I hope everyone had a good weekend.  I needed a brief Scuggless Holiday, but I am back in the saddle.  A lot of stuff happened over the weekend.  I did my best to synopsize a lot of it in advance for a radio appearance tomorrow at 6:30 a.m. on Paul Gallo’s show on Supertalk Mississippi.

There is a ton of stuff that came out of the Anita Hill and Jerry Mitchell’s article, and I think more will come out from both of them shortly.  We will begin breaking it down soon as well.

Excellent overview, Alan (for which we other Scruggs bloggers are especially grateful, since now we don’t have to attempt one). Bravo!

Alan: I want to second the comments of “lotus” on the excellent summary of the situation. I am trying to remember just who was the public aware was involved in the tobacco litigation in MS. There was Scruggs and Ron Motley. Apparently those two still get along. But who else? Weren’t there a couple of attorneys from from the Delta. Seems like Fred Clark and Victor McTeer were involved, as was Don Barrett of Lexington. Weren’t there some attorneys from Jackson that got in on the action as well?  My point is that it appears none of those involved in tobacco (at least those we knew about) have sued Scruggs over tobacco fees. This is a far different story than the the attorneys Scruggs has been involved with concerning asbestos fees. Any thoughts on why Scruggs has not had any “falling out” with his tobacco partners. Perhaps the term mutually assured destruction applies here?

What I see is: The happy faces of ‘97 are now glum and fixed. All the excitement is now gone. The Tres’ Amigos of Lott, Moore and Scruggs seem now to be facing a world void of praise and adoration. The crowns are missing.

You can bet these three Ole’ Miss alumnus are nervous and many surrounding them are in the same fix. Greed will always get ya as will all the 7 deadly. So-be-it.

From a distance, it appears that the federal government violated the attorney client privileges of Mr. Scruggs’ clients when they raided Mr. Scruggs’ office in Oxford AND his attorney’s office in Booneville Mississippi last week. This alone may result as inadmissible evidence that will actually help Mr. Scruggs in defending himself. There certainly are less provocative methods of discovery than having the FBI raid your office, pull your hard drives and take your files to copy and back up for the prosecutors. If the government’s case is so airtight with informants, wiretaps, tapes and eyewitnesses then why the need for a raid on his office and his attorneys office? What other snooping is the government up to and for whom?

When ‘armed federal discovery’ becomes precedent in this country, we are looking at a very dangerous and very serious breach of rights as a nation and a people.

I think 95% of the readers here understand the high bar that was hurdled by the prosecutors in raiding Mr. Langston’s office (and some say home), given that he was the original counsel for defendant Scruggs in this case, and therefore subject to attorney-client privelege. 

The bar in general is very cognizant of the, for lack of a better word, sacredness of attorney-client privelege. To put it simply, it’s a high bar, that should be appreciated.

As opposed to your view, which seems to be that this privelege was commonly vulgarized by an indifferent court, most here believe that the prosecution presented some damned good reason, based on states evidence Balducci’s testimony, in front of the Federal judge or magistrate who faced with such, had no compelling reason NOT to puncture this sacred attorney-client veil.

I think after a couple of weeks of reading the things we’ve been reading, most here don’t want to hear your “big government peering into things they shouldn’t” mantra. 

But thanks for the try, Mr. Tyler.

Tyler, not if the attorney was part of the conspiracy. Then he is fair game.

Mr. Tyler..............from a distance it appears that the Court System (up around Oxford) had / has been offered a bribe by the very men who are to uphold such Courts. We must keep the Judicial in MS as unspoiled as possible or we will be back in a more primitive state. Judges must not be soiled with backroom deals. It did not work on the coast and it seems not to be working upstate.

I want the Bar high and the courts clean so if I need them I can know the Judiciary is fair and the scales are balanced. Rotten Judges + rotten Lawyers = rotten decisions.

Mr. Tyler,

I think that if you do a little more reading, you will realize that the raid on Langston’s office, was aimed at uncovereing further evidence, of additional bribery of additional judges, not bolsterig the present case against Scruggs.

The searching of an attorney’s office, especially one with connections to a sitting U.S. Senator, is not going to be taken lightly by the U.S. Department of Justice.  It would take a good sized room I imagine, to hold all of the people in the chain of command that had to sign off on the search of Scruggs’ and Langston’s offices.

The view of the federal government as the bad guy, for investigating these obviously very credible and very serious allegations of bribery, is a new one here, and a point of view I have not encountered so far.  But, you are the juror Scruggs and company will be looking for in voir dire.

Oh, what tangled web we weave, when once we try to deceive.

I’m with all of y’all - Tyler, you too.  I don’t like any of this, I want lawyers to fight hard, but fairly.  I practiced law a while, and I saw the “big pot” who had loaned the judge money or, probably back then, just made a big contribution.

I’m for letting people, corporations, etc., give whatever they want to give, to hell with limits, it’s our money.  Just require everybody to report everything over some small threshold, like $250.  Require reports monthly, weekly during campaigns, 48 hour right before elections, whatever, just often.  (If you want the money, you have to do the paperwork.) Report it all, with complete information, or don’t cash the check until you get it.  None of this “information requested” crap.

As John Reeves would say:  “Come on, people!” Go John.

I meant to add, the “big pot” who got favorable treatment.  With full disclosure, at least I would have known what I was up against.

Maybe we ought to require a summary of five years of contributions to attached to pleadings.  Umm.

The U.S. Attorney on the Scruggs case says he does not object to a brief continuance, but says the case is pretty straightforward. Read the latest over on folo’s site. He’s got the docs from PACER.  From the U.S.’s response to the defense motion, it looks like Tim B. did not begin to cooperate until AFTER 1 Nov 2007. With that in mind, go back and read the indictment. These guys are in deep poop. Also, Steve P. has a new lawyer on the case.

Evidently Mrs Schloemer forgot about Brian Ford’s notes.Maybe she didnt watch her bosses testimony in front of the U.S House. I’m sure she could’t have read Lee Harrel’s deposition.

Mr. Rossmiller’s objective statement accurately reflects the condition of Schloemer, and I fully appreciate the manner in which he makes his point.  He offers an interesting, humorous, significant contribution to my own interests and they give no odor of tainted management of content.  He’s fair and must think hard about comment dumping.

Order continuing Scruggs trial to February 25 linked at folo.

Just read the ‘continuation’ order. Rest assured, the Feds will abide by the Judge’s recommendations as they keep a keen ear to the other chatter.