It’s not just the alternative media that’s been pulling the eye teeth on this story.  Mainstream media is a part of it too.

Part of it may be out of respect for Paul’s dad, but a lot of it seems like they really do buy into the idea that these guys are Robin Hood and they’re out to help us little guys. 

If you set up the story that way, then the most exciting part is when the evil Sheriff has Robin in his clutches and the merry men (reporters) step in to save him!

We’d all be better off if the right admitted to being far too influenced by big business and big finance, and the left admitted to being far too influenced by big labor and big law.

This is a typical liberal response.  When the truth gets in the way they go emotional and cry foul.  The jurors heard the facts.  The jurors voted guilty based on the facts.

Is there even a speck of original reporting in Lynch’s latest story?  They repackage their product over there more often than Disney.  The JFP audience is either extremely narrow or Ladd needed some easy no-cost filler to suck up some inches as a feature.  The one thing we learn is that they somehow believe that regurgitation sells ads.

Good job, Alan. 

That’s just good lawyerin’, ain’t it?

Here ya go, Judge, use this napkin, you got just a little sweet potatoes right there.  skunk line--too damn funny.

The only difference this time is that the “Intermediary” that paid off the strawman loan was Dickie Scruggs. Just in case you missed it, Dickie Scruggs just coincidentally is currently serving a five year sentence at a federal corrections facility in Kentucky for his admitted role in bribing a state court judge in a completely unrelated matter, but I digress.

well said.

How come the cry is always political prosecution and never i’m not guilty....

Was glancing around at coverage on this story and saw this comment on another blog and it made me go hmmmmm…

...the evil in selective prosecution is not in the prosecution of the selected one, it’s in the failure to prosecute others who have committed similar crimes.

I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about this.
I’ll go read Lynch’s article but I’m willing to bet he doesn’t address the 12 people that voted guilty and how or why they came to that decision.
If I’m wrong about that I’ll come back and apologize.

The point of the cry-political-prosecution group is to ignore the evidence, the fact that the jury saw the evidence and said he was guilty.  JFP article has continually touted Minor (and Diaz) as this horribly prosecuted man---but somehow they dont seem to want to just say it---all this evidence, presented to jury, verdict.

BREAKING NEWS AT CLARION LEDGER
Scruggs expected to enter second guilty plea

What horrible timing for Paul Minor to have Dickie Scruggs (aka Intermediary #2) about to plead guilty for his involvment in bribing his SECOND JUDGE.

Abbe Lowell is a brilliant lawyer, but this has got to hurt his chances in front of very savvy 5th circuit jurists that will obviously be able to connect these dots.

How, exactly, does this factual development bear upon the questions of law that Minor is presenting to the Fifth Circuit?

In the interests of full disclosure, I hate this website at all times, but particularly when you play lawyer, Alan.

ccvz:  don’t waste your time on a bet you already won.

Laughing, I am still thankful that you still come by just to get bitchslapped around as much as you do.

What no one is talking about in the appeal is that BOTH the defense and the USA’s office had asked for a chance to argue this appeal in preson.  The fact that Minor was given an in-person audience with 5th Circuit jurists was thought to be some indication of their intent (to maybe let him off), until we found out that actually both sides had asked for that privilege to argue the merits in person.

You’re prepared to demonstrate, then, a meaningful statistical correlation between grants of oral argument and favorable holdings for the moving party? That would be news to me and a lot of other people.

Hmm...I don’t feel bitchslapped…

Laughing, I know that buffing up felons involves “lawyerin’ up”.  I know that’s the way you like to play ball.  Fortunately, without the historical filter of the trial-lawyer friendly media (that would never in a million years give us the truth), we actually get to see what the deal is.  And the deal stinks.

If you want to continue to defend felons for not disclosing material financial relationships, using strawmen (including now convicted felons) for coverups, and other insane behavior, that’s on you.

I still haven’t heard anyone say “he didn’t do those things” or “you got your facts wrong”.  You are trying to make it an excercise of nuance.  I’m just not buying it.

During the April 13-14, 2005, FBI interviews, Jennifer Diaz said Scruggs and Bosarge promised more cash if they could find names to go with it for state campaign disclosure forms. Beginning in 1999, state law limited Supreme Court contributions to $5,000 per person.

Where are these interviews?  Are they available to the public?
I would like to see them in their entirety.

I candidly don’t understand the alternative media’s love affair with corrupt trial lawyers and the judges that love them and their nearly ceaseless efforts to invent excuses for their behavior or obfuscate their bad deeds. Maybe they’re true believers. Maybe it’s just professional courtesy.

Or maybe there’s some real injustice afoot.  If you refuse to consider that possibility you’re not being honest.

My wife has been plying me with this case for over a year.  Although we’ve read articles from Harper’s and the work of a reporter named Larissa something or other, she never pointed me towards Mr. Lynch’s work.  I don’t have an opinion on that yet.

I was resistant at first—along the same lines you are.  I’ve come to believe I was wrong.  I believe a serious injustice has been done Mr. Minor and Judge Teel.  And I believe you have far too much faith in the George Bush Justice Department—in any Justice Department.  You seem to feel the very suggestion that Mr. Minor was railroaded is somehow beyond the pale.  Are you aware that politically motivated prosecutions have been around for thousands of years?  Look beyond politics long enough to examine the possibility that this is one of them.

To those of you who seem convinced that the fact that a case was heard by a jury automatically means the verdict was just and true, I refer you to the O. J. Simpson trial.  Or any number of cases, also heard by a jury, whose verdicts were also gross miscarriages of justice.  It’s not like it’s anything new.

Laughing, I know that buffing up felons involves “lawyerin’ up”.  I know that’s the way you like to play ball.  Fortunately, without the historical filter of the trial-lawyer friendly media (that would never in a million years give us the truth), we actually get to see what the deal is.  And the deal stinks.

If you want to continue to defend felons for not disclosing material financial relationships, using strawmen (including now convicted felons) for coverups, and other insane behavior, that’s on you.

I still haven’t heard anyone say “he didn’t do those things” or “you got your facts wrong”.  You are trying to make it an excercise of nuance.  I’m just not buying it.

You didn’t answer my question. How does Scruggs II affect the questions of substantive law raised by Paul Minor’s appeal?

Part of the problem with all of this is the nature of the election and appointment of judges.
The real “bribery” takes place in the election cycle.  Minor and Scruggs contributed heavily to Diaz, Teel and Whitfield because they knew that there were weak-kneed people willing to compomise their ethics and values for money.  Minor and Scruggs knew these three would make decisions heavily in favor of the trial lawyers.  You really don’t have to bribe people when you know their minds.  These judges loved the glitz and glamour of the big trial lawyer parties and social scene, i.e. Diaz’s bed and breakfast party house that once stood on the coast. 
The “bribery” that took place after these men were in office was nothing more than a continuance of previous behaviors.  That is why they don’t see the difference and hence feel this is a poltically motivated attack.

Since all these judges are indebted to their patrons of campaign contributions or appointers, the average, non-lawyer type like myself asks the question, “Is there a judge, elected or appointed, that does not have his or her mind made up and honestly looks at the facts and merits of a case?”
I already believe the answer is NO.

Although I agree that it’s easy to read the headlines and be that cynical, I disagree.  95%+ of judges and elected officials I think try and do the right thing.  Campaign contributions are not de facto corrupting.

Okay, I may be overly cynical, but 95%!
If every level of government had a 95% level of officials trying to do the right thing, we wouldn’t be about to spend trillions of dollars.

These non-thinking feelers who cry “political prosecution” remind me of the child who claims he wasn’t trying after he lost the game.  Do all of the sucklings bemoaning Minor’s conviction feel that Scruggs is being politically prosecuted although he is pleading guilty to a second felony? Does political prosecution negate guilt? How does that work?

LAUGHING:  I’m going to weigh in on your questions despite both being addressed to the good editor.  ONE:  Regarding a statistical correlation between grants of oral argument and favorable rulings for the moving party, I’m betting there’s little, if any, while acknowledging I just went out on a limb of pure gut instinct. But, the underlying proposition has piqued my curiosity, specifically as to how those stats would stack up vis-a-vis the federal appellate bench and the elected state appellate bench.  I’m surprised some expert appellate attorney who knows off the top of his head hasn’t jumped in to inform the rest of us.  TWO:  Regarding Scruggs II and its effect on Minor’s appeal, seems more like the ‘perception’ thing to me, what with judges being human beings and all, as chock full of bias and preconceived notions as the rest of it.  I’d like to see a show of hands for all those who actually believe judges check all that at the house before donning their black robes and taking that raised bench in that imposing, dark-panelled courtroom.  On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being that ideal of pristine objectivity and strict adherence to the law, I’d give the whole bunch a 2- at best (and that’s already feeling like a stretch). What they’re really, really good at is writing up their opinions in ways that totally disguise their personal biases.  The more I think about it, the more I wonder if I’d be any different.

ALAN:  Do you happen to have any links to the Paul Minor motions/pleadings that are the subject of the upcoming oral argument before the 5th Circuit?  I’ve been, er, preoccupied of late, and must admit to near total ignorance.  For some strange reason, I was thinking the whole thing is about his being released from prison pending his appeal.  Could I be more out of the loop?  Oh, and while you’re at it, what the heck is “MSM?” For the life of me, I can’t figure it out.

Sure, Fly.  MSM is Main Stream Media.  Just a little shorthand.

The hearing in front of the 5th is about his being release pending his appeal.  Both the Government and Minor have asked for the in-person hearing, so you can’t really say that them granting what both sides have asked for really favors either side.

Here’s the latest docket info.  Oral arguments are scheduled for the week of 3/30/9.

Court of Appeals Docket #: 07-60751 Filed: 9/27/07
Nsuit:  0
USA v. Minor
Appeal from: Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson

Lower court information:
District: 0538-3 : 3:03-CR-120-1
Trial Judge: Henry T Wingate, Chief Judge

1/13/09 Unopposed motion filed by Appellant Paul S Minor in
07-60751 to file brief in excess of the word count
limitation but not to exceed 8,500 words. [6198265-1]
Date of COS: 1/12/09 Sufficient [Y/N]: y [07-60751] (cmb)
[07-60751]

1/14/09 CLERK Order filed granting Appellant John H. Whitfield’s
motion to extend time to file Reply Brief [6196039-1] Reply
Brief ddl updated to 1/20/09 for John H Whitfield. Copies
to all counsel. [07-60748] (ddv) [07-60748]

1/14/09 CLERK Order filed granting appellant Paul S. Minor’s
unopposed motion to file reply brief in excess of the word
count limitation but not to exceed 8,500 words [6198265-1]
Copies to all counsel. [07-60751] (ddv) [07-60751]

1/14/09 Reply brief filed by Appellant Walter W Teel in 07-60774.
Disk Provided [Y/N]: y Sufficient [Y/N]: y [6199177-1]
[07-60774, 07-60748, 07-60751] Reply Brief ddl satisfied.
(ddv) [07-60748 07-60751 07-60774]

1/20/09 Reply brief filed by Appellant Paul S Minor in 07-60751.
Disk Provided [Y/N]: y Sufficient [Y/N]: y [6201184-1]
[07-60751, 07-60748, 07-60774] Reply Brief ddl satisfied.
(ddv) [07-60748 07-60751 07-60774]

1/21/09 Reply brief filed by Appellant John H Whitfield in
07-60748. Disk Provided [Y/N]: y Sufficient [Y/N]: y
[6202457-1] [07-60748, 07-60751, 07-60774] Reply Brief ddl
satisfied. (ddv) [07-60748 07-60751 07-60774]

1/28/09 Case tentatively calendared for oral argument Week of:
03/30/09. [07-60748, 07-60751, 07-60774] (gam)
[07-60748 07-60751 07-60774]

2/2/09 Appearance form filed by Ruth R Morgan for Appellee USA in
07-60748, Ruth R Morgan for Appellee USA in 07-60751, Ruth
R Morgan for Appellee USA in 07-60774. [07-60748, 07-60751,
07-60774] ( No. of forms filed: 1) (ddv) [07-60748 07-60751
07-60774]

Alan, I wouldn’t totally disagree with your premise that most judges and elected officials FEEL like they THINK that they really do BELIEVE they’re GOING to do the right thing.  But, 95%?  I’d be hard pressed to give you that one, unless we confine it to the day they put their right hand on the Bible and swear they’re goin’ do right. Are you that optimistic and am I that cynical?  Rhetorical.  I’m just wondering out loud.

Thanks, Alan.  So I wasn’t dreaming after all.  You’d never know from looking at the comments!. Folks are acting like it’s the end of the road appeal on the merits of the whole dadgum case. MSM - I should’ve known. I kept scrutinizing those 3 letters, wondering whether the Clarion-Ledger had been renamed while I wasn’t looking.

while,corruption by lawyers and the bench are certainly,important and in motion to correct,i wish more emphasis would be placed on the REAL corruption in the legislature and public offices.campaign contributions,lobbyist and special interest and legislators introducing or sponsoring bills that influence their financial well being.voter fraud that nobody will address statewide.i am really getting tired of reading about Scruggs,his buddies or the judges they dealt with.bribery,is not restricted to lawyers or judges.

I must congratulate Ya’ll Politics. Some apparent change has sparked patriotism in my view. Not the stuff of old, going along to get along, I feel the present Ya’ll patriotic image regarding right and wrong within the judicial system and comments read here are truly inspiring. The past child-like behavior in the courts have been the center of no concern for to long. For those of us not members of the family and friends network ran out of Hinds County this blog site hopefully seen by millions have a certain power upon pride. I’ve read this article as well comments several times and it sounds just like hardcore reborn American citizens showing real concern and I love it! If concern or pain of pride reaches the courts the trip will be a well taken one. Again thanks I’ll be adding ya’ll to my morning coffee intake.

<QUOTE>These non-thinking feelers who cry “political prosecution” remind me of the child who claims he wasn’t trying after he lost the game.</QUOTE>

It would seem to me that a charge of political prosecution is the opposite of what you say.  Seems as though it would take a great deal of thought and study to even know such a thing exists, not to mention a background in history.  And pardon my stupidity, but I’m also having a difficult time understanding how anyone could object to those among us who “feel” strongly about the mere possibility of this kind of injustice.  I don’t understand how you could not “cry” over such a thing going on in our country.

<QUOTE>Do all of the sucklings bemoaning Minor’s conviction feel that Scruggs is being politically prosecuted although he is pleading guilty to a second felony?</QUOTE>

Do you feel it’s possible that someone could find the Minor case to be a frank example of political prosecution, but not the Scruggs case?  I’m puzzled by your linking of the two.

<QUOTE>Does political prosecution negate guilt? How does that work?</QUOTE>

It’s among the many examples of prosecutorial misconduct that yes, would negate guilt.

Pardon my incompetent coding above.  I overlooked these fine ‘helps.’ Future posts should be more pleasant to the eye.

Though we have exhaustively documented the evidence that was brought up at trial, the second indictment pursued by the Public Integrity Division at the US Department of Justice laid out the case extremely well against Minor, Teel and Whitfield

Until you give equal time to the work of Scott Horton, Larissa Alexandrova and of the fine blog Legal Schnauzer regarding Paul Minor, you haven’t exhaustively done anything.  “Exhaustively documenting the evidence that was brought up at trial” is nothing but you parrotting the party line, since much of the evidence for the defense was suppressed at trial.  I’m surprised, and disappointed, that you would make such a dishonest pretense of thoroughness.  One can only conclude your mission was not the pursuit of information, knowledge, and justice, but rather to shore up the crumbling defenses of the powers that be instead.  Historically that has a tendency to return to bite one in the posterior.  You may want to watch your back as time goes by.

General, although your logic is fragile, your passion is real, and I was starting to listen until you made a threat...I am sure most will agree that such trashiness is unacceptable.

Without putting your dukes up, please answer…

Does most of your whining stem from Minor’s conviction or that Scruggs has always been the unindicted co-conspirator who escaped prosecution via political favors?

Sir Skullduggery...Bravo on your reply and comments.
While the defense may shout that much evidence was surpressed, we who know more than has been printed about this case can attest to the same applying to the prosecution side.  Just remember two things to clarify this whole issue: 1. If all the “innocent loans” were legal why, why, why did all parties go to such great lengths to keep them secret and stretch out the paper trail to such convuluted lengths?
2. Remember Minor’s own words at his sentencing...."There is someone else who needs to be standing next to me and that person is Dickie Scruggs!” Could be Scruggs in a moment of redemption may shed more light on this case just to keep out of his cell while he is “talking” to the Feds.  And since there is so much more to Minor’s role in this case and how it ties in with the tobacco case(in which he received $$$$$ millions), we can only hope that some how the trail can lead back to ALL the culprits.  Many Coast folks are seriously hoping all this corruption can be outed.

During the April 13-14, 2005, FBI interviews, Jennifer Diaz said Scruggs and Bosarge promised more cash if they could find names to go with it for state campaign disclosure forms. Beginning in 1999, state law limited Supreme Court contributions to $5,000 per person.

How many times do I have to ask for this?
Where the heck are these interviews?
How can anyone claim innocence with “bags of cash” being exchanged?
Why all the intermediaries?
Why all the secrecy?
We only hide what we do not want others to see.

OK alan, now Tell me what Teel did again? If he was guilty why did the defense attorney in teh case Wayne Drinkwater testify on his behalf? What do you really expect when a large Mississippi bank native to the coast is suing a foreign insurance carrier on a failure to defend case? I am sure there were plenty of Judges on the Coast just dying to screw People Bank. His wife had cancer and he was broke over the medical bills, it should have been reported but was done all the time by lawers for chamber clients and trial lawyers