Maria Brown, a former employee of Nutt & McAlister, a law firm that was and is a key player in Katrina litigation as part of the Scruggs Katrina Group, has sued the firm for employment discrimination, breach of contract and other claims. , and . Let's remember these are just allegations and are only one side of the story -- here's what the lawsuit alleges:
The firm knowingly kept electronic records of State Farm claims documents that had been ordered returned by Judge William Acker in a December 2006 preliminary injunction. You may recall that Dickie Scruggs' failure to promptly return his copies of the same documents resulted in his ongoing prosecution for alleged criminal contempt of court in Alabama. When Brown complained about the keeping of the records, she was told it was OK because the documents were in the public domain.
"The overall environment was saturated with sex which consisted of sexual innuendoes, sexual acts, on-line masturbation, payments for sexual favors performed in the broom closet, sexual overtures and adultery."
The firm promised to pay off the $85,000 she owed on her home as a bonus for working hard, but than paid her only $5,000 from Katrina proceeds.
Brown was sexually harassed, including by being presented a picture of the genitalia of a male member of the firm. This person then asked her for a picture of her genitalia. She declined. She informed management of the harassment but they did nothing about it.
She was terminated for complaining about the sexual harassment and the "illegal activity . . . with regard to Judge Acker's Preliminary Injunction."
The really intriguing allegation is that Nutt & McAlister failed to comply with Acker's order. Because the order required the Rigsby sisters and their agents to return all copies of documents they had taken from State Farms claims contractor E.A. Renfore, the question is whether Nutt & McAlister was an agent and what obligation the firm was under to comply with the injunction. Prosecutors say that Scruggs, as their attorney, was their agent. But even if the SKG rather than Scruggs himself paid the $150,000 per year consulting salaries of the Rigsby sisters, that makes them agents of the SKG, not vice versa.
The implication of the complaint is that the firm sent back paper copies but kept electronic copies, which, if true, would belie an assertion that the firm believed they were not subject to Acker's order. Indeed, the complaint alleges that the justification for not deleting the electronic records was that they were in the public domain. Some of the documents might, in fact, have previously been used in litigation or given to the media, but that is not the same thing as saying this excempts them from Acker's order. We do not know, from the allegations of the complaint, whether these electronic records purportedly were of all the 5,000 to 15,000 documents taken by the Rigsby sisters, or only some.
Two straight weeks of Scruggsblogging has finally caught up with me. Due to a confluence of other events often referred to as "life," I didn't finish with all the other things that I had to do until well after midnight, so this post must of necessity be short.
Rumors of what will happen next abound, and at this point few of the things I have heard would surprise me. However, it wouldn't be fair to the people involved to engage in rank guesswork, so like the rest of you, I'm going to sit tight and wait to see what happens next.
Many have been asking me to say something more about Trent Lott's resignation, especially in light of . Read an excerpt:
Fair enough. That said, the two prominent figures in the Mississippi legal community mentioned above told me that Lott has recently engaged a well-regarded local criminal lawyer to advise him on some questions relating to the Scruggs case. There’s no crime in hiring a lawyer, but it does point to Senator Lott having on-going dealings with the U.S. Attorney handling the Scruggs case.
Might the prosecutors have asked Trent Lott, one of Washington’s political titans, to resign as part of a deal? A week ago I would have found that very far-fetched, but now I am not so sure.
Why would prosecutors do this? If Lott did anything wrong, he would be far from the only criminal in the United States Senate. Would it make a noticeable difference to have one less? However, I have trouble buying these scenarios about Lott being involved in wrongdoing, they just don't add up for me. And, as reader Ironic pointed out in the comments yesterday, plausibly explores Lott's announced resignation as a precursor to registering as a lobbyist, and why he may not be talking abou it. In this instance, I'm going to go against my history and give Lott a break, and say I believe him, which is what I've said all along. Lott, don't prove me wrong now!
For more discussion of the Scruggs scandal, let me refer you to , and the world of Scruggs links at .
One final thing: did you hear the criminal contempt case in Alabama against Scruggs got a new judge? If you will remember, all the judges in the Northern District of Alabama recused themselves on Scruggs' motion to avoid the appearance of bias, because all obviously know their colleague Judge William Acker, who referred the charge to special prosecutors. . You know, it's just like Scruggs to show everyone up, it's not enough to have one criminal prosecution against him, he has to have two.
From across the Scruggs Nation, information keeps rolling in. Citizens of the Scruggs Nation, we have much work to do today. Let us prepare for this work by first listening to the greatest song in the history of Earth, La Marseillaise, in perhaps its greatest and most moving rendition, the famous, famous scene from Casablanca. . Buckle up, or if you prefer, as the song says, To Arms, Citizens!
First up on the Scruggs Nation agenda for today is this. I have had many requests to talk more about P.L. Blake, who he is and what he did. We can only begin that task today, but a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.
P.L. Blake, the Fred Thompson connection
Remember P.L. Blake, the figure Dickie Scruggs apparently spoke about in the book Assuming the Risk, by Michael Orey, when he referred to "the dark side of the force" aiding Scruggs in litigation? (We do not know this for sure, because curiously Blake's name does not appear in the book). Do you remember a couple days ago we saw in the Scruggs deposition in the Luckey case -- a deposition defended by admitted attempted briber Tim Balducci -- that Scruggs agreed to pay Blake the emperor-size sum of $50 million? (start at page 43 of the pdf and read to the end, Blake is mentioned on page 46 of the pdf, page 510 of the transcript).
Blake was involved in controversy in the early 1980s over his PLB grain company. Below is a paragraph from a decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court, Blake v. Gannett, 529 So.2d 595 (1988) that explains:
PLB Grain owned one of the largest, if not the largest, grain storage facilities in the United States. It had contracted with the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to store 21.5 million bushels of grain. In order to receive the contract, PLB had indicated to the CCC that it had a net worth of at least $5 million. The surplus grain stored for the government by PLB under the CCC contract became a national story on October 18, 1983. The controversy involved the quantity and quality of the grain stored by PLB Grain. Texas officials charged that the quality of the grain had deteriorated substantially. USDA officials claimed that it had not deteriorated. Later, in 1984, CCC determined that there were quality and quantity problems with the grain stored in PLB's elevators. State FmHA officials knew that Blake had an interest in a Texas grain storage facility, but did not know the exact nature of that interest. Information concerning PLB Grain was never included in FmHA loan applications.
and read for yourself. The paragraph quoted is at 529 So.2d 599 -- for those not familiar with how to read case law, look for the purple numbers embedded in the text, they show you the page of the case reporter. When you read this case, look just below the headnotes for the names of the attorneys -- you will note that Blake's attorney was Fred D. Thompson, of Thompson & Bussart, Nashville, Tenn., of Senate Watergate counsel, movies and TV and presidential candidate fame. The case involved allegations that the Clarion-Ledger, owned by the Gannett corporation, had libeled Blake in investigative stories. The newspaper was exonerated.
We can see from the 1984 Washington Post story below that Thompson was Blake's lawyer for a long time.
Grain Storage Firm Found in Default On U.S. Contract --- By Ward Sinclair Washington Post Staff Writer 546 words 29 September 1984 The Washington Post English (Copyright 1984)
The Agriculture Department yesterday found a Texas grain elevator firm in default on a grain-storage contract that President Reagan's campaign press secretary helped the firm to win in 1982.
The firm, PLB Grain Storage Corp., owner of the nation's largest grain elevator in Plainview, Tex., failed to meet a USDA deadline to produce 1 million bushels of missing government-owned corn stored there or pay about $3 million for it.
After weeks of unsuccessful negotiations with the company, the USDA found it in default on its federal contract, which could lead to revocation of its license by the state and further wrangling about PLB's government debt.
The elevator, owned by P.L. Blake of Greenwood, Miss., has been at the center of political controversy since last year when Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower charged that corn stored at PLB had deteriorated and should be given to drought-stricken ranchers.
Blake is represented by Nashville attorney Fred Thompson, Republican counsel for the Senate committee that investigated the Watergate scandal more than a decade ago. Thompson and farm lobbyist Jim Lake, now press secretary for the Reagan-Bush reelection campaign, helped PLB win its long-term federal-storage contract in 1982.
Thompson acknowledged that Lake assisted PLB two years ago but denied reports in the Agriculture Department that Lake had played a role in trying to arrange a settlement in the government's latest contretemps with PLB. Efforts to reach Lake for comment were unsuccessful.
State and federal officials believe that the grain, part of an original 22.5 million bushels, is missing because of PLB "operating deficiencies" -- failure to handle it properly and prevent moisture shrinkage.
PLB could lose a long-term USDA storage contract extending to 1986 and worth $3.6 million per year to the firm, even though the government has little grain stored there now.
The Texas Agriculture Department padlocked the elevator two weeks ago after confirming a reported shortage of about $3.1 million in corn stored there by the Commodity Credit Corp. since President Jimmy Carter's partial embargo on grain sales to the Soviet Union.
U.S. Agriculture Secretary John R. Block denied that the grain had deteriorated and resisted Hightower's efforts to win release of the corn to assist ranchers who needed feed grain to replace forage destroyed by drought in south Texas.
Others, such as Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex.) and House Agriculture Committee Chairman E (Kika) de la Garza (D-Tex.) jumped into the fray and with legislation directing use of the grain for ranchers.
In the current flap, PLB has until mid-October to show cause before Texas authorities why its elevator license should not be revoked. Thompson said that PLB will appeal the USDA's default ruling and indicated that resolution of the dispute could be months away.
PLB is one of dozens of elevators receiving federal money for storage under long-term contracts negotiated by the Reagan administration, even though they have no grain in their bins.
A House subcommittee chaired by Rep. Glenn English (D-Okla.) recently charged that the government has lost at least $20 million through the long-term agreements.
True, just because you are someone's lawyer doesn't necessarily mean anything. But then again, maybe it does.
Blake: other political connections
Let's get in the Wayback Machine and look at another news story involving Blake.
Newspaper: Anderson Didn't Report Free Trips 23 September 1989 The Associated Press Political Service (Copyright 1989. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved)
GULFPORT, Miss. (AP) _ A Jackson newspaper reports that 5th District congressional candidate Tom Anderson didn't report free air travel worth thousands of dollars while a House staff member and later as a U.S. ambassador, as required by law.
The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson said it had obtained Anderson's executive branch disclosure reports showing he listed only two of at least 18 flights he made between October 1982 and June 1984 on airplanes owned by Greenwood businessman P.L. Blake's DeWitt Corp.
Anderson, a Republican, was legally required to file the reports annually as chief of staff to then-Rep. Trent Lott and as ambassador to the Eastern Carribean. The reports specifically say "gifts of transportation" totaling more than $250 from any one source in one year must be reported.
"You will find that in my executive financial disclosure that I made while I was (ambassador) in Barbados, that is listed," Anderson said on Wednesday, insisting that all 18 trips were reported.
The Clarion-Ledger said it obtained the reports from Washington Thursday and then tried again to contact Anderson about the discrepancy. Anderson released a statement through his press aide on Friday after 11 written questions were sent to his campaign office, the newspaper said.
And as the Luckey trial transcript shows, Scruggs, before the big payments to Blake, had made loans to Blake despite the fact he was in bankruptcy and had no collateral to give on the loans.
Q: Did he did he [sic] give you any collateral?
A: Other than his enormous network of political connections in the state and otherwise, no, he didn't have any -- he didn't give me any collateral for it, no, but he did sign a note every month.
(Page 53 of the pdf).
Scruggs also testified at the trial that Blake's value was that he gave routine intelligence on what key members of Congress were doing through his relationships with people such as Sen. Joe Biden, now, like Thompson, also a presidential candidate. (See pages 54-55 of the pdf). In the pages of the transcript I cited, you will also see Tom Anderson mentioned.
By the way, this week on a connection between Sen. Biden and Steve Patterson and Tim Balducci.
Patterson has been a player in Mississippi Democratic circles for some time. Early in his career, he worked for John Stennis, the longtime U.S. senator from the state, and later served as a Mississippi Democratic party chairman. In 1996, his political ambitions were derailed when he resigned as Mississippi state auditor after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge of filing false documents to avoid paying county taxes on car tags.
Most recently, Balducci and Patterson had thrown their weight behind the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. Joseph Biden, whom Mr. Patterson got to know while working for Sen. Stennis. Indeed, Balducci had a Biden bumper sticker on his red Ford truck, according to someone who rode in it. Their bet on Biden was that he wouldn’t win the presidency but would become Secretary of State under a Hillary Clinton administration, according to two people familiar with their thinking.
I love that phrase -- according to two people familiar with their thinking. If what prosectors say about Patterson, Balducci, Scruggs and the others is true, what indeed were they thinking!
Balducci as wannabe
We have seen indications that Dickie Scruggs' friends have begun to paint Tim Balducci as a deluded hayseed off on a lark of his own in his admitted bribery attempt of Judge Lackey, like some idiot at a Star Trek convention walking around with a toy phaser, wearing pointed ears, speaking Klingon, demanding more Romulan ale and speculating on Capt. Kirk's childhood in Iowa. It remains to be seen whether Scruggs' defense team, which according to PACER records now officially includes superstar lawyer John Keker and his team of all-stars, will continue to play this theme or have the sense to discard it as sounding utterly foolish, a kind of the-dog-ate-my-homework defense.
at attempts to play the wannabe card at Overlawyered, where he refutes efforts to portray Balducci as a "clueless newbie, a mere Timothy Tiptoes."
Attacks on Judge Lackey's credibility
I do not know if Judge Lackey has any damaging episodes in his past, but in talking to those who know him, I hear he will be a formidable and credible witness. You may remember the Wall Street Journal interview by Ashby Jones and Lattman with Lackey, and Keker's attack on Lackey as some kind of publicity seeker, implying he might be a nutjob who is trying desperately to manufacture his 15 minutes of fame at age 73. In contrast to this portrait, I hear very good things about Judge Lackey -- a fair, compassionate jurist of integrity -- who will fare much better with a northern Mississippi jury than, as one source memorably put it, "San Francisco lawyers in $3,000 suits with Fleet Street shoes."
was signed yesterday by Judge Neal Biggers, the senior status federal judge who will preside over the Scruggs trial. It allows defense attorneys to discover affidavits used to get warrants to intercept wire communications and also to receive a disc of the intercepted communications themselves. Doesn't mean these will become public, however. Defense counsel, very early in this case, made a motion to discover the prosecutors' evidence. Note that the order on its face appears to apply only to wire communications and not to recordings that might have been made via a microphone on someone's body. Those who know more about criminal procedure than I do may be able to tell me further about the significance of the order.
First, I must extend thanks to all citizens of the Scruggs Nation who are so vigilant in trying to keep me informed. Readers from coast to coast, with disparate points of view, have reached out to me. Your identities stay confidential with me. Thank you for your trust. I view myself less as someone who knows what is going on and more as someone who is trying to ask the right questions to figure out what the heck is going on.
As you know, Joey Langston, an associate of both Scruggs and Tim Balducci, not to mention a figure closely linked to Mississippi AG Jim Hood, had his offices searched by the FBI yesterday. What they were looking for or what they found, if anything, I don't know. The fact that Langston withdrew from the public eye and pulled back from court appearances on behalf of Scruggs last week suggests that Langston knew some trouble was brewing for him. As a point of interest, you can look back at the documents I posted yesterday in Scruggs Nation, Day 12, and see that both Joey Langston and Tim Balducci are listed as among the counsel for Dickie Scruggs in the Luckey v. Scruggs lawsuit. By saying this, I don't mean to suggest this case furnishes any of the motivation for the FBI search -- I don't know. The case is merely one of a number of threads that tie Langston, Balducci and Scruggs. There are others, and these will be spoken of here in due time.
Today, let's look over a news story that may have gotten blown around and misplaced in the melee after Hurricane Scruggs made landfall late last month. on Ex rel. Rigsby, the False Claims Act "whistleblower" lawsuit filed by the Rigsby sisters in April 2006. Let's look at part of the story here:
The indictments announced last Thursday by U.S. Attorney Jim Greenlee present an awkward question for the Justice Department's civil division: Should the federal government take over a case brought by a lawyer now under federal indictment?
"It does put them in a little bit of quandary," said Randy Maniloff, a Philadelphia-based lawyer who represents insurance companies and has closely followed the wave of litigation spawned by the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.
The Justice Department has until Jan. 31 to decide whether to intervene in the case.
However, legal experts say the department doesn't need to take over Scruggs' case to investigate allegations that insurers defrauded the federal government by falsely blaming Katrina's flood waters for damage to homes.
As recently as Oct. 30, Justice Department attorneys said in court papers that they were conducting an "active civil investigation" of the allegations in Scruggs' suit. On Tuesday, a federal magistrate in Gulfport said the government still hasn't elected whether to intervene.
I don't have any special insight as to what the Justice Department is going to do with this case, but one would suspect that with the two-year anniversary of Ex rel. Rigsby peeking its head up over the bushes, if the U.S. Attorney's Office was going to do anything with this lawsuit it would have done it by now. One would also suspect the attraction of getting involved in this case -- whatever this attraction may once have been, and it apparently has not been much-- is diminished by the odor of scandal, alleged criminal activity and alleged ethical shortcomings now wafting steadily from the direction of Dickie Scruggs.
In light of the prosecution of Scruggs in federal court in Alabama over alleged violation of Judge William Acker's injunction in the Renfroe v. Rigsby suit over the taking of State Farm claims documents by the Rigsby sisters, in light of the bribery indictment and, possibly, in light of whatever is going on with Langston, wouldn't it kind of seem like the government is at war with itself for the Justice Department to step into Ex rel. Rigsby at present? (By the way, for new readers or veteran readers who need remedial courses in anything to do with these two lawsuits, I have written extensively about them here -- simply use my blog's search feature to the right to find posts as background). That question, of course, assumes there is anything substantive to the lawsuit -- and possibly there is little or nothing at all to its premise that insurers conspired to rip off the federal Treasury by pushing Katrina wind damage payments onto federally backed flood policies.
It seems undeniable that these allegations have steadily lost their public cachet as Congressional legislation to juice up the National Flood Insurance Program with wind coverage faltered. This could mean the allegations of widespread insurer fraud were mere props to push through the legislation and were tossed aside like an old Tickle Me Elmo once the novelty wore off and their usefulness was done. Or on the other hand, the allegations could be true, mostly true, somewhat true or a tiny bit true, but as Congress itself was in part to blame for creating and maintaining the system that led to the alleged abuses, and as the truth of the allegations would still mean money got into the hands of people who needed it, the Congressional investigations may have produced rapidly diminishing marginal utility to individual members associated with them.
Lastly, in other news, Hood Talks! -- (through written responses to questions). , if you scroll down a bit, contains this great stuff about the AG:
Scruggs has been a major force in the wake of Katrina, representing hundreds of homeowners who sued over hurricane damages. He also worked closely with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood in lawsuits against State Farm. Hood has said Scruggs was his "confidential informant."
Hood has refused to discuss the bribery case in detail, but says it will have no effect on the lawsuits filed by the state on behalf of hurricane victims.
"The federal indictment has absolutely nothing to do with our case against State Farm," Hood said in a written response to questions.
Hood won't say if he is pursuing state bribery charges against Scruggs, who was one of his major political contributors and a close ally in the legal battle with insurance companies.
().
If I was to bet, I would bet he's not, but I'm awaiting the line in Vegas and on the Irish online gaming sites before committing.
Finally, for the multitude of new readers, I again encourage you to use my blog's search bar to look up the numerous posts I have written on these subjects, particularly the "confidential informant" issue, which is one of my favorites and which I find endlessly hilarious. For you newer folks who may wonder what this blog is and why it is, my day job is insurance coverage lawyer/litigator, and I began this blog two years ago as a forum for discussion of insurance coverage cases, industry developments and insurance theory, in part to cast off the image of insurance coverage as boring and a fit subject only for dweeby little people who mumble incomprehensibly about such annoying concepts as "occurrences," "allocation of the burden of risk," "coverage grants" and "ambiguity in drafting." My goal was to show that insurance coverage involves an intellectually fascinating collision of interests taking place not only in the maze of abstract policy language, but in the real world, and that this sheds light on the broad drama of human conflict. I would say that, in light of events chronicled at length here, this proposition requires no further proof. See you tomorrow. (Unless something big happens, and then maybe see you later today).
U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander has clipped Dickie Scruggs' wings again -- Scruggs' private plane has been denied permission to take to the air for the purpose of hauling Scruggs' lawyers to and from San Francisco to defend him against criminal charges in Mississippi and Alabama. This despite the fact the government did not oppose Scruggs' motion of Friday for an exception to the current limitations on flights for emergency and charitable purposes only.
Judge Alexander said as follows:
"Commercial air travel to and from Mississippi, California, and Alabama is readily available. For example, Northwest Airlines has over twenty flights from San Francisco to Memphis, Tennessee. Most of these flights average less than $300.00 round-trip. From Memphis to Birmingham, Alabama, an equal number of Northwest Airlines flights (most, if not all, direct) abound, averaging $184,00 round-trip. Travel to Oxford, Mississippi, and Birmingham, Alabama is reasonably accessible by commercial air travel, and the defendant has not presented sufficient cause for amendment of the court's previous order."
If I might offer a solution -- John Keker can simply increase his fee by the price of a private jet.
, presumably carrying legal cavalry. I originally said the Scruggs jet, but this tracker is of the Langston jet -- that's what happens when you post fast to rush off to a meeting. After the Scruggs indictment, the Scruggs jet was restricted per judicial order to emergency and charitable flights, although a motion was filed on Friday to allow Scruggs legal team to use it for Scruggs' defense, as I've mentioned in a post yesterday.
I have been hearing talk for a week that something was up with Langston, a close associate of Dickie Scruggs over the years and his attorney after the Scruggs scandal broke. Now it's confirmed. See . Here's what it says:
FBI agents went inside the office this morning of Booneville lawyer Joey Langston, an attorney for multimillionaire Mississippi lawyer trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs.
"They are executing a search warrant," said Deborah Madden, spokeswoman for the FBI in Jackson.
Scruggs and others have pleaded innocent to federal charges that they schemed to bribe a judge handling $26.5 million in attorney fees related to Hurricane Katrina claims.
A truck could be seen outside Langston's office.
Asked if agents were getting computers, Madden would not comment.
Calls to the Langston office this morning went unanswered.
Phones went unanswered? I guess that's not in the job description of an FBI agent. You will remember that last week Langston's colleague, William Quin, began appearing in court for Scruggs. Presumably there was a reason for the switch -- a possible one being prosecutors had notified Langston he had a potential conflict in representing Scruggs himself. However, if Langston was conflicted out, one would think it probable that his whole firm would be. We shall see what transpires. What an amazing, amazing set of developments.
has got to have more than a few folks in Mississippi wondering if those buried bodies Tim Balducci spoke of to Judge Lackey will begin to resurface, kind of like the fish-belly white arm that pops to the surface of the lake in Jon Voight's dream at the end of Deliverance.
Here's an excerpt:
According to an official investigating the Scruggs case who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss it publicly, federal prosecutors have asked the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section to examine whether Mr. Scruggs has engaged in multiple bribery attempts of local judges. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment publicly on the case. The case is also likely to fuel further debate over the merits of lucrative class-action lawsuits.
In the context of the current Jones v. Scruggs fee dispute litigation, the story also speaks to previous fee dispute run-ins Scruggs has had, a frequent theme of people who contact me and allege that Scruggs short-changed them on their end of fees when they partnered with him in litigation:
“It’s scorched earth with Dickie Scruggs,” says Mr. Merkel, sitting in a wood-paneled office featuring duck-hunting memorabilia and two framed checks representing about $17 million in payments that Mr. Scruggs had to disgorge to Mr. Merkel’s client — a lawyer named Alwyn Luckey who argued that Mr. Scruggs shortchanged him for work he performed on asbestos cases that made Mr. Scruggs rich.
Mr. Merkel and prosecutors say that the Luckey case foreshadowed some of Mr. Scruggs’ woes in the current bribery case. “As far as whether he’s guilty, I can’t say,” Mr. Merkel concedes. “But I’m not surprised, because he’s willing to use any means to an end. And it irks the hell out of me when Scruggs skates on the edge and makes the profession look bad.”
I want to point out one more paragraph from the story before moving on to highlight the point at the end of this post. Here is the graf:
Working the political and legal machinery in Mississippi isn’t new to Mr. Scruggs. In his deposition with Mr. Merkel in 2004, he discussed some $10 million in payments he made to P. L. Blake, a onetime college football star in Mississippi. After running into financial troubles, Mr. Blake became a political consultant for Mr. Scruggs, helping his boss navigate the back rooms of state politics and tobacco litigation.
Now, let's consider one further thing before we look at some documents.
Here is a paragraph I quoted from the Michael Orey book, Assuming the Risk, last week:
"There were [some] people who had political connections, that I'm not even at liberty to tell you who they are, that had to be touched, that had to be talked to, that had to be given a stake in [the litigation]," Scruggs says. He retained two or three of these mystery consultants to run political interference. "These guys have lots of friends and connections with the legislature," he explains. "These are people who are lobbyists, but they're not really registered lobbyists. It's really sort of the dark side of the force." Over the course of the litigation, Scruggs says, he paid these individuals well over $500,000.
Now, the book says $500,000, the Times story says $10 million paid to Blake, but look in the transcript around pages 511-514 (the page numbers are half cut off in the transcript, so you have to decipher them just a bit) -- the actual amount Scruggs agreed to pay to "the dark side of the force," as Scruggs himself put it, appears to be about $50 million to influence legislation. Not $500,000, not $10 million, but $50 million. This is a matter of public record. Look for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Below are transcripts of the Luckey trial from June 2005 and of the deposition of Scruggs from that case in August 2004.
.
UPDATE: Also look on pages 346-349 of the Scruggs deposition for the $50 million figure.
Air Scruggs may be grounded no longer. Scruggs has filed a motion, not opposed by the United States, to allow his private jet to take to the air once more, for the use of his attorneys in the criminal actions against him in Mississippi and Alabama. As a condition of release, U.S. Magistrate S. Allan Alexander ordered on November 28 that Scruggs not use his plane except for charitable and emergency purposes. But Scruggs' attorney, John Keker, is a busy guy and flying commercial is apparently just not in the cards for him -- thus the motion.
Here are some other relevant documents from the case docket, brought to you by the continuing miracle of PACER.
(I am not well versed in criminal cases, except for clerking for a criminal defense lawyer in Phoenix after my first year of law school, but in civil cases, in my experience most federal judges write their own orders, unlike state court judges, and don't want you to submit proposed orders).
.
. Note the rapidly upcoming deadlines for discovery and motion practice, and the January trial date. I wouldn't expect any of these dates will be kept, but the whole picture suggests the government is ready to go.
Keker, if you do not already know it, is one of the biggest of the big-time defense lawyers, and is based in San Francisco. He previously has been defending Scruggs against a charge of criminal contempt of court in Alabama federal court.
William Quin, a lawyer with Joey Langston's firm in Booneville, Mississippi, has been representing Scruggs lately. Langston, after being so prominent in the first few days of the Scruggs scandal, has been markedly less visible in recent days. I wonder why.
If you desire additional coverage beyond that of the Scruggs Nation, please refer to , and the , all of which have had simply Scruggsational coverage of these events.
NOTE: for those not familiar with the reference in the headline above, . about the book as a cultural phenomenon.
UPDATE: The New York Times breaks its silence on the Scruggs scandal, which was almost as deafening and protracted as that of Mississippi AG Jim Hood, . (Hat tip: ). Better late than never. The story is pretty good, and points to further federal investigation of Scruggs in other legal battles, including between Scruggs and attorney Charles Merkel. Jr. I've been looking at that myself, along with reading for background a couple of books -- Assuming the Risk: the Mavericks, the Lawyers, and the Whistle-Blowers Who Beat Big Tobacco, by Michael Orey; and The Rule of Lawyers, by Walter Olson, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, whom you may know from the websites Overlawyered and Point of Law and from numerous brilliant articles like