Monsters and Motivations: The Saga Begins to Unfold in Greater Depth

Some of Judge Henry Lackey's testimony or abridgements or paraphrases of the testimony can be found at Folo (I did not know the kind of monster we were dealing with . . .). Here is an interesting chunk. Cal Mayo is doing the questioning (but not very well it should be added, but maybe not all the questions and answers were reported), he is the attorney for Dick Scruggs.

Q: In May, Balducci had made no quid pro quo?

[A.] He was lying to me and I was lying to him, was what was happening.

[Q.] Did you have any discussions about recusal with FBI or US Attorneys office about your recusal before you did it?

[A.] Sent letter recusing myself, my decision. Did not feel I was getting anywhere, was frustrated with the situation. I reported it to the FBI agent.

[A.] After talking to the FBI agent and after realizing what a monster we were dealing with and the lives he had probably destroyed and the young lawyers and their families he had destroyed, I got back in it.

[A.] The monster was Dickie Scruggs.

Q. Who told you he had destroyed those lives.

A. I did not realize what a monster we were dealing with fully until now. I realize what he has done to destroy our profession, more than anything in my lifetime. Tim Balducci had told me Scruggs knew.

A. Did not discuss the lives Scruggs had destroyed at that time.

It seems clear Judge Lackey had an agenda of his own in this matter. That it was an agenda which preceded his contact with the US Attorney. Before he went to the "FBI agent" (did that come after he had talked with the US Attorney?) he said, "[d]id not feel I was getting anywhere, was frustrated with the situation."
What was the situation? It was, Lackey said, in "May, Balducci had made no quid pro quo?“He was lying to me and I was lying to him, was what was happening.” That is, Lackey had formed and intent to get something out of Balducci which would give him some power over Balducci. But it was not forth-coming, he was frustrated.

Lackey seems to have had the opinion that Dick Scruggs was a "monster" and had "destroyed lives" and "destroyed" "young lawyers and their families." He was going after him, Dick Scruggs, and he was going to use his friend Balducci to get to him. To get to the monster who had destroyed lives and destroyed young lawyers and their families.

Lackey had an agenda, a purpose, in this. Balducci's contact with him in March gave him a pretext to pursue that purpose and a pretext to destroy his friend Balducci in the process (war is justified by the presumption that the object of war is evil). One cannot be sure from what one knows of the Lackey testimony but it would seem there is more than a hint of the Judge's relish in going after Dick Scruggs -- the words, monster, destroy lives, destroy young lawyers and their families indicate more than objective interest.

"So what," you might say.

Let me explain myself. That Lackey may have had a personal agenda in this, a mission of his own, is certainly of interest regarding the entrapment issue, which as you know is of importance to me. But more interesting and in line with what I said in my last post, Lackey's motivations seem to make for a more interesting story, seem to express more depth about the "set piece" of the Scruggs Matter. There is greater depth to the history.

Just as Dick Scruggs creatively with friends and compatriots pursued the asbestos cases (I had an early part in the defense of some of the non-Scruggs, non-Motley, asbestos cases in Eastern Washington but got out of them and handed them off to one of my partners), just as Dick Scruggs with Attorney General Moore and various attorneys general (AG Christine Gregoire of Washington was one of the major players) pursued big tobacco, just has Dick Scruggs "got his rocks off," pursued his career, pursued success, pursued his desire to advance himself, pursued justice, so Judge Lackey creatively sought an object which would benefit him, satisfy his urging: to wit, the destruction of Dick Scruggs.

I think Lackey saw the destruction of Dick Scruggs as a worthy goal and one which would advance his reputation. Each of Scruggs and Lackey took their energies, their libido, their creativity and pursued objects the control or conquest of which would have payoff or gain to them.

And, just as Dick Scruggs seemed to push to the outside of the envelop doing things others more ethical would not have done, Judge Lackey has seemed to push the outside of the envelop to gain his objective, that is the cajoling of his emotionally manic and morally weak friend, Tim Balducci, into a crime of bribery proposed by the Judge himself which would very rapidly trap Dick Scruggs and bring his downfall.

In the lives of these two players, Dick Scruggs and Henry Lackey, there is much interesting material as to motivation and instinct. This makes the story of the Scruggs Matter much more interesting and indeed, much more instructive to those who might be interested in more than the usual comic book theme of war between good guys and bad guys. The matter is not that simple, nor that inconsequential.

The Manners and Morals of Gulf Coast Lawyers and Judges

The recent events in Jones v. Scruggs (Katrina Group remainder) are most interesting. Judicial actions have taken place in Jones and other civil cases in the area involving Dick Scruggs which foretell or should foretell all sorts of interesting developments. I sure hope someone with a clever mind and a mind for digging beneath the pleasant surface of things is working on the matter -- with the intent of writing a true history of it or at least using it and speculations about it as the backdrop of a bit of fiction.

One observation -- the entire house of cards (the Katrina / State Farm litigation and the professional success of Dick Scruggs) is falling or has fallen as a result of the bribery entrapment of Dick Scruggs by Judge Henry Lackey, a Mississippi Circuit Court judge. That is to say, the main character in the story will be Judge Lackey.

Judge Lackey seems to be the local hero of the moment. He's riding real high right now and he knows it. His self-satisfaction was well apparent in his testimony the other day in the Jones case before Mississippi Circuit Judge Coleman.

I speculate there is a lot more to the story of Judge Lackey -- a whole lot more. I doubt he was the innocent he says he was in the bribery entrapment. He "professes too much." And much of what he says is simply unbelievable (to a person who has spent the last 38 years in the legal profession many of those years being years trying cases to judges (not to juries)).

The judge would like us to believe he was deeply troubled by his meeting with Tim Balducci in March, 2007. What he would have us believe does not ring true. I wonder whether he jumped on the opportunity presented by the stupidities and emotional weaknesses of his friend to pursue an agenda of his own, as some sort of crime fighter to bring down "the monster." He says he did not realize that Dick Scruggs was a monster until after he got involved. In his testimony the other day he threw that into the mix after catching himself saying he suspected Dick Scruggs was a monster he wanted to get at the time of his first meeting or shortly thereafter, before he went to the US Attorney.

I wonder did he become the agent for the government in the entrapment because the government wanted him to become the agent or did he become a government agent because he wanted to be a government agent for purposes of his own. And, if so, were those purposes really his purposes or was he pursuing the purposes of others, of a group, of some sort of gestalt which had become ascendant in a certain aspect of the legal/judicial community? Judges do not act on their own, they are consummate conformists. What wants to imagine as leadership is most often judicial expression of conformity.

There are a good number of people in Mississippi who would like to believe Judge Lackey is a great guy, a great leader. They, and the judge profess too much. I am suspicious. I wonder whether I am the only one.

Back to what I hope -- that someone with time on his or her hands and some investigatory and writing skills will tell the truth about the situation and will flesh out these strange and unusual characters who have popped up and who are popping up as the days progress in this bit of history of the manners and morals of the Gulf Coast legal/judicial system.

Let's Hope the Case is On

Let us hope the Scruggs Case is still on with Zach Scruggs taking the lead. It is apparent Dick Scruggs had to plead as he did in order to give his son, Zach, a chance at proving his innocence. Zach Scruggs did not stand a chance with his case being combined with that of Dick Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom. One can hardly fail to see the due process problem here. Judge Bigger's denial of the motion to sever was way over the top.

I also hope the issue of "entrapment as a matter of law" will come up and that it will be used to vindicate Zach Scruggs. Again, we cannot have respect for the judicial system if state judges become agents of the Federal Government. Especially if the judge cum government agent pursued his mark when the mark did not pursue the judge and when the judge cum government agent was the actual person who proposed the bribe.

Is it over?

In a way, the story of the Scruggs Litigation is just beginning.

What might we see unfold if we watch closely? The care of a man for his son and his law partner, the stupidity of Tim Balducci, the arrogance of Joey Langston, the hunger of a Circuit Court Judge to bring his friend to ruin for a bit of fame, the violation of a judge's duties to the bar association, the judiciary, the people of Mississippi, proscutors with vanity license plates advertising their love for a highly dubious Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and the list goes on and on.

One might conclude there is sin almost everywhere in this case -- lawyers, judges, politicians, law firm employees, insurance companies, tobacco companies, state attorneys general, lawyers and law firms who graze the landscape for poor souls who suffer at the hands and minds of "large" combines and small combines intent on making a buck no matter what the costs to the consumer and the enviroment (but no one really cares about the small combines (no assets and no glory -- read money)).

One would be hard pressed to find anything decent or uplifting in any of this. And, no one seems have enough personal integrity to step back a bit and, well, to bear witness to one's own complicity in the whole business. Yes, I mean complicity.

For now, all of us are home free. Dick Scruggs and Sid Backstrom are going to jail. Hopefully, people will be decent enough to give Zach Scruggs a pass. What one sees here, maybe, is the love of father and of a friend. Quite humbling I would say. Quite commendable.

All of this is very sad. A lot of it is very wrong.

But, what is really wrong, and very sad, is this: The system of law and justice in America has become corrupt. In its very essence, judges, prosecutors and private lawyers are really politicians -- people, who at bottom, exercise power. One gets the impression that law and the rule of law, and the judicial system is more a playground for those who love power than it is a place where the history of the human knowledge of right and wrong is written. Where the litigants and the judges are actually seeking to do real right by their fellows.

Those who use the judicial system as a playground of power are all right with this. They do not know any different. They have not had anyone tell them the human mind and spirit are capable of something which is much better. And, they are too proud, pugnacious and greedy for money and approval to care.

As one gets older, gets very close to end of his life, one sees the truth of the phrase "power corrupts."

Of the many roles played in this tale which may be the most sad from a standpoint of simple humanity -- man to man -- is the part played by Judge Lackey.

I will hold off from saying more -- I think more is to come about Ed Peters, Judge Bobby DeLaughter, Joey Langston and Judge Lackey, the state judge who became a government agent for purposes of putting the sting on Dick Scruggs.

For me, this episode in the history of America leads me to think this: Not one of the players in this sad drama could have read the authors and the books which have told us about ourselves -- Theodore Dreiser (An American Tradgedy), Sinclair Lewis (Babbit), Frank Norris (McTeague), F. Scott Fitzgerald (The Great Gatsby) or the New Testament.

The winners and the losers? I wonder. Is there really any difference? Is it possible this whole situation may have a simple and common basis in the desire of people to engage in war and the notion that material things are the primary measure of all things. (Or, maybe, unknowingly fulfill their own versions of the oedipus complex -- but I will save that line of thought for another time.)

Who really knows? I suspect there is something much deeper and simpler playing itself out in the whole Scruggs Litigation Matter. Who really knows? Someone will come closer to understanding and knowing what has really happened as time passes. Maybe.

But, the entire situation may never be known or understood. Like so much we think we know, the real facts, the real attachments of human emotion and motivation, the real truth will be lost to history.

Maybe in waiting we will finally come to know. But, I must say, I doubt it. I doubt it because we go into death and into history seeing the world, always, in the way that suits us best. We live out our lives in our daydreams, diversions. Pascal was right.

How We Should Look at Things, Part 2

What should we be looking for when we observe the processes of law? Taking sides and then watching the process as if it was a game does not seem very edifying. What a serious citizen should be looking for is much deeper.

It is much deeper because in the matter he is actually observing forces playing themselves out. And, when they do they set the stage or the record for the way things will happen in the future.

The serious citizen is actually "watching the mind of man made." He is observing the creation and refinement of culture. Not only is he watching history in the making, he is watching the filial sense of man progressing or going backward to a darker time.

So one hopes in observing the Scruggs Litigation he is able to see the positive force of a soul of the law animating everything being done, especially the work of the judge and the jury.

How Should We Look At Things?

When I think about the process of the law as presented by the Dick Scruggs Matter I wonder what it is I am to do? What should a reasonable person bring to the situation? Should I be one of those who takes pleasure in possibility that someone is in trouble? Should I become a defender of those who are in trouble? Should I just be an observer reporting what interests me about the situation. Should I be a commentator with a bias?

None of these approaches seems right to me. If I take a side I think I want it to be the side of souls of those who are involved in the the situation whether they be the souls of the defendants, the representatives of the government, the witnesses who are agents for the government, the witnesses who have gone to the side of the government and who are now telling things about friends, judges who have become government agents, witness who are trying to save themselves and in doing so are rationalizing that the hurt they bring to others is permitted and righteous. No, I want to be on the side of the souls which are being refined as a result of the involvements of those who are in the care of those souls.

Does this seem odd to you? I suppose it does.

Today, I have been thinking about the souls of those who seem to be feeling loss because Judge Vinson dismissed the "indictment" against Dick Scruggs in the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The representatives of these souls are angry. They say the judge has helped out a "rich, white guy." In the core of their beings they do not mean what they say. Or if they do, they should not.

If they have a complaint about Judge Vinson's efforts they should try to show where Judge Vinson went wrong. Personally, I do not think Judge Vinson's decision was wrong. It may be something a person does not like because he wants Dick Scruggs to be punished for being what he is, but as far as the law is concerned I do not think the judge was wrong. If he was, well, tell me so and explain it. My conclusions about things change in light of reason, in light of truth. If I am loyal to anything, I hope I am loyal to the law as it is applied to the facts.

Judical Entrapment Violates the Rule of Law

Use of judge in an entrapment violates the fundamental principle upon which the judicial process is founded -- the rule of law, or rule by law. The rule of law is the opposite of the rule of power or judgment of power. The foundation of the rule of law is that the "end does not justify the means." Justice cannot be acheived if its basis is injustice, law breaking. When a judge becomes a government agent in an entrapment, the judiciary becomes an agent in breaking the law so as to punish one caught in the trap of the entrapment. See Wikiscruggs.

Existential Meanderings

I have been reading some of the internet journals (blogs) which focus on the Scruggs Litigation. One is a solo effort. Another a joint effort. Yet another a solo effort which brings in other sources mostly from the first two. A national newspaper with a "law blog." A person with a "tort reform" agenda. The sites are interesting but, . . . I guess it seems the authors all are true believers of one sort or another.

I have not found, at least so far, any sites which are written by true believers for Dick Scruggs, Zach Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom.

I do not know where I stand on the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendants. Right now it seems they have not a friend in the world. That is unfair, I think. I admit to being a bit partial to the guy the apparatus of government is going after. Despite my belief the mind of man, let us say man's government, can be a good thing and do good things and protect people from the bad guys and even ourselves, I have a healthy distrust of it.

When a person becomes a government employee or an elected representative of the people he does not become smarter nor more ethical than he was before he got the job. Suffice it to say, we are all sinners and power does have a real tendency to corrupt. So the good guys are not always perfect and the bad guys are not always bad. In fact the dividing line between good and evil probably runs through the soul of each person, each and every person, involved in the situation.

At the moment, at the moment of my self directed involvement and self sponsored involvement I have to admit to some real tough questions moving though my mind about the situation and the main players in the situation.

A topic which keeps coming up is the question of entrapment. I hope I stick with this topic. Simply put, there is something (which seems to me) insidious in the use of a sitting judge as a government agent offering to be bribed in a bribery entrapment scheme. Especially one who is a close friend of the person and family of one of the targets of the scheme.

What has happened in the Scruggs Litigation seems contrary to our value of "rule by law." Contrary in several respects.