AwRIGHT!

Ladies and gennelmens, please rejoin NMC, riddenword, and me at http://www.folo.us so we can pick up just where we left off when so rudely interrupted.

lotus

Okay, everybody, we’re less than an hour from final transfer back to folo.us now, so I’m gonna close the comment threads on ya. We’ll open them up again first thing when we get to the new place.

As I was explaining to Cujo359 earlier today, we can’t do an automatic “internal redirect” from this site to over there, so just stand by and read all you want, maybe take some notes if you have a thought you can’t wait to share, and keep an eye on the front page here.

When riddenword has things all ready for us back at the house, I’ll let you know. And at that point les bontemps (and the Edit Button!) can roulez in fines’ style where we like ‘em best!

lotus

It seems that no one had really noticed that the Wilson v. Scruggs case was still open and ready for action, and so the motion to recuse filed by Wilson’s lawyers may have come as a surprise to many.

“Many” here would probably include the lawyers who once represented Scruggs who are still of counsel in the case and have never done anything to withdraw from it. Many have recently filed Motions to Withdraw.

So many possible titles for this post came through my mind. “It’s been fun, guys, but we’re outta here!” and “Let my people go!” for instance. But the obvious winner comes from this sentence in Johnny Jones’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Dickie Scruggs: “Irreconcilable differences have been developed between Counsel and the Scruggs Defendants.”

Is this a divorce petition? Shouldn’t it be filed in Chancery Court? It does help us understand Jones’s take on this in his coversations with Jerry Mitchell, reported in Sunday’s paper.

NMC

“[T]he explanation of any phenomena should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.” From the wikipedia entry on Occam’s razor.

Occam’s razor is usually the best argument against conspiracy theories. An obvious example is that the rich and powerful (like everyone else) are usually going to act on their own self-interest, and so it does not require imagining a dark conspiracy of the rich and powerful when they make the similar moves out of self-interest. This does not mean there are never conspiracies of the rich and powerful, only that there needs to be some concrete evidence of such a conspiracy to imagine one.

What does it have to do with Scruggs this week? I think we now have enough public information to pretty close to fully understand the hiring of Mike Moore by Zach Scruggs:

• Moore has a long and close relationship with the Scruggs family that I am sure includes a high level of mutual trust. Moore has the kind of loyalty that leads him to do things like accompany Scruggs to his grand jury testimony in the Paul Minor case.
• The addition of more lawyers from Kansas City and Graves’s public comment about why Zach won’t plead both make clear that this is about building a legal team for trial. While Mike Moore has almost no trial experience in decades, and probably no federal criminal experience at all, he is very much a known local lawyer. I’m not fully sure how his presence in the case will come across to a jury. It’s not impossible that it will be a net benefit.
• Dickie Scruggs makes decisions with a serious eye toward public relations and also toward personal relationships. I can see him thinking he’s made the smart move here on both fronts, and that’s having an influence on Zach.
• Moore likes being in the public eye, to put it mildly, and to a degree may even believe there is no such thing as bad publicity.

And I think each of the points I just made suggests that Zach has made a decision about adding Mike Moore that has some arguable advantages. It’s a judgment call, although in my judgment not the smartest decision I’ve seen.

And so where does that leave us? “tick… tick… tick”– we are 13 days from a trial setting that Judge Biggers has done everything he can to communicate is set in stone. The order he entered yesterday says: “The amended and/or additional motions are, therefore, due to be filed no later than Wednesday, March 19, 2008.” That’s tomorrow. “This extension in no way affects any other deadlines previously set forth in this cause, including the change of plea deadline of March 17, 2008, or the trial date of March 31, 2008.”

I predict we will see additional motions (I think some but not all of the issues mentioned in court can be resolved by negotiation), which probably means a motions hearing the first of next week. I also predict that bringing Moore in will have nothing to do with what happens to the trial setting (that is, it won’t be the basis for a motion to continue that goes anywhere) and that there will have to be a big surprise development to delay the trial.

I am not willing to make a prediction about a guilty plea except these: It sure looks like no plea, but if Zach and the government do come to an arrangement, I would be shocked if the plea deadline stops a plea from being accepted. The changes in what happened over the last few days make this case so different, I think the judge would allow the deadline to be waived. Which is not to say there will be a plea.

Finally, John Keker: I see Folo’s link to Patsy Brumfeld’s report about John Keker — that he’s jumping back into the case on Zach’s side. Says who? It’s not on PACER, and I don’t see any public sign of it other than the report in the Daily Journal. Anyone else have any idea where this originated? This case has had some odd reporting that looks in retrospect like someone’s trial balloons (e.g. the Zach-gets-a-deferred-sentence report from Friday on the Clarion Ledger site). Is this another of those?

Update:  After a comment from dmwriter, I noted that on PACER, Keker does show up now as a lawyer for Zach, although I see no pleading in which they’ve made that move formally.  Then dmwriter, as also noted by him in comments below, wrote Keker directly (hey! dmwriter is a reporter!) who wrote back: ““The computer has it wrong. I have not been added, and won’t be. We are trying to fix it now.”

NMC

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

We all UP AND DANCIN’ for ya, darlin’!

Love,
folo

Jeepers, I glanced at Patsy’s story too quickly the first time, missing this tucked-away sentence:

Without fanfare, the senior Scruggs’ California attorney, John Keker, also was added to the defense team.

UPDATE: False alarm, according to Keker himself (h/t dmwriter). Carry on . . .

lotus

Y’all, I had some most-excellent news from riddenword last night: he and his tech have been able to transfer what we’ve put here since Friday, apparently intact, back to “main” folo in one swell foop!

Woohoo for that — you have no idea how I was dreading having to do it manually, post-by-post and comment-by-comment. They’ve arranged for me to get back in now too, so I’ll be spending some time over there this morning, confirming that it’s really as intact as our first peeks-in late last night suggested. (Intact, that is, up to the moment they did the test transfer.)

Last evening, the two of them also sent word to the rest of the World Wide Web that it can find us at folo.us again — but it’ll take about 24 hours for that information to “propagate” to servers everywhere. So while it does, we’ll just sit tight here, avoiding misdirected landings at the wrong address. (Some of you IT-savvy folks like Bud Fox and Hatfield and jester will understand this process much better than I do, no doubt.) 

Anyhow, at some point this evening, we’ll close the threads to new comments and let our tech department perform the final transfer (which shouldn’t take long at all), and then riddenword or I will give the word to “Come On Home to Your Dearly-Beloved Edit Button.”

RAH!

lotus

According to my friend The Google, this has been declared “Attorney General Day” in the Mississippi newspapers, so take your pick: Moore in the Sun Herald or Hood in the Clarion-Ledger and Jackson Free Press.

Down on the Coast, Anita Lee briefly covers Mike Moore’s entry as a defender of Zach Scruggs:

“I have known Zach Scruggs since he was a little boy,” Moore said in a written statement Monday. “He asked me to represent him should his case ever get to trial. Zach is innocent of the charges pressed against him, and we look forward to his exoneration.”

Four other defendants in the case, including Zach’s father, Dickie Scruggs, have pleaded guilty to one charge each of conspiring to bribe a state court judge. The conspiracy charge carries a maximum five years in prison, while Zach Scruggs could face up to 75 years if convicted on all six charges filed against each defendant in November.

“Zach is innocent and he’s unwilling to plead to something that he didn’t do,” said his lead defense attorney, Todd Graves of Kansas City. Graves is a former U.S. attorney, but Moore has little if any experience in federal criminal court, where Zach Scruggs will be tried. Moore did serve 16 years as Mississippi’s chief prosecutor after working as district attorney in Pascagoula. …

Anita also notes that, though Moore was Pascagoula’s DA for sixteen years, he has “little if any” experience in federal criminal practice. Her conclusion reverberates too:

Although the deadline for plea agreements was Monday, court observers said a change of plea can be accepted at a later date, should Zach Scruggs change his mind. Dickie Scruggs’ plea agreement did not include a provision that he cooperate by testifying in the case, but the other defendants did pledge to do so.

Meanwhile in Jackson, Jerry Mitchell writes up Jim Hood’s displeasure with the head MS GOPer (whose name supports no end of “Red Herring” remarks, and who’s also vexed the Jackson Free Press: Mississippi GOP Politicizes Scruggs Plea.) Reports Jerry:

Attorney General Jim Hood questioned the head of the state Republican Party’s motives in calling Monday for an independent counsel to investigate the relationship between him and trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs and his associates.

Hood said in a statement, “The federal government is handling these cases. The district attorneys of the state of Mississippi are, in essence, independent prosecutors, and my office has made available to them every resource we possess should they decide to pursue state charges.

“But given the Republican Party’s sudden pronouncement in this matter, the question must be asked: Has this entire sad and disappointing chapter in Mississippi history dissolved into ruinous partisan politics? For the sake of our citizens, I hope not.”

Although Mississippi law has no mechanism for appointing an independent counsel, Jim Herring, chairman of the Mississippi Republican Party, believes such a law should be adopted.

Herring having (a) announced that the state GOP will donate to charity the $27.5 thou that Dickie’s given it and (b) suggested that the MS Dems follow suit, we learn that:

Wayne Dowdy, chairman of Mississippi Democratic Party, rejected Herring’s call.

“We will absolutely not follow his lead. There’s no need for it,” Dowdy said. “I support the Boys and Girls Club individually.”

Oooo-kay. Well, you can’t say the Scruggses haven’t spread it around, according to Jerry:

Since 1993, Scruggs has personally contributed more than $221,000 - some going to Republicans such as his brother-in-law, then U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, and more going to Democrats.

Scruggs gave the maximum amount of $4,200 to U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton for her 2006 re-election campaign. His plan to host a fundraiser for Clinton at his Oxford home was cancelled after he was indicted last November.

Scruggs and his wife, Diane, each contributed $2,300 to Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s campaign, which has since returned the contributions.

The McCain campaign has not returned contributions of $2,300 each from of Scruggs’ children, Zach and Claire.

Scruggs, his family members and his law firm members contributed to other candidates, too, including U.S. Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del.; Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; Patty Murray, D-Wash.; Bill Nelson, D-Fla.; and John Kerry, D-Mass.

Claire Scruggs, whose occupation is listed as student, contributed $101,900, including $53,500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The most a single person can contribute to a single candidate is $2,100 per election cycle, or $4,200 if the primary and general election are totalled.

Last June 30, members of the Scruggs law firm contributed $9,400 to the campaign of U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. …

In addition to his direct contributions to candidates, Scruggs contributed $300,000 to the Democratic Attorney Generals’ Association. Booneville lawyer Joey Langston, who also has pleaded guilty to corruption charges, contributed $100,000.

In turn, the association gave $400,000 to the campaign of Hood, who has called for campaign finance reform in Mississippi.

So the very Red Mr. Herring wants the Miss Lege to create an office of independent counsel (or something similar, with subpoena powers conferred by, say, SCOM Chief Justice Jim Smith) to track the Scruggs-Hood gravy-train.

But Smith, CJ, says hold-on-here-a-minute-Fishy, we got no constitutional authority for that: “This is totally unlike the federal system, where there does exist constitutional and statutory authority for the Justice Department of the United States to appoint independent counsel, rather than the Supreme Court of the United States.”

N.B.: Lest anyone be confused, I do NOT believe the Miss Goopers’ Fishy is our Fishy. Ours has a sense of humor. I rest my case.

UPDATE: Patsy Brumfield’s up with her findings on the backgrounds of the other new faces on Team Zach. Interesting stuff.

lotus

Yikes, I don’t know whether our pal from Seattle near Portland, Bustednuckles, even knows we’re here right now, but he just sent me a YouTube that’s got Jane’s name all over it.

I think the rest of us will enjoy it too (despite those people sure do tawk funny).

lotus

Poor NMC is finally through with a court-day that should have been only a court-morning (don’t we all know how that goes . . . ), and he’s just called in with more news and a bit of analysis as he drives home to Oxford — which I wish to hell he WOULDN’T DO. (At least this time he wasn’t driving on ice as we talked, gah.) Anyhow, he reports as follows:

Though Nancy has already alerted us to the entry of Edward T. Robertson, Jr., an associate of Todd Graves in Kansas City, as of late this afternoon, ETR,Jr’s is not the only new face on Team Zach. Also entering are, from Graves’ shop, Mary Winter, and from Mike Moore’s, David Lee Martin. So that’s FOUR new attorneys Zach enlisted today: a phenomenon we can safely call “lawyering up to show fight.”

Previously, Graves and Garrett’s only local colleague was the young (fresh-out-of-law-school?) Christopher Robertson of Scruggs Law Firm. Since apparently they felt the need of a much-stronger Mississippi representin’, they’ve officially welcomed Mike Moore’s help.

Also consider the many big guns who were operating that vaunted “united defense” that’s no longer required. Well, if he’s going to trial, Zach best fill in all these fresh craters around him, right?

So has he now got the heavy-duty Mississippi crim-defense chops he was missing? You’d think the famous Mike Moore would fit the bill (and yes, he might well prove a jury-dazzler). But NMC begs to leave you with this one thought to chew on with your supper:

Mike Moore may be the former Attorney General and a crowd-pleaser from way-back. But he hasn’t tried a case in 20 years.

lotus

P.S. As Nancy also pointed out earlier in comments, Judge Biggers today memorialized his orders allowing Zach five additional days from March 14 to amend his current pending motions or file additional ones. But: “THIS EXTENSION IN NO WAY AFFECTS ANY OTHER DEADLINES PREVIOUSLY SET IN THIS CAUSE.”