This is hugely interesting.  Recall that Johnny Jones lawsuit alleged there were five original members in the Scruggs Katrina Group - Scruggs, Nutt, Barnett, Lovelace and Jones. 

Now look at the list of members in the Scruggs Katrina Group contained in the pleading linked above—Scruggs, Nutt, Barnett, Lovelace and Mike Moore.  Can it be that Scruggs, Nutt, Barnett and Lovelace voted poor Johnnie Jones off the island just so they could make room for their old pal Mike Moore?  It sure as hell looks that way.  The only difference between the old SKG and the new SKG is the substitution of Moore for Jones.

And that might explain Scruggs’ intense desire to have his dispute with Jones forced out of the public eye and into confidential arbitration—a desire so intense he resorted to an almost unbelievably ham-handed bribery scheme.  If this is what happened, then Scruggs’ crude bribery scheme can only be understood as an attempt to protect Moore and, by extension, Moore’s viability in the upcoming election to replace his soon-to-be-retiring brother in law, Trent Lott.  You don’t think Trent would have kept his retirement plans secret from bro’ Dickey, after all?

This is so bizarre I had to go back and look at the pleading again just to make sure I was reading it correctly.  In the body of the motion Scrugges specifically says that “the Plaintiffs are represented by Barrett, Nutt and Lovelace . . .” It’s only when you look at the notice of service (which, as a practical matter, is handled by the federal court’s automated filing system) that you discover Moore’s involvement, where he is plainly listed as Plaintiffs’ Counsel. 

Why on earth would Dickey fail to mention Moore in the body of his motion as plaintiffs’ counsel?  Did he just forget?  Or did his secretary screw up and add Moore’s name on the notice of service by mistake, sort of like, you know, I might accidentally name Alan Lange in my Last Will and Testament?

If the cover-up isn’t always worse than the crime, it is almost always more interesting.

One more thing.  If this theory is correct, Trent Lott did not resign because he knew Dickie Scruggs tried to bribe a judge.  Dickie Scruggs tried to bribe a judge because he knew Trent Lott was resigning.

Late arrival, I know; but, how does one propose that bribing a federal judge correlates with the timing of a senatorial resignation? And is there a suggestion that Mr. Scruggs’ behavior was somehow tempered or restrained during the tenure of his Brother-In-Law-Lott? If so, God help us in imagining what he might have done had Lott been selling minnows at an outpost on the Singing River.