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.

The Justice System? Justice or War?

The case against Dick Scruggs in Alabama was dismissed yesterday. The Order can be found here. One of the main commentators in these matters said this about the decision:

UPDATE: I read it, and all I can say is thank goodness, it has been a long time coming -- finally, a case where the criminal justice system doesn't railroad a famous, rich, white guy! Famous rich friends of Dickie Scruggs -- it's party time!

This cynical comment tells us something about a lawyer's view of the law, or at least the lawyer commentator's view of the law. His side lost. His enemy won.

So how to address the work of Judge Vinson? Make fun of it. Tell people Judge Vinson is a partisan for Dick Scruggs. The comment does not show care or respect for law. It also shows great disrespect for Judge Vinson.

The commentator did not address the issues Judge Vinson decided and the law was applied by Judge Vinson as to the issues and the facts pertaining to the issues. Instead he simply makes an ad hominum attack upon Judge Vinson's work.

A true lawyer would comment on the law not upon personalities. What is at stake in these proceedings is not winners and losers but the law. Unless of course law is not about law but instead is simply another forum for war.

Tournament by Shelby Foote

Reading Tournament by Shelby Foote gives one an understanding of the culture of Mississippi especially the culture and character of those in power. A masculine culture -- hunting, card playing, winning at being planters, winning and being involved in winning.

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.

Evidence of Other Crimes, For What Purpose?

I read today Judge Biggers is going to allow evidence of other crimes. This is the the Wilson v. Scruggs, Judge Bobby DeLaughter, Trent Lott, Joey Langston, Tim Balducci, Ed Peters, Steve Paterson stuff. Evidence for what purpose? Can you really use "evdence of other crimes" to prove the pre-isposition necessary for the government to say there was no entrapment? Seems a stretch. And, then, whose pre-disposition is being established -- the pre-disposition of someone who is not a party to the acceptance of the judge's offered bribe. My head is spinning. It does not seem "other crime evidence" can be used to establish pre-disposition.

Public Corruption in Office of US Attorney?

Last night's 60 Minutes piece on Don Seigelman raises concern about the US Attorney's Office. The question must be asked: Is the Office of the United States Attorney being used for political purposes? Is it selecting and processing cases which have political objectives rather than law enforcement objectives? Are the motives of the prosecution politics rather than law enforcement? Is the goal (a)the exercise of power or (b) the exercise of law enforcement and justice?

Such questions are extremely important when government actually induces conduct which is then said to be criminal. And, in the Scruggs Litigation, extremely important when a sitting judge in a particular case is used as a government agent to cause a person who comes in contact with the judge to accept a bribe the judge has proposed.

Entrapment Per Se

Dick Scruggs and Zach Scruggs and Sid Backstrom have an argument that the conduct of the government is "entrapment per se" or "entrapment as a matter of law." The reasons for this are being developed at Wikiscruggs.com.

Personal Injury Cases 2008

It is just a calm Thursday evening in Spokane, maybe any city in the United States. I am watching some mindless television programs on a local station as I work at this or that at my desk. The ads are interesting. At 6:00 PM someone was advertising that his company bought personal injury lawsuits. "Why wait. We will give you your money now." And then a beautiful young woman in a wheelchair comes on and says something about getting her "money from [(let's say) Get Your Money Now] right away" and not having to "wait for a court date."

At 6:45 a nice young man comes up on the TV screen and says some thing like "[i]f you have been injured, call me, Blah Blah "One Call, That's All!" This guy's a young "legal" entrepreneur from Utah who is making quite a hit locally.

Sleazy.

And, of course I wonder? Are the two advertisement related in some way. The one gets the case and a 40% contingency and the other gets a claim less the contingency at a heck of discount. Don't know, the One Call That's All came after the pitch for the purchase of the lawsuit.

I suppose I should be a bit more naive. But sometimes I think sleaze is an American epidemic.

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.

Police State

Think of it. The government decides you are a danger to it. It wants to get rid of you, destroy you, take away any power you might have had. So, it entices you to commit a crime. Then it prosecutes you for the crime and sends you to jail. Sounds like a police state. Who said it cannot happen here?

Who's Bribing Whom?

The government's case against the defendants is hardly based on moral conduct. It looks as though the government set out to have a judge bribe a litigant before the court. Judge Lackey made himself available for special favors when he signed the "ore tenus" motion to seal the Jones Case file and placed the reopening of the file solely in the hands of Grady Tollison.

One has to wonder. Did the judge set out to bribe Dick Scruggs? Did he set out from the beginning of the Jones Case to make his power available for the highest price?

Seems like the government is forklifting ailing cattle into the food chain.

Judge Biggers

A reading of some of the cases and decisions of Judge Neal B. Biggers, the judge in U.S. v. Scruggs (DCND Miss) would lead a reasonable man to conclude Dick Scruggs and his son Zachary Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom are going to have a hard time on Wednesday and later as the case proceeds, The judge seems unforgiving. He seems to be wanting to convey some sort of message. To whom I do not understand or know. He has something to say, but I do not know what it is.

US v. Scruggs (DCND Miss) Filings

The motions (and supporting materials)to be heard on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 may be found here. The Government is to have its responsive materials filed by February 19, 2008. The trial is still on for March 31, 2008, at least for the time-being.

Judge Lackey: More Questions

Judge Lackey in the November 30, 2007 Wall Street Journal article about him expresses respect and concern for Tim Balducci including concern for his family. Then it seems, in almost the same breath, he completely turns on his friend and worse than that becomes the main actor in a scheme to bring great ruin to him.

I wonder. If Judge Lackey was Balducci's friend and felt kindly toward him and his family why would he act to ruin him? What might have caused Judge Lackey to act in such a cruel, cold way?

One can only speculate. Could it be that Judge Lackey himself was the focus of a government attention for acts of his own. Could it be that he schemed to cause his friend ruin so as to save himself? A bargain with the Devil?

Things are beginning to look quite dark, sordid.

What's Really Going On Here?

Waht's really going on here? What are these cases involving Mr. Scruggs all about?

They are about the government using a judge to go after a target, Mr. Scruggs. Maybe he should be gone after, in the true scheme of things. But, one has to wonder whether the true scheme of things is being played out here.

It could be these cases are all about one powerful group going after a person who has been successful in challenges to the group's power. It could be we are simply witnessing the great play of history where one warring group wars against another warring group. What we see is the conflict and contest of ambition. We are watching great gladiators do battle.

One would hope in all this temporary survival of the fittest activity that the playing field is a fair one and that it is overseen by referees and judges who are truly unbiased.

So far it seems there is an aura of suspicion about the referees and judges, a taint so to speak. I suppose this is primarily due to the fact that the real effort here came from a judge who was hired to become an agent for one of the sides. But there also seem to be other reasons. Judge Acker seems a bit too involved personally in the great drama.

Judge Henry L. Lackey -- What of His Conduct?

Judge Henry L. Lackey, a member of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, has engaged in conduct some might say is outrageous. He seems to have violated the Mississippi Rules of Judicial Conduct -- see Canons 1, 2 and 3. He has violated the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct -- See RPC 8.3 and 8.4. He has taken advantage of a friend who appears to have been in significant manic emotional difficulty. He has ruined his friend's life, rather than helping him. And he has clearly violated long standing constitutional principles which separate the judicial function from the prosecutorial funcion. See Wikiscruggs, Judge Henry L. Lackey.

We cannot have a functioning judicial system based upon the rule of law when the judges of the system fail to do their duty and actually become prosecutorial agents of the executive branch.

Selective Prosecution?

One has to wonder whether there may be some selective prosecution in the Scruggs Matter.
See this from the United State House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Especially see Paul Minor's letter.

Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance

Do not expect much from this proposed effort by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance. (1) The Commission has hardly any staff. (2) All of the Commission’s work will be done in absolute secrecy unless the Commission unanimously votes otherwise. Of the seven members on the commission four are judges and one is a lawyer. (3) No action can be taken against a judge unless two/thirds of the Commissioners agree (that would mean that two of the judicial positions would have to vote for the action). (4) And, perhaps most important, Commission Rules prohibit earwigging (see Rule 5 H) during the proceedings. See Wikiscruggs.