WHOA. Sit down, everybody
This website moved Sunday, Feb. 10, to a new address - http://www.folo.us. Please go to http://www.folo.us to enter your comment! Thanks.
UPDATED BELOW
I know exactly what I think this — just in from Alyssa via email – means, but what’s your theory?
lotus
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
CRIMINAL CASE NO.: 3:07CR192-B-A
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. RICHARD F. “DICKIE” SCRUGGS, DAVID ZACHARY SCRUGGS, SIDNEY A. BACKSTROM AND STEVEN A. PATTERSON
ANTHONY L. FARESE’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY FOR DAVID ZACHARY SCRUGGS
COMES NOW Anthony L. Farese and files this his Motion to Withdraw as the Attorney of Record for David Zachary Scruggs, and in support thereof would show unto the Court the following, to wit:
1. Anthony L. Farese would show that David Zachary Scruggs was indicted on November 28, 2007, in a six count indictment in this cause. Anthony L. Farese arraigned him before U. S. Magistrate Judge Allan Alexander on the same day.
2. Anthony L. Farese would show that this referenced case has been set for trial before Senior United States District Judge Neal B. Biggers, Jr., on February 25, 2008.
3. Anthony L. Farese would show that David Zachary Scruggs has indicated an intent of hiring other counsel, and has terminated his services. Anthony L. Farese would, therefore, move to withdraw as the attorney of record for the Defendant, David Zachary Scruggs, in this matter.
4. Anthony L. Farese would show that neither the Defendant, David Zachary Scruggs, nor the Government will be prejudiced by the withdrawal of Anthony L. Farese.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned attorney, Anthony L. Farese, would respectfully move this Honorable Court to allow him to withdraw as the attorney of record for Defendant David Zachary Scruggs in the above styled and numbered cause.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this the 9th day of January, 2008.
/s/ Anthony L. Farese
ANTHONY L. FARESE, MSB #5133
FARESE, FARESE & FARESE, P.A.
P. O. BOX 98
ASHLAND, MISSISSIPPI 38603
TELEPHONE: 662-224-6211
UPDATE: Get over to Patsy Brumfield’s new story: now Joey’s hired Tony Farese.
January 9, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Waaa-haaah — just look what these bozos have done to my once-beautiful page!
January 9, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Obviously, IANAL, what’s up?
trying to delay the case?
January 9, 2008 at 2:43 pm
More like “the defense team is shattering, and with it, apparently some sanities,” Busted.
God, really, at this point, absolutely ANYTHING maybe the next news.
January 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Lotus, my knot theory, the circle has been breached untangling has begun and every person for himself. Does this make sense?
January 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Refresh for an update.
January 9, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Question: The Daily Journal reported several days ago that Farese represented Langston on the day of the office search. I just assumed that the paper got that wrong. I know Farese was up there that day and was quoted in the paper, but thought it was a wagons-circling moment, not him actually taking on Joey’s case. Is it possible that the paper was correct? I’ve little doubt that if Langston had some, um, difficulties, one of those on his short list of who-to-call would be Tony Farese.
Of course, given the (re)appearance of Ken Coghlan, turning up on more than one side of this affray does seem to occur, but still– if the rumors floating around about Langston are so, then Farese’s representation of Langston on the search, by itself, would explain the exit.
Nevertheless, I had an OMG reaction when I heard a few minutes ago that Farese was withdrawing.
Watch the lawyers play musical chairs! Any guesses who will sit down in the seat Tony just vacated? (One loves ones father and all but I’d sure want a good independent lawyer by my side if I were Zach right now).
January 9, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Woah!
January 9, 2008 at 3:09 pm
How can that be? If Joey hired Tony, then some of the rumors coursing through the system have got to be suspect, folks. No way that wouldn’t require waivers and no body gives waivers so a potential hostile witness can have himself a good lawyer.
January 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm
NOT TO MENTION that if this defense has been as unified (possibly, as Joey-centric as I’ve heard) as variously made out to be — jeebus, how are they not ALL conflicted out at this point — if not legally, at least intellectually/strategically?
In your life, have you ever seen anything close to this surreal?
January 9, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I think I’m gonna wait for the TV mini-series.
I’m tired.
January 9, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Know what you mean, young’un. I’m about to fall flat on my face on this keyboard.
January 9, 2008 at 3:43 pm
NMC, can you or somebody get on PACER and check for a Farese-for-Langston appearance?
I. am. NOT. going. to. change. “First thing we do” one. more. time. without. I. see. an. official. notice.
January 9, 2008 at 3:50 pm
The CL has what is now “old news” about Langston withdrawing but I thought one of the comments worth passing on.
“bvane
There is a lot of information that is not contained in the indictment that is pretty favorable to the defense. Remember, the indictment is one-sided, selected information slanted for and by the government. Sources say that when the government finally turned over some of the tape recordings, the defense lawyers were very excited. Let this thing play out, you may be surprised.”
Can’t get to journal btw from any link.
January 9, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Gee, isn’t that bvane comment from the C-L as un-sourced as that you railed against earlier? Or, is it acceptable if your trusted posters post un-sourced conjecture from external non-folo internet haunts?
January 9, 2008 at 5:19 pm
the “let this play out, you may be surprised,” is the absolutely standard uniform defense line on this (except the one I am hearing is “you will be surprised.” Not to say I won’t be, but that’s what they’re saying.
But hey, being surprised isn’t surprising in this case!
Responding to lotus’s desperate plea for pacer confirmation of Tony Farese representing Langston: Exactly where would one confirm that? There is no pending case involving Langston, unless there’s something under seal we haven’t seen yet.
January 9, 2008 at 5:31 pm
This item on the Legal Newsline the other day didn’t seem to draw a lot of notice:
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/205937-barrett-law-attorney-switches-jobs-drops-katrina-suits
I know lawyers leave law firms all the time, but in light of recent events, the timing of, and stated reasons for, this departure make me wonder what’s afoot at the Barrett Firm.
January 9, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Bud Fox, I credited the source which is entirely different matter from making it up — equally important is to note that it contains nothing that would harm anyone.
That’s a very different situation from the posts last night.
As to the suggestion the rules only apply to some, wrong. I don’t know how frequently others are held for moderation, but I’ve had that happen a number of times to mine.
I’m going to assume you comment was well intended effort to help lotus given how busy she must be today - regardless of your motivation however, that dog don’t hunt on my comment.
January 9, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I’m with Alyssa on this one, assuming the graphic novel doesn’t come out first.
How in the world could an attorney (Coghlan) get himself removed from a case representing one defendant, and then get added to a different defendant’s team in the same case?
I’m sure it’s clear that I’m not a lawyer, but I’ll just state that explicitly.
January 9, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Decouple the content. The source is as bogus as the source last night regardless of where you got it.
January 9, 2008 at 6:07 pm
3. Anthony L. Farese would show that David Zachary Scruggs has indicated an intent of hiring other counsel, and has terminated his services.
The above from Farese’s motion to withdraw is interesting– did Zach fire Farese first or did Farese quit first?
January 9, 2008 at 6:15 pm
NMC — oh lord, thank you. That’s how tired and out-of-it I am by now. Crikey.
Hi, Chug, and welcome to folo! Yepper, none of those offices can be cheery places just now, can they?
nowdoucit and all: Bud Fox is what in blog-parlance is known as a “troll” — someone who just comes around with no other agenda than to express hostility and disrupt the bizness of the place.
The best trollicide has proven to be total shunning — or, as it’s sometimes stated, “Don’t feed the trolls.”
This one is disagreeable but hasn’t actually broken any posted rule of the site (see About page, “the etiquette”), so for now I’m not going to ban him. Nor am I going to read one further word that he says.
If he gets to bothering y’all too much, let me know and his ass is out of here. But I really do recommend a shave with Occam’s Razor: just scroll right past whenever you sight the name.
January 9, 2008 at 6:37 pm
The information that I am getting is that the following factors affected Farese’s withdrawal: Feds have goods on Zach — Papa Scruggs won’t help by falling on sword or giving an inch — client (Zach) won’t follow advice re plea due to Dad —- Nothing left to do. Both Scruggs plan to use same attys and fight charges –no deals at this time.
Coghlan agreed to represent each Scruggs, serving as the needed MS local counsel, for a large amount of money. Not sure how this info I recieved jives with Coghlan’s former appearance on behalf of Patterson (if Patterson has indeed cut a deal with feds and is cooperating). But, it is possible that Patterson could have only used Coghlan for his federal arraignment, and then switched to Eastland before any substantive work on his defense was performed by Coghlan, and without any confidential atty-client information being exchanged between the two. Patterson could have signed a release of Coghlan to allow Coghlan to represent any of the others in the future, if needed. Just speculating here.
January 9, 2008 at 7:52 pm
“A friend of the law’s” information has a ring of veracity to it, due to that would be most people’s first idea of what had happened, when one attorney gets fired a week or so after discovery gets delivered.
Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt. And, some people will pay dearly to be told what they need to hear.
January 9, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Being paid a large amount of money by Scruggs would be a good thing if, and only if, one could just be certain that an indictment wasn’t sure to follow.
January 9, 2008 at 8:16 pm
UPSTAIRS!
(Sorry to holler, y’all, but you’ll see why.)