Yall Politics

Lee Harrell Deposition Ties Mike Moore to SKG and Hood’s Criminal Efforts

Lee Harrell Deposition in the McIntosh vs. State Farm Case

From Page 333

HARRELL - A. I asked him (MOORE), well, who's paying
3 you? I know you are not doing it for free.
4 MR. SCRUGGS:
5 Move to strike as non-responsive.
6 MR. WEBB:
7 Q. What did he say?
8 A. He (MOORE) said he gets paid at the end of
9 the day.
10 Q. He said he gets paid at the end of
11 the day?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Did he ever say how he was going
14 to get paid or by whom?
15 A. We never could figure that one
16 out.
17 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Moore ever
18 represent to you that he was doing any work
19 in conjunction with any Grand Jury?
20 MR. SCRUGGS:
21 Object to the form.
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 MR. WEBB:
24 Q. What did he tell you about that?
25 A. In that meeting, in my office, he (MOORE)
1 said he was helping Jim Hood with the Grand
2 Jury process.
3 Q. And this is the same meeting where
4 he told you he was resolution counsel who
5 got paid at the end of the day; he also told
6 you that he was helping Jim Hood with the
7 Grand Jury process?
8 MR. SCRUGGS:
9 Object to the form.
10 A. Yes, sir.

Insurance Coverage Blog
12/6/7

Posted December 6, 2007 - 9:29 am

13 Comments:

THIS IS ABSOLUTE REQUIRED READING. So here we have a deposition from Lee Harrell who states that under oath that Scruggs requests a meeting with Dale to request that Dale push for a $500M global settlement that would, of course, be administered by Scruggs (a la Tobacco).

Posted by Alan on 12-06-2007 at 10:37 AM [link]

Then, we have Harrell (who used to work with Moore) testify that he gets several calls from Moore who is playing a dual role of some sort. Harrell testifies that Moore represented that he is involved as a “resolution counsel” and that he is working with Hood on the Grand Jury proceedings.

This is powerful stuff (allegedly). Obviously it’s not the gospel truth as its only my interpretation of one side of the story. HOWEVER, if matters happened substantially as Mr. Harrell represents, this is much much bigger than just some jakeleg lawyers bribing a judge.

Much bigger indeed.

Posted by Alan on 12-06-2007 at 10:41 AM [link]

Yet more bombshells from the Harrell depo . . .

Apparently, Dale was indicted in the early 90s, but not convicted. Scruggs rode to the rescue to fund Dale’s defense. Now, Scruggs calls for a meeting with Dale for the payback . . . for Dale to push for a global State Farm Settlement that would be administered by Scruggs.

From page 368

Q From Zach ScruggsBut you remember he (DALE)was indicted
5 related to his role as Insurance
6 Commissioner?
7 A. (HARRELL)Yes, sir.
8 Q. And were you aware that Mr.
9 Scruggs, Dickie Scruggs, that is, the person
10 you are speaking of, was the largest
11 contributor to his criminal defense fund for
12 that indictment?
13 A. No, sir.
14 Q. You were not aware?
15 A. I was not aware he was the
16 largest.
17 Q. Were you aware that he contributed
18 money to George Dale’s criminal defense
19 fund?
20 A. Yes, sir.

Posted by Alan on 12-06-2007 at 10:59 AM [link]

Why the Hell did Zach Scruggs conduct that deposition in which his father, Dickie Scruggs, was one of the primary topics of conversation? That sounds wrong.

Posted by HeardOnTheStreet on 12-06-2007 at 11:12 AM [link]

This relly is an embarrassment to the legal profession!

Posted by nerboo on 12-06-2007 at 11:25 AM [link]

As a side item, the Mississippi Supreme Court’s webpage of Diaz’s bio still has him married to Jennifer Diaz.

Posted by nerboo on 12-06-2007 at 11:29 AM [link]

Just when I think you all may really know something factual, here comes nerboo—FYI the reason that Diaz’s bio shows that he’s married to Jennifer is because HE IS MARRIED TO JENNIFER.

Posted by one true thing on 12-06-2007 at 02:09 PM [link]

Do you mean Common Law marriage? They were married, then divorced. Did they remarry by the JP or something. Is there a license on file in a clerk’s office somewhere? Or are you saying they were never divorced, if so, how can you prove that?

Posted by Fyodor1 on 12-07-2007 at 04:13 PM [link]

Mississippi doesn’t have common law marriage.

Posted by Jane on 12-07-2007 at 04:18 PM [link]

Unless the marriage was established before 1956. Wouldn’t fit Diazes.

Posted by David Sanders on 12-07-2007 at 06:22 PM [link]

Embarrassment, what about the MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT? A few years ago it was widely publicized that the Judges of the Mississippi Supreme Court were having there “JUDICIAL OPINIONS” DRAFTED BY THE LAWYERS OF A PROMINENT DOWNTOWN JACKSON DEFENSE FIRM. Now, that’s an EMBARRASSMENT, but the partisans on here and elsewhere want to forget about that one, don’t they?

Get over it people! It’s not a matter of the Democrats or the Republicans - wrong is wrong. The system here is broken, and both Republicans and Democrats are to blame.

What we need is to “clean house” of the bad lawyers, both plaintiff and defense bar, the dishonest judges, the dishonest legislators, and the other corrupt politicians who have made money off of this perverse system in which no sensible Mississippi citizen can have any faith. Hopefully, the Feds are about to take the next step of many, many more that are needed to restore a little faith in our system!

Posted by Justus on 12-07-2007 at 06:55 PM [link]

It is sad that there has to be such a cleaning from time to time in Mississippi, but it is true. And, it seems for it to be a thorough cleaning, it has to be the feds doing it. Operation Pretense, which resulted in so many county supervisors being indicted back in the 1980’s was painful and unpleasant to go through. But, we have better and more honest county government because of it.

This whole legal evolution of the Supreme Court investigations and prosecutons were painful and unpleasant for the legal community to go through. The Scruggs investigation, and everything that springs from it, is also going to be painful and unpleasant to go through. But, if the truth, whatever that truth may be, can be ferreted out, and any dishonest lawyers and/or judges uncovered and convicted, we will have a better legal system in Mississippi because of it.

Posted by lawdoctor1960 on 12-08-2007 at 08:48 AM [link]

I was amused by Billy McCoy’s comments in the Clarion-Ledger article by Natalie Chandler where he said the house republicans were responsible for “partisanship” in the house. Over a year ago Billy, on his own letterhead, called for the formation of a house democratic caucus. At that time, the republicans were not even considering forming the Republican Conference, which they did in response. Also, look at the seven members of the Legislative Committee, appointed by Billy, not one republican. Now who is partisan????

Posted by JimE on 12-11-2007 at 03:38 PM [link]

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. And yes, you can still keep your identity anonymous. See the instructions on the registration page.

Glossary