Now, for reasons that occasionally I have trouble remembering, my chosen fate is to spend virtually all my time around lawyers. So I am aware of and wary of lawyer spin. I admire good spin, and try to remember the method, tone and manner of presentation to perhaps use it myself sometime. What we’ve got here is some pretty good spin, trying to make the best out of what’s available. However, while you can turn lemons into lemonade, it’s hard to make lemonade out of manure. This is not much of a surprise, they’ve indicated all along their strategy would include attacking Lackey and making Balducci out to be a freelancing klutz.
Pages 6 and 7 of the motion makes these interpretations of the evidence, designed to show that Dickie Scruggs was a victim of what is portrayed as Lackey’s efforts to con Balducci into falsely claiming Scruggs knew what was going on. My comments are offset below each bullet point.
In the May 21, 2007 recorded meeting between Balducci and Lackey, it was the judge who suggested Scruggs was involved, saying “I just want to hear you say it again . . . you and Scruggs are the only ones who know anything about this?”
[Key word is again, which suggests he said it before. In the indictment, page 5 — (click here for a copy) — the government alleges that on May 9, Balducci approached Lackey about a bribe and delivered the now famous “where the bodies are buried” speech, admittedly not on a par with Pericles’ funeral oration for eloquence, but it, like Pericles’ declamation, could be said to capture the moment in its own unique way. Didn’t I say two days ago that these guys needed to get that book off Amazon, Informers In Your Midst: 10 Telltale Signs from Constantly Asking You To Speak Up To Wearing An FBI Sweatshirt?
Insurance Coverage Blog