Truth: The first casualty of war.

"In war, truth is the first casualty." Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC).

An essential "truth" of the Scruggs Matter has to do with whether Mississippi Circuit Judge Henry Lackey's sought after payment from Tim Balducci was "a business transaction or series of transactions of both Layfayette County [Mississippi] and the Administrative Office of the Courts [of Mississippi]." See, e.g. Court Transcript of Court's Acceptance of Sidney Backstrom Plea.

This condition was a requirement of the crime. The crime was bribery or conspiracy to bribe a state judge. It was a federal crime. The federal government could not impose the crime unless there was a nexus of federal funds going to the state agencies supposedly involved in the crime. Without the nexus, the federal government would have no constitutional basis for jurisdiction to impose its laws.

Thus, it had to be established that there was federal money going to the local government, an agency of the state, in this case Lafayette County and the Administrative Office of the Courts.

To round out the jurisdiction requirement it also had to be shown that an agent of these entities had engaged in a transaction or transactions for them which was a violation of the law, bribery.

So here is where truth becomes a casualty.

Judge Lackey sought to be paid a bribe. He initiated the bribe. Tim Balducci did not seek to bribe Judge Lackey. Judge Lackey was able to get Timothy Balducci to go along with the payment of money the Judge sought.

Was the transaction a county or court transaction? The transaction could not have been with the county or the court.

1. Judge Lackey was the one who sought the payment of money from Balducci.

2. The money sought was not going to the county or the court.

3. Judge Lackey did not have authority under law to seek the money. A bribe was outside the scope of his employment. It was in violation of his duties as judge. It was in violation of his duties as lawyer. It was in violation of his authority under the constitution of the state of Mississippi.

There is no basis for saying that Judge Lackey's actions, the payment of money to him, involved "a business transaction or series of transactions of both [or either] Layfayette County and [or] the Administrative Office of the Courts."

Saying they were is a pure fiction, a fiction necessary to make the case against Dick Scruggs, Sidney Backstrom and Zach Scruggs -- a fiction necessary for the government to win the war.

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.

Entrapment or Outrageous Government Conduct

When one thinks of entrapment he imagines a police officer in drag fishing for Johns. All the officer is doing is making himself available for a crime to be committed. This is acceptable, one supposes.

But, what if the police officer then said to the John. "I will not charge you if you go home and get your father, I mean 'Dickie' or whatever I am supposed to call him, to give you $40,000 to pay to me." Should this be acceptable?

My conscience tells it is not. But, does the law allow this sort of "entrapment" to take place? I hope not.