15. Co-defendant Sid Backstrom was assigned earlier to the low security federal prison in Forest City, Arkansas, as he had requested; he reports on August 4. (Sun Herald).

Now that legal proceedings have concluded, disbarment of the three defendants is imminent (Sun Herald). The Mississippi Bar’s earlier motions to suspend were never acted upon, possibly because of the Mississippi Supreme Court’s limited schedule after sprinkler flooding damaged the Court’s offices in May.

“Justice should be dispensed just as surely to the powerful and well-connected as anyone else.” Guest columnist Craig Ziemba has an excellent op-ed in The Meridian Star.

Attorneys for Zach Scruggs yesterday filed a motion (h/t folo) asking the court to recommend that the Bureau of Prisons assign him to serve his sentence at the minimum security Federal Prison Camp in Pensacola. This was not requested at sentencing because his attorneys were sure he wouldn’t be sentenced to prison. This is the same facility Dickie Scruggs has requested. As previously noted, Paul Minor is already housed there, and Dickie Scruggs testified against him.

Here’s the Zach Scruggs sentencing transcript. Judge Biggers determined that “with a total offense level of 16 and a criminal history category of one, the guideline range of imprisonment is 21 to 27 months…” He departed downward to reach the level 16 offense and then departed downward to the 14 month sentence, making the likelihood of a successful appeal of the sentence highly unlikely. Mike Moore’s performance can charitably be called oblivious — see pages 6 thru 11 of the transcript. He apparently relied on AUSA Thomas Dawson’s reiteration of the government’s probation recommendation to protect his client from a prison sentence, despite the umistakable language in the plea agreement, the court’s clear warning in the plea hearing and the court’s specific reference to Zach Scruggs’ role during Dickie Scruggs’ sentencing last week. Yet sources quote Moore saying on public radio,”We had no expectation that the judge would sentence him to jail today. None.” Judge Biggers has set August 15 as Zach Scruggs’ surrender date.

Apparently Zach Scruggs and attorneys Mike Moore and Todd Graves were stunned. Despite the government’s recommendation of probation, the sentence does not surprise us considering Judge Biggers’ comments at Dickie Scruggs’ sentencing last Friday concerning Zach’s involvement. Tom (NMC) Freeland at folo from the courtroom here and here, Clarion-Ledger. As in the sentencings of Dickie Scruggs and Sid Backstrom, Judge Biggers imposed a $250,000 fine which is an upward departure to include the cost of incarceration.

The Sun Herald has the story and the presentencing memorandum. Zach Scruggs will be sentenced tomorrow. He pleaded guilty on March 21 to misprision of a felony (earlier). While prosecutors recommended probation, his plea agreement and the plea hearing transcript make it clear that the court is not bound by the recommendation. While the US Probation Office’s presentence report is not public, it can be deduced from today’s memorandum that some prison time was recommended. US District Judge Neal Biggers can sentence him to as much as three years in prison, and given Judge Biggers’ remarks in the Dickie Scruggs sentencing transcript last Friday, Zach Scruggs has reason to be concerned.

The Sun Herald has the Dickie Scruggs sentencing transcript in plain text, Folo has a partial transcript from the Backstrom sentencing. The Clarion-Ledger has reactions from various parties, including Judge Henry Lackey. Alan Lange at Y’all Politics criticizes the questionable post-sentencing comments of AG Jim Hood and former AG Mike Moore. The Sun Herald points out that the minimum security Pensacola prison Scruggs has requested is the same one that houses Paul Minor whom Scruggs testified against; the Bureau of Prisons is unlikely to allow both men in the same facility. Alan Lange’s editorial is outstanding, and the Sun Herald’s editorial is also worthwhile. UPDATE: here’s the official transcript of Dickie Scruggs’ sentencing hearing; the Backstrom transcript is here. (h/t folo).

There has been some confusion in the reporting of the length of the sentence, but both the Daily Journal and folo are reporting that Sid Backstrom was sentenced to 28 months in prison this afternoon by US District Judge Neal Biggers in Oxford. That’s two months less than the maximum under his plea agreement, which capped his sentence at no more than half of whatever sentence Dickie Scruggs received. As with Scruggs, Backstrom was fined $250,000 and ordered to pay for the cost of his incarceration. He was ordered to report to prison on August 4. The court accepted a defense request to ask for imprisonment at Forrest City, Arkansas. UPDATE: here’s the transcript (h/t folo).

The Sun Herald reports that US District Judge Neal Biggers has sentenced Dickie Scruggs to five years in prison, the maximum under the plea agreement, plus a $250,000 fine. He was ordered to report to prison on August 4 “in a facility that offers mental health and drug treatment.” Tom (NMC) Freeland at folo reports that in response to Ole Miss Chancellor Robert Khayyat’s letter (earlier), which among other things called imprisoning Scruggs “a waste of taxpayers’ money”, Judge Biggers increased the fine to account from the cost of incarceration.

Representatives from the Sun-Herald (here and here), folo, the Daily Journal, and others were allowed to examine the sentencing recommendation letters from the public on behalf of Dickie and Zach Scruggs and Sid Backstrom. Tom (NMC) Freeland at folo called the positive letters “pretty standard: most accept the gravity of the offense and guilt, but try to explain positive things they have seen about the various defendants over the years.” That’s to be expected from family, friends and associates.

The lowlight: a letter from Ole Miss Chancellor Robert Khayyat on University stationery enthusiastically fawning over Dickie Scruggs, calling him a “model citizen” and calling any incarceration “an absolute waste of a great deal of talent and ability.” We’re talking about an admitted judge briber here, someone who attempted to corrupt justice, and the university’s chancellor thinks that’s excusable in a major financial contributor.

The missing: nothing from Jim Hood, Trent Lott, Mike Moore or P.L. Blake.

The opposition: criticism from Mississippi Bar president Robert Bailess and an unnamed retired Oxford police officer.

Those who examined the letters were not allowed to copy them, which prompted this outstanding response from commenter Fyodor1 at Y’all Politics: “Can we just send in Sandy Berger to help get copies of all the letters? He has a good track record at getting documents.”

UPDATE: Anita Lee at the Sun Herald has more excerpts from the letters.

In a sentencing memorandum filed on Wednesday, attorneys for Dickie Scruggs asked the court to impose a 30 month sentence instead of the maximum 60 months allowed under his plea agreement. His primary argument is that the potential benefit from the bribe has been grossly mischaracterized by the US Probation Office (also argued by Backstrom) and that the value of the bribe should only be the amount of the bribe. By his calculation, Scruggs claims a 30-37 month range is called for by the guidelines. While Scruggs does acknowledge his offense, the document is remarkably void of any sense of remorse, and he continues to argue about his role in the conspiracy, as he did at his plea hearing. Whatever the merits of his arguments, the tone of the memorandum is not likely to impress Judge Biggers.

The government response (to both Dickie Scruggs and Sid Backstrom) argues that the intent of the bribe determines the benefit and that even at the $50,000 bribe amount Scruggs’ guideline would be 46-57 months; further, that Backstrom’s argument is moot because even just using the bribe amount, his range would more than the 30 month cap under his plea agreement. The government is seeking the maximum allowed under the plea agreements for both defendants (Sun Herald).

UPDATE: The government has subpoenaed John Jones’ attorney Grady Tollison to testify at the sentencing hearing. He expects to be asked about the amount of legal fees at stake in Jones v. Scruggs (Sun Herald).

US District Judge Neal Biggers on Monday denied Sid Backstrom’s motion to reconsider his June 20th order allowing prior press and public access to sentencing recommendation letters written on behalf of the US v. Scruggs et al defendants (earlier). This time he cites US v. (Scooter)Libby as a public interest precedent and also cites US v. Halat, a federal murder case from Mississippi. Barring further objections, the Sun Herald will be allowed to view the letters on Wednesday and to make them public in advance of this Friday’s sentencing of Backstrom and Dickie Scruggs (h/t folo). UPDATE: at least three others will be granted access, including Tom (NMC) Freeland of folo. Stay tuned.

Wasting no time, US District Judge Neal Biggers on Friday granted the Sun Herald’s motion to allow prior press and public access to presentencing recommendation letters written on behalf of Dickie Scruggs and his co-defendants (earlier). The paper will be allowed to examine the letters on Wednesday June 25, two days prior to the sentencing of Dickie Scruggs and Sid Backstrom (story, order). This should make for an interesting week. UPDATE (h/t dmwriter via folo): Backstrom’s attorneys have now asked Judge Biggers to reconsider.

In other Scruggs news, US District Judge L.T. Senter on Monday denied the Rigsby sisters’ motion to reconsider his May 19 order disqualifying Kansas City lawyers Todd Graves, Chip Robertson and their respective law firms from Ex rel. Rigsby and granted them 45 days to get new counsel or proceed pro se (Sun Herald).

Judge Senter on Friday also upheld US Magistrate Judge Robert Walker’s May 15 order compelling Dickie Scruggs to turn over a raft of documents in the McIntosh v. State Farm case (earlier); h/t Y’all Politics.

In a motion filed on Tuesday, the Sun Herald asked US District Judge Neal Biggers to allow prior press and public access to presentencing recommendation letters written on behalf of Dickie Scruggs and co-defendants Zach Scruggs, Sid Backstrom, Tim Balducci and Steve Patterson. The motion claims a legitimate public interest and cites a Ninth Circuit case in support. Dickie Scruggs and Backstrom are to be sentenced on June 27, Zach Scruggs on July 2. Sentencing has not been scheduled for Balducci and Patterson (motion, story).

Judge Biggers already noted that the court had received numerous letters solicited by the defendants asking for leniency, and ruled that each defendant would only be allowed three character witnesses each. However many letters there are, Judge Biggers is obviously not going to let the sentencing hearings be turned into a sideshow. But it certainly would be interesting to see which recipients of campaign contributions, other public officeholders and community leaders have recommended leniency for defendants who admittedly tried to bribe a judge.

Attorneys for Sid Backstrom on Wednesday filed a 16-page objection to the presentencing report from the US Probation Office. While the report itself has not been made public, Backstrom has objected to the calculation that he would have received $5.3 million from a successful bribe of Judge Henry Lackey and has disputed the claim that he “recruited, supervised or managed” co-defendants Tim Balducci and Steve Patterson. Backstrom and Dickie Scruggs are to be sentenced on June 27 (Daily Journal). The attempted bribe was to get Judge Lackey to send Jones v. Scruggs to arbitration, not to decide Jones’ $26.5 million suit in Scruggs’ favor, so the objection is at least understandable though not convincing.

The DJ story also says the motion “suggests the PSR seeks a punishment three times greater than he thinks it should be.” Since the maximum sentence Dickie Scruggs can receive under his plea agreement is 5 years in prison, and since Backstrom’s plea agreement allows no more than half of Scruggs’ sentence, this suggests either that Backstrom is pushing for a 10 month sentence or that the Probation Office is recommending sentencing enhancements even though both plea agreements have been accepted by the court.

In Scruggs Katrina Group news, US District Judge L.T. Senter on Thursday denied State Farm’s move to disqualify the Provost-Umphrey law firm from representing former SKG clients in the Shows v. State Farm RICO lawsuit (earlier), but with stipulations to insure that there will be no participation, fee sharing or any kind of financial arrangement between Provost-Umphrey and any of the disqualified SKG firms (Sun Herald, Judge Senter’s ruling).

In February, US District Judge Roger Vinson dismissed with prejudice the US v. Scruggs Northen District of Alabama case in which Dickie Scruggs was being prosecuted for criminal contempt of court (earlier). While Judge Vinson clearly did not believe Scruggs,he ruled that Scruggs was not criminally responsible.

US District Judge William Acker is clearly peeved by that ruling and more than peeved at Scruggs and the Rigsby sisters. On Thursday, he found Scruggs and the Rigsbys in civil contempt in the case and ordered them to pay $65,000 in attorney fees to E. A. Renfroe within 30 days. His order makes it clear that proceedings will not be stayed unless the Eleventh Circuit orders it. But that’s the tame part. His memorandum is a withering and intemperate attack on Scruggs, the Rigsbys and Mississippi AG Jim Hood. Some examples: what Scruggs did is called “too cute by half.” Hood is called a so-called ‘law enforcement official’.” “Scruggs and the Rigsbys were as ‘joined-at-the-hip’ as any set of Siamese twins.”

While all that may well be true, it’s shocking to see it officially expressed that way. It almost seems like an attack deliberately timed to embarrass Scruggs three weeks ahead of his sentencing. Judge Acker has let his anger get the best of him.

Due to a scheduling conflict, US District Judge Neal Biggers on Tuesday moved the sentencing date for Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sid Backstrom from July 2 to June 27. Dickie Scruggs moved to reschedule because his lead attorney John Keker had a scheduling conflict, and the other defendants did not object (AP).

UPDATE (h/t folo): It seems the chip doesn’t want to follow the old block. Zach Scruggs objected to moving up sentencing five days, so his sentencing date stays at July 2.

The Rigsby qui tam “trailer lawyers” from Kansas City have filed a motion to reconsider their disqualification from Ex rel. Rigsby by US District Judge L.T. Senter (earlier). It’s yet another over-the-top motion, this time attacking Judge Senter as well as State Farm. Rossmiller’s analysis is well worth the read.

In McIntosh v. State Farm, State Farm responds to Scruggs’ objections to US Magistrate Judge Robert Walker’s order requiring him to turn over a host of documents.

US District Judge Neal Biggers on Thursday set July 2 as the sentencing date for Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sid Backstrom. His initial order set the sentencing hearing on June 18 but rescheduled after Dickie Scruggs objected because he had only received his presentencing report from the US Probation Office on Tuesday and said the earlier date would not give him adequate time to review it. Biggers also noted that the court had received numerous letters solicited by the defendants asking for leniency, and ruled that each defendant would only be allowed three character witnesses each (Judge Biggers’ Order, Sun Herald).

The Renfroe defendants in Ex rel. Rigsby (adjusting firm E.A. Renfroe and its owners Gene and Jana Renfroe) have now moved for summary judgment. The basis for the motion is the this case is that the allegations in the qui tam case were publicly disclosed on at least four separate occasions beginning more than seven months before the Rigsby sisters filed their original complaint and that the Rigsbys offered no independent and original knowledge of the allegations. The motion also alleges that the Rigsbys have failed to present any specific records that show fraudulent claims handling.  State Farm made a similar argument in its earlier motion to dismiss, but the Renfroe motion goes into more detail. The Sun Herald has a story here.

In McIntosh v. State Farm, US Magistrate Judge Robert Walker has stayed his May 15 order (earlier) requiring Dickie Scruggs to turn over number of documents to State Farm by today, pending resolution of objections by Scruggs. NMC at folo has a good analysis here.

Recent developments in matters related to Dickie Scruggs:

We noted earlier that the disqualified former SKG attorney Don Barrett had written his clients on April 18 to advise them that the Provost-Umphrey law firm (headquartered in Beaumont, Texas) had agreed to take over their cases. Both firms share a Nashville office. A May 10 Sun Herald story indicated that Provost-Umphrey had picked up about 200 of the firm’s approximately 400 former Katrina clients. However, State Farm contractor E. A. Renfroe on May 20 asked the court to determine if Provost-Umphrey is an “associated firm” in connection with the disqualification order. This was followed by a May 22 State Farm motion objecting to Provost-Umphrey’s appearance and asking the court to compel compliance with its previous motion of disqualification. In light of the associations between the two firms alleged in the memorandums supporting the motions, and the fact that Barrett provided client information to Provost-Umphrey and actively worked to move clients, it’s hard to see Judge Senter allowing Provost-Umphrey’s appearance to stand (Renfroe memorandum, State Farm memorandum, Sun Herald).

At former Sen. Jean Carnahan’s Fired Up Missouri, Howard Beale takes Rigsby qui tam “trailer lawyer” Todd Graves to task, blasting his lack of ethics and suggesting that he may be subject to bar complaint in Missouri due to his conduct in Mississippi:

It really shouldn’t be so surprising that the same man who as U.S. Attorney would have been responsible for investigating or prosecuting a Governor whose acts took place in his District but who saw no problem with his wife’s accepting a lucrative patronage plum from the very same Governor would also see no ethical barrier to cashing in by turning a blind eye to the unethical and inappropriate situation arranged by his fellow attorneys in the Rigsby imbroglio. All of a piece.

Eaton v. Frisby is a civil trade secrets case not directly related to Dickie Scruggs as far as we know, but it is being investigated by the FBI in connection with public corruption allegations against Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter and former Hinds County DA Ed Peters (earlier here and here), who are also under investigation in connection with at least one Scruggs case, Wilson v. Scruggs. Last week both Peters and DeLaughter were subpoenaed after senior Hinds County Circuit Judge Swan Yerger, who is presently handling the case, issued an order allowing the subpoenas “to determine whether Ed Peters attempted to or did improperly influence any judicial officer and to determine whether any other person or entity participated in or had knowledge of any such efforts” (Clarion Ledger). Peters has moved to quash, but DeLaughter has responded, and his response is telling. While he claims not to have much of the requested information and objects to other requests on grounds of relevancy or confidentiality, he in effect admits furnishing Ed Peters with draft orders and opinions in this case: “Respondent is not aware of an particular opinion or order that may have been furnished to Ed Peters, but any such opinion and/order would not have been any different than that also furnished to all attorneys in the case.” He makes a similar statement regarding information requested re Wilson v. Scruggs. Keeping in mind that Peters had never made an appearance in either case and that his behind-the-scenes involvement was unknown until Joey Langston’s guilty plea, this is quite an ominous admission.

Jerry Mitchell’s Sunday Clarion Ledger story asserts that DOJ officials are considering racketeering charges against Dickie Scruggs in connection with the Wilson v. Scruggs asbestos fee dispute case involving the alleged corruption of Hinds Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter. The article is short on detail but the investigation has been active. Joey Langston pleaded guilty in January to offering a bribe to DeLaughter on behalf of Scruggs in the case.

Lest we forget, in Scruggs’ March plea hearing in the Lackey bribery case, AUSA Thomas Dawson stated “I want to make it painfully clear that the investigation with respect to the Wilson matter that is currently under investigation — that this plea agreement and this plea has no affect with respect to any charging decision or subsequent prosecution with respect to that case.” Mitchell does report that Scruggs apparently rejected a plea deal in March that would have included the Wilson case along with his plea in the Lackey case.

Stay tuned.

There has been no news of late in the ongoing federal bribery investigation of Judge Bobby DeLaughter, former Hinds County DA Ed Peters and Dickie Scruggs in connection with the Wilson v. Scruggs state asbestos fees case, but there is an April 22 filing in the fees case which is of interest. Wilson’s motion for sanctions filed by his attorney Vicki Slater lays out the allegations of bribery in much greater detail than previously revealed in Joey Langston’s guilty plea in January. Of particular interest is a description of how information was allegedly passed between Scruggs’ associates and DeLaughter via Peters and how the rulings were previewed and worked out in advance. The motion asks that all Scruggs’ pleadings after January 2006 be stricken from the case and that all DeLaughter’s rulings after January 2006 favoring Scruggs be declared null and void.

It’s slo-pitch season at the Biloxi Sun-Herald. Anita Lee’s Sunday interview with Cori and Kerri Rigsby lobbed such softballs at the sisters that the paper acted as their mouthpiece, allowing them to deliberately misrepresent what occurred and failing to ask some very pertinent questions.

“I guess they’re going to get away with hiding the truth,” Kerri Rigsby said. “That’s what they’ve been trying to do the whole time. There is no justice. How is State Farm now the good guy?”

In fact, no one is claiming State Farm is the “good guy.” State Farm may possibly have unfairly denied some claims or even engaged in a pattern of unfair claims practices. But that has not been established one way or the other in a court of law. And why not? Because the whole modus operandi of Dickie Scruggs and his stooges has been to extort settlements from companies before cases are heard, preventing evidence from being examined and facts from being established. He files class action lawsuits with the intention of intimidating companies into settling; he operates hand-in-hand with cronies who present themselves to the defendants as shakedown artists “facilitators” to negotiate settlements. The Rigsby Sister Act was an essential part of the process in the Katrina cases.

The Rigsbys wish they had known what they were getting into. They found out after the fact that whistle-blowers suffer a common fate: retaliation, lost wages, stress and more stress.

In fact, the Rigsbys are not whistleblowers. On April 4, US District Judge L.T. Senter ruled that they wrongfully appropriated the documents. He excluded the documents and disqualified the sisters from testifying. The effect of his ruling is that their actions were not protected whistleblower actions under the False Claims Act. If ex rel. Rigsby somehow is allowed to continue, which is highly doubtful since the US Attorney has so far declined to join the case, it will be in spite of the Rigsbys.

The report’s conclusions about the timing of surge and wind dovetailed with a State Farm “wind-water protocol” vetted and edited by corporate executives and attorneys in Bloomington. The protocol, an internal company document…

In fact, the anti-concurrent causation clause is part of the standard policy language, not some secret company plot to ignore policy language.

The sisters said they were naive in February 2006 when they first reported in a meeting with policyholders’ attorney Dickie Scruggs…

The Rigsbys …went to Scruggs, taking with them records from State Farm files. They had begun saving and copying the records in the fall of 2005.

In fact, they used a list of Dickie Scruggs’ clients to determine what documents to steal, months before they allegedly first met him. It’s in their own depositions. Yet Ms. Lee repeatedly fails to challenge them.

In a related puff-piece, the Sun-Herald reports here on the Rigsbys’ latest response in the qui tam case.

Developments in State Farm-related Katrina cases since US District Judge L.T. Senter’s momentous ruling earlier this month in McIntosh v. State Farm (here):

• Yes, he really meant it: If there were any doubt that his ruling applied to any attorneys even peripherally related to Scruggs Katrina Group/Katrina Litigation Group cases, it was dispelled on April 16 when Judge Senter disqualified the Taylor-Martino law firm from representing McIntosh because the firm had provided assistance to one of the KLG firms.

• Citing Judge Senter’s ruling, US District Judge Halil Ozerden on April 11 disqualified KLG, the Rigsby documents and the Rigsby sisters as witnesses from another Southern District of Mississippi case, Kreeger v. State Farm. US District Judge William Barbour on April 16 did likewise in Shows v. State Farm, the RICO case filed last year by SKG.

• State Farm moved to dismiss ex rel. Rigsby (the qui tam case) for lack of jurisdiction, to disqualify the Rigsbys’ lawyers, and for summary judgment. The two Kansas City law firms representing the Rigsby sisters (Graves, Bartle & Marcus and Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny) filed an emergency motion to stay proceedings pending a ruling on the motion to disqualify. State Farm fired back immediately, pointing out among other things that the Kansas City firms are already disqualified under Judge Senter‘s ruling.

• The motion to disqualify the Kansas City firms accuses several of the attorneys — including (fired US Attorney for Missouri) Todd Graves — of being present when the Rigsbys met with Dickie Scruggs in his trailer on the beach at Pascagoula in 2006 and illegally accessing password protected proprietary documents belonging to State Farm. This was based on Kerri Rigsby’s own deposition. Graves and Tony DeWitt (of BFR&G) went on the attack with a public hissy fit (here), specifically denying that they were ever on State Farm’s computer system. But that was a deliberate dodge, because that’s not what State Farm claims they did. They carefully avoided denying being present at the trailer meetings and accessing documents that the Rigsbys downloaded. Rossmiller has all the Rigsby depositions here.

• On Monday, the Kansas City lawyers responded to State Farm‘s disqualification motions, and both Graves and DeWitt filed affidavits. Graves acknowledges being present at one of the two trailer meetings, DeWitt at both. NMC at folo has an excellent analysis here.

• Rossmiller notes here that Don Barrett of the Barrett Law Office, one of the now-disqualified KLG firms, advised clients in an April 18 letter that the Provost-Umphrey law firm has agreed to take their cases. A commenter notes: “The address for the Nashville Provost-Umphrey office is the same as that on Barrett Law Office letterhead for the Nashville office. Remarkable.”

We’ll have more on the Rigsby sister act shortly.

Circuit Court Judge William Coleman on Wednesday granted the motion by the Jones, Funderburg law firm to sanction Dickie Scruggs and all the other members of the former Scruggs Katrina Group and enter a default (here and earlier), striking the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. He also granted Jones’ reasonable attorney fees in this proceeeding in addition to the question of damages originally sought from the partnership. He has scheduled a hearing on damages for November 12, 2008. H/t to David Rossmiller for the order, here. Legal Newsline has more here.

Jones v. Scruggs is the state civil suit between the Jones, Funderburg law firm and its former Scruggs Katrina Group partners over disputed legal fees which resulted in the federal bribery charges against Dickie Scruggs and his four co-defendants. A hearing was held in Oxford on Tuesday before state Circuit Court Judge William Coleman on Jones’ motion to sanction all the members of the group and enter a default judgment against the other law firms; Jones is seeking 20% of all past attorney fees from Katrina litigation as well as the firm’s legal fees in this case.

Alyssa Schnugg covers the hearing in the Oxford Eagle here and AP’s coverage is here. But NMC @ folo liveblogged the hearing in six parts beginning here, giving us a much broader picture. Of particular interest is the testimony of Judge Henry Lackey, especially in part 3; these are his first extensive public statements about what happened, and it’s quite apparent from his testimony that he was outraged, referring to Dickie Scruggs as a monster. If Scruggs’ attorney Cal Mayo expected to impeach Lackey’s testimony, he failed badly. And in final arguments (part 6), Mayo ran afoul of Judge Coleman by referring to the bribery as an “ethical lapse” and appearing to argue entrapment. If he was intending to portray his client in a better light, he again failed badly.

Judge Coleman expects to issue a ruling today. His statements on Tuesday indicate that his decision will apply to all defendants.

Zach Scruggs appears to have realized the possible consequences of his motion asking the Mississippi Supreme Court to dismiss the disbarment complaint initiated by the Mississippi Bar (earlier). In a response filed on Wednesday with the Mississippi Supreme Court, he told the court that he would not fight suspension of his law license and that his earlier objection to disbarment was meant to give him time to straighten out his clients’ affairs. The response filed by his attorney Mike Martz  states that he “is truly and humbly sorry for his actions” and that he “takes full responsibility for his acts and is prepared to accept the full consequences from all of the courts involved and the Mississippi Bar” (Sun Herald). Zach Scruggs pleaded guilty on March 21 to a one-count information for misprision of a felony in connection with the bribery of Judge Henry Lackey.

In a stunning decision on Friday in Gulfport, Mississippi, US District Judge L.T. Senter disqualified the remaining partners of the former Scruggs Katrina Group (now renamed the Katrina Litigation Group) from any litigation against State Farm or its contract adjuster E.A. Renfroe in the Southern District of Mississippi. In addition, he disqualified Cori and Kerry Rigsby as witnesses in any such litigation and excluded from evidence any documents provided by them to the Scruggs Katrina Group (opinion, order). The particular case at issue was McIntosh v. State Farm, but the order gives plaintiffs in all such cases 45 days to retain new counsel. Senter held that Scruggs’ actions with regard to the Rigsby sisters were unethical and held all members of the original Scruggs Katrina Group responsible for Scruggs’ actions because they were aware of the payments to the Rigsby sisters and did nothing to stop them. From the opinion:

• State Farm and Renfroe have charged Scruggs with two basic types of ethical misconduct and with conflicts of interest, all of which relate in one way or another to the relationship between Scruggs and the SKG and two former Renfroe employees Cori and Kerri Rigsby (the Rigsby sisters). State Farm and Renfroe allege 1) that Scruggs participated and encouraged the Rigsby sisters to wrongfully appropriate and disclose confidential documents in which both State Farm and Renfroe had a legitimate right to confidentiality; and 2) that Scruggs paid the Rigsby sisters a substantial sum in furtherance of Scruggs’s efforts to encourage the misappropriation of these documents… I have determined that disqualification is required because Scruggs, acting in furtherance of the SKG joint venture, paid the Rigsby sisters a substantial sum of money (a consulting fee of $150,000 per year) despite Scruggs’s knowledge that the Rigsby sisters were material witnesses in connection with many hurricane damage claims that were likely to become the subject of litigation… It is apparent to me, from my review of the deposition testimony of the Rigsby sisters, that there was no legitimate reason for these payments and that the “consulting” work that ostensibly justified these payments was a sham. Even if this were not the case, the performance of legitimate work that is closely related to a matter in litigation cannot justify an attorney’s payment of a substantial sum of money to a non-expert material witness.

McIntosh v. State Farm is one of the cases which led to the fee dispute between the Jones, Funderburg law firm and the other Scruggs Katrina Group partners, which in turn led to the state civil suit which resulted in the federal bribery charges against Dickie Scruggs and his four co-defendants.

David Rossmiller at Insurance Coverage Blog has been following Katrina litigation since well before the bribery indictments. He has an excellent analysis here and raises a very interesting question about former US Attorney Todd Graves, who has appeared as counsel for Zach Scruggs in the bribery case. The AP story is here.

Chip Off The Old Block Department: Zach Scruggs has followed in his father’s footsteps and filed a motion asking the Mississippi Supreme Court to dismiss the disbarment proceedings initiated by the Mississippi Bar. The Sun Herald story here indicates that the basis of the motion is that his guilty plea has not been accepted by the court. However, page 14 of Zach Scruggs’ plea hearing transcript quotes US District Judge Neal Biggers: “the Court will accept your guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilty on your plea.”

Judge Biggers has already made it abundantly clear that the court is not bound by the recommendation of probation contained in Zach Scruggs’ plea agreement. Zach Scruggs could receive up to three years in prison. It’s hard to see what he could possibly hope to gain by this stalling tactic when he has so much more to possibly lose. Does he suppose that Judge Biggers does not follow the news and will not be aware of this motion?

That didn’t take long: here is the Mississippi Bar’s response to Dickie Scruggs’ motion to dismiss disbarment proceedings, and separately,  the Mississippi Bar’s motion to suspend Scruggs immediately (h/t folo). The former argues that a plain reading of the rules contemplates that a disbarment proceeding is triggered upon the entry of a guilty plea, and therefore is not “fatally flawed” even if a formal acceptance of the plea has not yet been entered; and if it is premature, that Scruggs should immediately be suspended until the plea is entered. The latter is motion to do just that. Of course, if the general counsel of the Bar had been reading the blogs, he would know that Scruggs’ guilty plea has in fact been accepted by the court (earlier here and here).

Here is Dickie Scruggs’ Motion To Dismiss the disbarment proceedings which were initiated by the Mississippi Bar following his guilty plea, and here is the “criminal minutes” document from Scruggs’ March 14 plea hearing (h/t folo). The latter states: “Defendant appeared before the Court and Plead Guilty to Count 1 of Indictment; Plea Accepted [emphasis added].” Scruggs’ motion argues that a certified copy of the plea agreement was attached to the complaint, but not a certified copy of a judgment of conviction or an order accepting a guilty plea, as required by statute; and that the plea agreement is not in itself evidence that the plea has been accepted.

In other words, Scruggs does not appear to be claiming that his plea has not been accepted, only that the complaint does not contain evidence that his plea has been accepted.  Even so, at best this is only a delaying tactic that may buy him an extra few days. Since Judge Biggers has yet to sentence him, the possible consequence of such a move could be severe.

A two paragraph addendum to this Sun Herald story about the suspension of Judge Bobby DeLaughter indicates that Dickie Scruggs has asked the Mississippi Supreme Court to dismiss disbarment proceedings against him subsequent to his guilty plea “because U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr. has not yet accepted his plea.”

However, on page 16 of the transcript of Scruggs’ March 14 plea hearing, Judge Biggers says [emphasis added] “the Court will accept your guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilty on your plea.”

Despite signing a plea agreement, Scruggs had to be prodded by his attorney John Keker into admitting his guilt in open court. Now this. It’s hard to figure out what he hopes to accomplish by this move, but once Judge Biggers learns of it, we shall probably hear more in short order.

In response to the petition by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance for an interim suspension of Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter (earlier here and here), the Mississippi Supreme Court on Friday suspended DeLaughter indefinitely. The commission has charged DeLaughter with willful misconduct in two cases, Wilson v. Scruggs and Kirk v. Pope. In the former case, Joey Langston has pleaded guilty to bribing DeLaughter via former Hinds County DA Ed Peters on behalf of Dickie Scruggs. No one else has yet been indicted but DeLaughter is known to be under federal investigation in the case (Clarion-Ledger, Sun Herald).

Six days after the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance filed a petition with the Mississippi Supreme Court asking for an interim suspension of Judge Bobby DeLaughter for judicial misconduct in two cases, one of them involving Dickie Scruggs (earlier), DeLaughter delivered a letter to the Commission stating that he will not challenge a temporary suspension pending a decision after a hearing if it is so ordered. SunHerald, DeLaughter letter.

Lotus and NMC at folo have put together a remarkable narrative here, here and here, going back more than a decade to examine the trail of machinations and alleged public corruption attempted and sometimes achieved by Dickie Scruggs and associates. The winding tale concerns the asbestos litigation legal fees suits filed by attorneys Alwyn Luckey and William Roberts Wilson against their former partner Scruggs, and the actions taken by Scruggs over the years to thwart them and prevent the cases from ever being heard. While Luckey did eventually prevail, the Wilson case has resulted in the federal guilty plea by Joey Langston for bribing state Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter on behalf of Scruggs, a matter which will almost surely result in more indictments shortly. DeLaughter’s actions (as described in the second installment) are nothing less than shocking. DeLaughter continues to assert his innocence.

Zach Scruggs has pleaded guilty to a one-count information for misprision of a felony, in exchange for dismissal of the original indictment. There is no requirement for cooperation. He admitted to improper ex parte contact, knowing about improper ex parte contact by others and doing nothing to prevent or report it. He denied knowing about the bribe to Judge Lackey.

The charge carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison but the government has recommended probation. However, US District Judge Neal Biggers pointed out, per customary practice, that the court does not have to accept that recommendation. This report comes from David Rossmiller’s contact in the courtroom. More to come.

UPDATE:

Sun Herald story by Anita Lee, Zach Scruggs Plea Agreement, Zach Scruggs Factual Basis, Zach Scruggs Plea Hearing Transcript.

The transcript confirms the earlier report above. There will be no further charges arising out of this case, but the agreement does not preclude any prosecution in any other case. However, the government has “no knowledge that he has any information on other cases at this time,” which indicates he is not currently a target in the investigation related to the Joey Langston plea; Dickie Scruggs is under investigation in that case.

Judge Biggers made it quite clear, per standard federal plea bargain procedure, that the court is not bound by the recommendation of probation contained in the plea agreement. He ordered a presentencing report and stated that sentencing would probably take place in six to eight weeks.

Zach Scruggs’ defense team filed three motions on Wednesday, which was the revised motions deadline. Zach Scruggs’ James Hearing Motion seeks to force the prosecution to prove its basis for  allowing 404(b) evidence now that he is the sole defendant. Zach Scruggs’ Motion To Reconsider An Anonymous Jury is based primarily on his alleged lack of involvement in the judicial bribery referenced in Joey Langston’s plea. It asks alternatively for a change of venue or a revised supplemental jury questionnaire. Zach Scruggs’ Motion For Continuance asks for another 90-120 days in light of the changed circumstances brought about by the guilty pleas of Dickie Scruggs and Sid Backstrom.

Based on his prior statements,  US District Judge Neal Biggers is not likely to countenance a delay in the scheduled March 31 trial date, whether or not he grants the James Hearing motion.

Two developments regarding corruption allegations against Judge Bobby DeLaughter in cases involving Dickie Scruggs:

First: In response to William Roberts Wilson’s recusal motion (earlier), DeLaughter and the two other circuit judges have recused themselves: Wilson v. Scruggs Recusal (h/t folo). But unlike Judges Kidd and Yerger, DeLaughter saw fit to editorialize and proclaim his innocence:

The undersigned judge of this Court has never, in this or any other case, issued a ruling in exchange or consideration of anything (money or otherwise) other than the applicable law, all allegations to the contrary being belied by the record.

The record? It is precisely because of what allegedly transpired off the record that he is under investigation.

Second: The Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance on Wednesday filed a petition with the Mississippi Supreme Court to suspend DeLaughter based upon actions he took which were allegedly under the corrupt influence of Ed Peters on behalf of Dickie Scruggs in Wilson v. Scruggs, according to the guilty plea of Joey Langston; and also in the case of Kirk v. Pope, one of two other known cases which did not involve Scruggs but which did involve the intercession of Ed Peters. Commission v. DeLaughter. The petition contains specific details of the alleged violations. The Sun-Herald has an AP story here.

US District Judge Neal Biggers on Monday entered an order based on Friday’s hearing, formally denying Zach Scruggs’ separate dismissal motion and granting 5 additional days from March 14 to amend current motions or file additional motions, but ruling that the extension “in no way affects any other deadlines previously set forth in this cause, including the change of plea deadline of March 17, 2008, or the trial date of March 31, 2008.” Zach Scruggs 3/17 Order.  The big surprise of the day was former Mississippi AG Mike Moore’s Entry of Appearance on behalf of Zach Scruggs.  Moore was a key player in Dickie Scruggs’ multi-billion dollar looting of the major tobacco companies.  A Sun-Herald story here quotes Moore as saying Zach Scruggs “asked me to represent him should his case ever get to trial.” We should know by Wednesday if that plea deadline was set in stone or if this case will proceed to trial.

Thanks to David Rossmiller, the Friday transcripts are now available:
Dickie Scruggs Plea Transcript
Sid Backstrom Plea Transcript
Zach Scruggs Motion Hearing Transcript

Zach Scruggs’ motion to dismiss was denied, and his attorney Todd Graves indicated that he would be conferring with prosecutors on other pending motions. And despite Friday’s pleas, today is the actual deadline for plea agreements. The Clarion-Ledger first reported, then withdrew a report that Zach Scruggs would surrender his law license in exchange for deferred prosecution (earlier). In light of the way the hearing ended, a plea deal could still be in the works. Alan Lange at Y’all Politics thinks so, and explains why here.

The Backstrom transcript indicates a dispute over language in the plea agreement that was resolved, but Backstrom clearly admitted entering into a conspiracy, apologized and accepted full responsibility.

In contrast, during Dickie Scruggs’ response to Judge Biggers’ questioning, his attorney John Keker had to intervene and practically prod him into answering in manner that would be accepted by the court. See pp.15-16 of the transcript. Scruggs offered no apology.

Perhaps more significant to Dickie Scruggs’ future was this statement from AUSA Thomas Dawson: “…I want to make it painfully clear that the investigation with respect to the Wilson matter that is currently under investigation – - that this plea agreement and this plea has no affect with respect to any charging decision or subsequent prosecution with respect to that case.”

Weekend articles of interest include Patsy Brumfield’s Daily Journal story which takes a look at the courtroom drama and the LA Times staff story which provides a very good overall view.

UPDATE: The revised C-L story here now says that Zach Scruggs’ status is not known. The Daily Journal story here and other sources state that Zach Scruggs is still scheduled to stand trial on March 31.

This seems to be confirmed by a related development: following the November 27 search of the Scruggs Law Firm offices, an FBI “taint team” turned over certain evidence to two AUSAs from the Western District of Tennessee. Today the two AUSAs filed a motion to allow disclosure of that evidence to prosecutors in the Northern District of Mississippi by no later than March 21 for use in this case. If granted, at this point the evidence would be used against Zach Scruggs and the motion header is worded US v. David Zachary Scruggs rather than US v. Scruggs et al. The evidence was turned over to Judge Biggers on yesterday. Did attorneys for Dickie Scruggs and Sid Backstrom know this? If so, it could have precipitated their pleas today.  US v. Zach Scruggs Motion To Disclose Search Evidence

The Clarion-Ledger is reporting that the government will defer prosecution of Zach Scruggs in exchange for surrender of his law license, but there is no confirmation of that yet in any court documents.

Dickie Scruggs’ guilty plea to the single conspiracy count carries a maximum five year sentence; the actual sentence will be at the court’s discretion. The remaining five counts are dismissed. Dickie Scruggs’ plea does not include an agreement to cooperate, and the agreement specifically does not preclude the government from bringing charges in any other case, federal or state.

Sidney Backstrom’s guilty plea to the single conspiracy count includes the provision that his sentence will be no more than half of Dickie Scruggs’ sentence, and in any case no more than 30 months in prison. Backstrom does agree to cooperate fully in this case and “all other criminal offenses in any way.” So it appears that this saga is far from over.

Dickie Scruggs Plea Agreement

Dickie Scruggs Factual Basis

Backstrom Plea Agreement

Backstrom Factual Basis

(h/t Rossmiller)

An early report from this morning’s pretrial conference in US v. Scruggs by AP’s Holbrook Mohr indicates that Dickie Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom have each pleaded guilty to conspiracy counts in connection with the attempted bribe of Judge Henry Lackey. There is no word yet of a plea for Zach Scruggs; his second motion to dismiss is on today’s agenda.

Two new filings Wednesday in the US v. Scruggs bribery case seek reversal of prior rulings: Sidney Backstrom’s Renewed Motion for Severance, previously denied by US District Judge Neal Biggers on February 26 (here) and all three defendants’ Motion to Reconsider the Anonymous Jury Order, which was granted to the prosecution by Judge Biggers on March 6 (here). The Backstrom motion argues that the reason for the anonymous jury and the 404(b) evidence to be introduced against Dickie and Zach Scruggs are connected the US v. Wilson case and will prejudice Backstrom’s right to a fair trial by association. The joint motion argues that the decision to allow an anonymous jury is based on “mere allegations or inferences” — an argument already rejected by Biggers. h/t folo.

With the March 17 plea deadline approaching, attorneys for Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom on Tuesday filed a second motion to compel discovery. The motion seeks  documents and further information referenced in the February 20-21 hearings but not released to the defense, and also seeks extensive material related to the similar bad acts evidence (the Wilson v. Scruggs bribery allegations) which the government plans to introduce under federal rule 404(b) . Scruggs Second Motion For Discovery. Daily Journal story here.

Zach Scruggs rebuttal memorandum to government response to his separate motion to dismiss. It’s hard to see how this could succeed; it steps up an attack the government has already termed “gratuitously inflammatory” and splits hairs over matters of intent that would almost surely be left to a jury. At the same time it ignores the broader context of the transcripts–that Zach Scruggs was discussing an order that had been written by the firm for Judge Lackey, and that Zach Scruggs was discussing the order with Timothy Balducci, who was not the firm’s attorney in the case. Perhaps Zach Scruggs’ current intent is to discover any additional information, from taped conversations, that was not presented to the grand jury.

The deadline for pleas in this case is March 17, with the trial scheduled to begin March 31. Judge Biggers has scheduled a pre-trial conference for March 14 and will rule on any outstanding motions. It may be an eventful week.

US District Judge Neal Biggers on Thursday granted the government’s request for an anonymous jury in US v. Scruggs. He ruled that three elements existed which could justify granting the motion, and in particular whether there has been a past attempt by the defendant to interfere with the judicial process:

In this case, there is evidence before the court in sworn testimony in open court, uncontradicted at the time, of past attempts on the part of the defendants herein to interfere with the judicial process. Indeed, that is the charge involved in this case, and, in addition, the court has heard sworn testimony that an attempt at interference with the judicial process also has taken place in another court by some of the defendants herein. The court is not judging whether this evidence is true; however, there is sworn testimony, unrebutted at this point, sufficient to find at this time, based on more than “mere allegations and inferences,” that this element is applicable here for the purpose of ruling on this motion.

US v Scruggs Anonymous Jury Granted

In a related development, the government responded to Zach Scruggs’ separate dismissal motion (earlier), calling it gratuitously inflammatory and that it appearing “to be designed to influence the jury pool.” Response to Zach Scruggs Motion to Dismiss

Wilson v. Scruggs is the state asbestos fees case in which Joey Langston has pleaded guilty to a federal count of bribing Hinds Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter in 2006 to rule in favor of Dickie Scruggs despite his special master’s recommendation that $15 million be awarded to William Roberts Wilson. It had previously been reported that the case had been settled and that DeLaughter had recused himself in January from any cases involving Scruggs.

However, a motion for recusal made on Tuesday by attorneys for Wilson asserts that the case “has never had any final judgment or order filed closing same” and further, that DeLaughter has “failed to recuse himself in this matter, a failure which was more likely than not an oversight on his part.” The motion asks that DeLaughter and all other judges in the district recuse themselves and that the chief justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court appoint a judge to hear any future matters in the case. In support of the motion, two transcripts were attached in support of the motion: Langston’s guilty plea and Timothy Balducci’s testimony in the February 20 US v. Scruggs hearing. Wilson Recusal Motion. Clarion-Ledger story here.

Attorneys for Zach Scruggs on Monday filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him “due to the government’s misconduct in knowingly and/or recklessly presenting false, misleading, and material testimony before the grand jury.” Although the filing deadline for pre-trial motions has passed, the filing arose from grand jury testimony delivered to the defense at the motions hearings. Zach Scruggs claims that the grand jury testimony shows no evidence that he participated in “the alleged unlawful conspiracy” and that the testimonies of Timothy Balducci and FBI agent William Delaney were false and misleading. While the motion is not likely to succeed, it appears to signal a change in defense strategy, with Zach distancing himself from anything allegedly done by his father and Sidney Backstrom. Press coverage has frequently mentioned Dickie Scruggs’ lead attorney John Keker, but it is worth noting that Zach Scruggs’ lead attorney is Todd Graves, one of the eight fired US attorneys. Daily Journal/AP story here; Zach Scruggs Motion To Dismiss.

US District Judge Roger Vinson on Friday afternoon dismissed with prejudice the US v. Scruggs Alabama case. In this case, Dickie Scruggs was being prosecuted for criminal contempt of court for violating the injunction of US District Judge William Acker in the civil case Renfroe v. Rigsby to return the files taken by the “whistleblower” Rigsby sisters to State Farm contractor E. A. Renfroe. Scruggs gave the files to Mississippi AG Jim Hood even though Hood already had copies of the files.

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

US District Judge Neal Biggers on Tuesday denied three more major defense motions in US v.Scruggs et al. Biggers refused to suppress wiretap evidence, to prohibit introduction of similar bad acts evidence under federal rule 404(b), and to sever the trials of Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom from the trial of Dickie Scruggs. Last week he denied defense motions for dismissal and for change of venue (earlier here and here). The Daily Journal story is here; Rossmiller has links to all the orders 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).

The government on Monday released more transcripts in connection with the US v.Scruggs bribery case, and thanks to NMC at folo, we can take a look at the FBI’s November 2, 2007 interview with Timothy Balducci, right after he began cooperating. The most surprising new information:

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.

Prosecutors filed motions last week in the Northern District of Mississippi asking the court to delay the sentencings of Joey Langston and Timothy Balducci until the full extent of their cooperation can be determined. Both have pleaded guilty to bribery charges in two separate cases involving Dickie Scruggs. Balducci is scheduled to testify against Scruggs and associates in their bribery trial scheduled to begin on March 31. US District Judge Michael T. Mills on Friday granted the Langston motion; there was no word as of late Friday on the Balducci motion. Patsy Brumfield’s Daily Journal story is here.

In the continuing pre-trial motions hearings in US v. Scruggs et al, the bribery case against Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom, US
District Judge Neal Biggers on Thursday denied the defense motion for change of venue and also denied the motion to dismiss counts 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment. Further testimony was heard on the motions to sever the trials of Zach Scruggs and Backstrom from the trial of Dickie Scruggs but Judge Biggers has yet to rule on them; also pending are the motion to suppress wiretap evidence  and a decision on whether to allow evidence of similar acts by Dickie Scruggs in the case of Wilson v. Scruggs, in which he allegedly paid a bribe to induce Hinds Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter to issue a favorable ruling in an asbestos fee dispute case. Joey Langston has pleaded guilty in connection with the DeLaughter allegations and is cooperating with federal investigators, but Scruggs has not been charged in that case. Two surprising developments: first, both sides intend to call former Sen. Trent Lott to testify if the court allows the similar acts evidence from the DeLaughter investigation; second, prosecutors filed a motion requesting an anonymous jury or alternatively a sequestered district-wide jury. Clarion-Ledger, Daily Journal, AP/ Sun-Herald.

The Wall Street Journal has reported (here) that Lott’s role is being investigated, but there is no official word. However, the Daily Journal story cites AUSA Tom Dawson as being unaware of any investigation of Lott but confirming that the DOJ is investigating the DeLaughter matter.

In the first day of the pre-trial motions hearings in the federal bribery trial of Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom, US District Judge Neal Biggers on Wednesday denied defense motions to dismiss the indictments, ruling that the defendants played an active role in the case. The highlight of the hearing was testimony by cooperating witness Timothy Balducci, who has pleaded guilty. Balducci not only testified about his interaction with the defendants in connection with the attempted bribery of state Circuit Judge Henry Lackey, he also testified about his knowledge of Dickie Scruggs’ alleged similar acts in the Ed Peters/Bobby DeLaughter bribery case in which former Scruggs associate Joey Langston has pleaded guilty. In that exchange with Dickie Scruggs’ defense attorney John Keker, Balducci said he saw draft copies in Scruggs’ office of the order Judge DeLaughter later issued, and that Scruggs offered to use the influence of his brother-in-law, former US Sen. Trent Lott, to obtain consideration of a federal judgeship for DeLaughter.

The hearing continues today with consideration of the motions to sever the trials of Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom and the change of venue motion; Judge Biggers asked for briefs from both sides before ruling on the motion to suppress wiretap evidence. The trial is scheduled to begin on March 31. Daily Journal here, Clarion-Ledger here.

Given his track record, it is unsurprising that Mississippi AG Jim Hood would try to spin State Farm’s victory into a defeat. First he sent a stooge going by the name “bellesouth” to troll blogs that had been critical of him, trying to claim that Hood had prevailed. Then on Monday in a Clarion-Ledger op-ed (here) Hood stated, “In fact, allegations lodged against me by this insurer were shown to be false when a federal judge recently threw out a lawsuit it had filed against my office;” and on Tuesday his media spokeswoman Jan Schaefer claimed in an emailed press release that “There is no ’settlement’” and repeated Hood’s outrageous claim that State Farm’s allegations were false. This despite the fact that US District Judge David Bramlette’s order clearly refers to a settlement, and equally important, that he dismissed the case after specifically ruling that the previous non-prosecution agreement between State Farm and Hood “is a standalone agreement, unambiguous and enforceable between the Mississippi Attorney General on behalf of the State of Mississippi and State Farm…” (Judge Bramlette’s Order) — which is exactly the ruling that State Farm sought and Hood opposed.

Late Tuesday, an attorney for State Farm — Sheila L. Birnbaum, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — sent an email to colleagues in response to Schaefer’s email, writing “This is so over the top. Can we ask that he be held in contempt of court for misrepresenting a settlement agreement and order of the court.” However, Ms. Birnbaum “accidentally” sent copies of the email to Schaefer and more than a dozen reporters who had received the original press release. Judge Bramlette declined immediate comment. Forbes/AP story here.

Hood also addressed the Clarion-Ledger editorial board (video, text published on Monday) and offered excuses for not prosecuting his cronies who are now under federal indictment or have pleaded guilty.

The federal government on Tuesday responded to defense pre-trial motions submitted on February 11 (here) in the bribery trial of Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom. In support of its opposition to defense motions, prosecutors released three transcripts of conversations between the defendants and Timothy Balducci, who has pleaded guilty and had been wired by the FBI. Y’all Politics has links to the replies and transcripts here. US District Judge Neal Biggers will hold a hearing on the motions today; trial is scheduled for March 31. The Sun-Herald’s story is here.

US District Judge Neal Biggers on Tuesday set a deadline of February 19 for prosecutors to respond to defense pre-trial motions (earlier) in the bribery trial of Dickie Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom. He set the motions hearing for February 20 (Daily Journal). The trial is scheduled to begin March 31.

Attorneys for Sidney Backstrom and Zach Scruggs on Monday filed motions to sever their bribery trials from that of co-defendant Dickie Scruggs (Zach’s father). The motions were based in part on claims that they had no part in alleged similar prior acts by Dickie Scruggs (earlier here and here). Y’all Politics has all the Monday deadline motions here. A joint trial is currently scheduled to begin on March 31 before US District Judge Neal Biggers in Oxford. Biggers had previously set aside two weeks after Monday’s deadline for any necessary hearings on the filed motions.

A Forbes/AFX story here about a Friday hearing in the Alabama US v. Scruggs contempt of court proceeding contains this intriguing sentence: “Special prosecutors said the contempt case in Alabama could be resolved in any possible plea deal in the bribery and conspiracy case in Mississippi, but there has been no word of an agreement.” This is the first public indication that talks may be underway.

In other Scruggs-related news:

• Roger Parloff at Fortune looks at the State Farm v. Hood hearing last Wednesday and compares Mississippi AG Jim Hood with Roberto (no más) Duran.
• NMC at folo has a nice summary of all the Scruggs cases.
• Today is the deadline for pre-trial motions in US v. Scruggs Mississippi bribery trial (Daily Journal).
• The Mississippi  Commission on Judicial Performance has ordered a full investigation of  Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter’s actions in Wilson v. Scruggs (Clarion-Ledger).

Here is the full transcript of the State Farm v. Hood hearing which began Wednesday and concluded with the Thursday morning settlement and dismissal announcement.

UPDATE/COMMENT: Even considering AG Hood’s evasiveness, his collusion with Dickie Scruggs and associates is written all over this transcript. Also, note the questions and answers on pages 157-159 of the transcript (pages 40 and 41 of the .pdf) concerning a particular dinner meeting alleged to have taken place in Jackson between Hood, Scruggs, Timothy Balducci and Steve Patterson. While Hood denied anything improper happened, State Farm must have had some very specific inside information to even pose the question.

A settlement has been reached in State Farm v. Hood which puts and end to Mississippi AG Jim Hood’s attempt to criminally prosecute State Farm to extort a civil settlement in Katrina cases for the benefit of his tag-team partner Dickie Scruggs. In Natchez today, US District Judge David Bramlette ruled that the January 23, 2007 agreement between State Farm and Hood is “a standalone agreement, unambiguous and enforceable”; that under a settlement agreement to remain under seal, the current case is dismissed with prejudice; and that the court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement (Judge Bramlette’s Order). The referenced January 2007 agreement ended Hood’s original criminal investigation of State Farm in exchange for a civil settlement which benefited Scruggs and his partners as well as Hood’s office.

From David Rossmiller’s report on yesterday’s appearance by Hood, the AG seems to have taken a beating on the stand. He faced the prospect of testimony today by his associate Courtney Schloemer, who has already publicly admitted collusion between the AG’s office and Dickie Scruggs, plus the possibility that Scruggs’ deposition would become public. However he spins it, it’s no wonder he settled.

Best observation of the day, from a commenter at folo: “If you do DNA from the fleas on Scruggs and Hood it would be 100% match.”

Negotiations following the first day of testimony in the State Farm v. Hood hearing before US District Judge David Bramlette in Natchez may have resulted in a settlement. AP and the Sun Herald report Mississippi AG Jim Hood as saying the dispute has been settled and a resolution will be announced Thursday when the parties return to court. State Farm spokesman called Hood’s announcement premature. An earlier Forbes/AFX News story here described Wednesday’s proceedings.

Stay tuned.

In a calculated move that has backfired, Dickie Scruggs failed to appear for his scheduled Monday morning deposition in State Farm v. Hood. As a result, shortly after noon on Monday US District Judge Michael Mills ordered the deposition of Scruggs to begin immediately and to continue until its natural completion, with a deadline extended to 5:00 PM Tuesday. Judge Mills blamed the delays on Scruggs and stated, “Any future non-compliance with this court’s orders relating to Scruggs’s deposition will be dealt with as contempt” (Judge Mills’ 2/4 Order).

Other State Farm v. Hood developments:

• Alan Lange looks at the Scruggs-to-Hood money trail (Y’all Politics)
• NMC analyzes a new pleading by State Farm (folo)

The deposition of Dickie Scruggs in State Farm v. Hood will begin Monday at 8:00 AM; State Farm files a transcript of Friday’s hearing (Y’all Politics). The hearing on State Farm’s TRO against Mississippi AG Jim Hood will be held February 6 before US District Judge David Bramlette in the Southern District of Mississippi, where the case is filed.

Kerri Rigsby’s deposition in McIntosh v. State Farm is covered by WLBT in Jackson’s investigative team (video and text).

Not even with a ten foot pole: USA Dunn Lampton (Southern District of Mississippi) on Thursday informed US Magistrate Judge Robert Walker that the government will not intervene at present in the Ex rel. Rigsby “whistleblower” lawsuit filed by Scruggs (AP/CNNMoney, Rossmiller).

In the US v. Scruggs case in the Northern District of Alabama, Scruggs is fighting a contempt charge for defying a December 2006 court order by US District Judge William Acker in Renfroe v. Rigsby to return the files taken by the Rigsby sisters. On Friday prosecutors responded to Scruggs’ “motion to quash disguised as a motion to strike” a request for subpoenas (2/1 US Response) , while Scruggs’ attorneys requested an evidentiary hearing on an alleged “defect in instituting the prosecution” (Legal Newsline).

Judge Bobby DeLaughter will appear before a federal grand jury in Jackson this week (Clarion-Ledger).

In the latest State Farm v. Hood action, on Wednesday afternoon State Farm filed an emergency motion in the Northern District of Mississippi to compel Dickie Scruggs to appear for a deposition which was scheduled for Friday at 9:00 AM. On Thursday morning Scruggs filed an emergency motion to quash. Late Thursday US District Judge Michael Mills consolidated the motions, postponed the deposition pending a hearing, and set the hearing for 2:00 PM Friday. Judge Mills’ order is here (h/t Y’all Politics).

US District Judge Neal Biggers on Wednesday denied Dickie Scruggs’ motion to reconsider allowing him to add attorney Kenneth Coghlan to his legal team (earlier). Judge Biggers’ order, linked here (in .pdf) by the Daily Journal, also clarified which ”previous bad acts” the federal prosecutors will move to admit in US v. Scruggs:

“…[Joey] Langston pleaded guilty to another charge of judicial bribery and agreed to testify in the present case against defendant Richard Scruggs about Langston’s knowledge of alleged prior similar bad acts by Scruggs as provided for by Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.”

Although US Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s order of January 24 clearly granted State Farm’s motion to take a deposition from Dickie Scruggs in State Farm v. Hood (earlier), a bench memorandum submitted on Wednesday by State Farm indicates that Hood is running interference for Scruggs and is attempting to sabotage the deposition. John O’Brien’s Legal Newsline story is here.

In the aftermath of public revelation that former Hinds County DA Ed Peters was advising a plaintiff behind the scenes in a case before Judge Bobby DeLaughter and that a special master had been removed by DeLaughter after Peters became involved (here), the replacement special master in that case (Eaton v. Frisby et al) has resigned. Jackson attorney Larry Latham, who had replaced Jack Dunbar, on Monday told Circuit Judge Swan Yerger that Peters had spoken with him about the appointment and that it was necessary for him to resign to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Peters and DeLaughter have not been charged. Patsy Brumfield’s Daily Journal story is here.

UPDATE: Jerry Mitchell’s Clarion-Ledger story here has more details: that Latham says he was unaware that Dunbar was serving as special master, that Peters’ call to him came four days before DeLaughter removed Dunbar, and that Peters asked him not to bring up his name. Mitchell also reports:

“In a motion filed Tuesday to protect potential evidence, Frisby’s attorneys said it’s obvious Peters and DeLaughter communicated privately because Peters knew about the plan to replace Dunbar – something they said Dunbar himself didn’t know.”

Prosecutors in US v. Scruggs et al on Monday filed notice that they “will seek to introduce similar acts evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b), Fed. R. Evid., at the trial of the above-captioned case”. Patsy Brumfield’s preliminary story in the Daily Journal is here. The question, of course, is which similar acts; it could be the Langston case now unfolding, or others yet unknown.

Meanwhile, Scruggs seems intent on creating a possible appeal issue. On January 17, US District Judge Neal Biggers denied in no uncertain terms Scruggs’ motion to add attorney Kenneth Coghlan to his legal team. Reason: Coghlan had briefly represented Scruggs’ co-defendant Steve Patterson early in the case; Patterson has now pleaded guilty and is cooperating with prosecutors. But on Friday January 25, Scruggs’ lead attorney John Keker filed a motion to reconsider which announces Scruggs’ intent to consult Coghlan on non-evidentiary issues if the motion is denied. Alyssa Schnugg’s Oxford Eagle story is here.

In his guilty plea, Joey Langston admitted bribing a “close personal friend” of state Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter in order to influence the judge to resolve a case in favor of Dickie Scruggs; the friend has been widely identified as former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters (earlier). Undoubtedly as a result of the publicity, defense attorneys for Jeffrey Frisby in another case being heard by Delaughter (Eaton Corp. v. Jeffrey D. Frisby et al) have filed motions asking for an impartial review of DeLaughter’s decisions in that case after learning from “accidental e-mails” that Ed Peters has been advising Eaton behind the scenes even though he is not the attorney of record. The Frisby motions also claim that DeLaughter removed a special master from the case after Peters became involved because his rulings had been unfavorable to Eaton. Bobby Harrison’s Daily Journal story is here.

Jerry Mitchell’s Clarion-Ledger story today indicates that this case and others are now part of an expanded FBI investigation.

In Hattiesburg on Thursday, US Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker ordered Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood to appear and testify at a reconvened hearing to be held in State Farm’s lawsuit against him. Parker also granted State Farm’s motion to take a deposition from Dickie Scruggs.  US District Judge David Bramlette has yet to set a date for the hearing. Anita Lee has the (Biloxi/Gulfport) Sun-Herald story here.

Hood allowed Scruggs and his associates to use the threat of criminal prosecution to extort a civil settlement from State Farm in Hurricane Katrina class action litigation. As part of the settlement Hood agreed not to pursue further criminal investigation; when he announced last September that he was reopening his investigation, State Farm filed suit and obtained a restraining order. Hood backed out of testifying at a prior hearing and agreed to stop, only to announce resumption of his quest earlier this week. With this order we are now one step closer to discovering the full extent of the Hood/Scruggs “cooperation.” More background: In a post from Tuesday, Alan Lange of Y’all Politics takes a look at patterns.

A Sunday New York Times story here examines the Scruggs cases to date and provides some background on political operative and Scruggs associate P. L. Blake.

A Wednesday story and video at News 3 Memphis provides a quick overview of the developing situation. Scruggsiana: Greatest Hits posted yesterday at folo goes into more detail. David Rossmiller at Insurance Coverage Blog was following Scruggs’ antics in the State Farm/Katrina litigation well before the indictments and has continued to report events even as the indictments and guilty pleas move beyond insurance cases. Still, what’s happened to date may just be the beginning.

On Tuesday in US District Court in Oxford, Mississippi, former State Auditor Steve Patterson pleaded guilty to attempting to bribe state Circuit Court Judge Henry Lackey in an attempt to obtain a ruling favorable to the Scruggs Law Firm in a dispute over Hurricane Katrina litigation fees. Famed attorney Dickie Scruggs, his son Zach, Patterson and attorneys Tim Balducci and Sid Backstrom were indicted on November 28, 2007. Balducci has already pleaded guilty; trial for the remaining defendants is set for March 31, 2008. The AP has a story here and Alyssa Schnugg has more here in the Oxford Eagle.

In a separate federal case that is just beginning to unfold, it was revealed Monday that Scruggs’ former attorney Joey Langston has pleaded guilty to offering a bribe to state Circuit Judge Bobby Delaughter on behalf of Scruggs; Delaughter subsequently issued a ruling favorable to Scruggs in an asbestos litigation fee dispute. Scruggs has not yet been indicted in this case; along with Delaughter, former Hinds County (Jackson) District Attorney Ed Peters has been implicated. Delaughter allegedly sought nomination to a federal judgeship by then-US Senator Trent Lott, who is Scruggs’ brother-in-law. Lott has denied involvement and has denied that his sudden resignation has anything to do with these recent legal developments. Oxford Eagle here, Northeast Mississippi Journal here, and a two-part look at Langston’s importance by Walter Olson at Overlawyered here and here.

The name of P. L. Blake has come up in connection with both cases. Blake is a mysterious political operative who has received $50 million in tobacco settlement money from Scruggs, for purposes yet to be revealed.