Lerach -- Lessons for those in Prison

William Lerach is serving time at Lompoc near Santa Barbara for doing bad things as a lawyer.

Now he is in more trouble and may have to serve harder time for his wrongdoing. Seems he suggested to a guard who likes sports that the guard could use his season tickets to the games of some professional sports team. Here is a story about Mr. Lerach's current predicament.

You are not supposed to say such things, suggest you might do such things. It makes sense. for sure.

There is a lesson to be learned for those under the microscope of others: Do not presume anyone on the prison staff is or should be your friend. Withdraw into yourself. Keep your distance. Do no indulge in your motivations of good will. Certainly, do not indulge in your motivations of ill will. Detach yourself. Pursue more meaningful things. Become an observer, cease to be a participant. Try to understand. Have compassion which does not attach. Let your compassion float over to yourself and try to understand something of yourself that you never had time to attempt to understand. Give yourself a break. Let yourself alone for a while.

This morning I sent a comment to Folo asking Observer to expand on a statement he made. So far no response from Observer or anyone else for that matter. Maybe the thread has been closed, maybe people just got bored with the questions I was raising. Here is what I said and asked:

Observer - In the past you said “In the post-Paul Minor world, Judge Lackey apparently was afraid someone was trying to set him (i.e., Judge Lackey) up. The people that were hunting for Dickie Scruggs was the FBI. Judge Lackey found himself in an awful position.”

Do you think he (Judge Lackey) may have thought someone was working with Tim Balducci to set him up?

Do you think he knew anything about, or had heard rumors about, the Wilson Case in Judge DeLaughter’s court?

Do you think he thought there was surveillance of him independent of Balducci?
I think the judge even said somewhere he was concerned that someone might be looking at him back in March of 2007.

The entry and the thread can be found here at Folo.

Judge Lackey: Questions, Something Does Not Ring True

I am still confused and suspicious of how the FBI got to Dick Scruggs. The agent for the FBI was a Mississippi Circuit Judge, Henry Lackey.

Judge Lackey was assigned the Jones v. Scruggs case. The day of the assignment he entered an ex parte order sealing the case file. Common law makes case records public records. He signed the order because the lawyer for Jones, a man named Tollison asked to sign the order.

Next, a Tim Balducci calls Judge Lackey. He contends the case should be sent to arbitration. Balducci is a friend of Dick Scruggs.

Here is where it gets interesting. On more than one occasion on the Folo Blog commentators have said that Judge Lackey thought he his actions might be under surveillance. Supposedly, he waited about two weeks before he said he went to the United States Attorney who then put him in contact with the FBI.

One commentor said that Judge Lackey became physically ill after his meeting with Mr. Balducci.

What I am struggling with is why Judge Lackey would become physically ill or, if not physically ill, emotionally distraught. I wonder? Did Judge Lackey really think that he might be under surveillance? Why would he have thought that? Was he aware of what was happening or possibly happening regarding Judge DeLaughter in the Wilson case?

Why would the judge think that he might be under surveillance? Did the judge have a reason to think his conduct, in the past, and as a judge might have caused someone to become suspicious of him?

From the judge's testimony and public statements it does not seem that he was troubled very much by what Tim Balducci had asked him to do, if he had really ask him anything. He did not seem to be the type of guy who would be come physically ill because a lawyer may have earwigged him.

That he became ill because Balducci approached him is, well, it its beyond reason.

So, why did Judge Lackey become ill? Why did he think the FBI may have been surveiling him? Was it because he was talking to Balducci and he thought the FBI may have been surveiling Balducci? But if that was the case why did he wait so long to go to the US Attorney. Was it because he had been the situation before? Was talking to judges "out of school" a common practice everywhere, in Calhoun County? Did the judge know something about the Peters, Langston, Balducci, Judge DeLaughter situation in the Wilson case?

Does the out of court politics of law in Mississippi have a much deeper significance that anyone is willing to admit to?

Something is not quite right. And, it also seems of interest that Judge Lackey is being lauded for his efforts and that the Mississippi Bar association is giving him awards. Why is all this happening so fast?

Much more is to be unravelled.

A Justice for American Judges and Lawyers Today

The other day, I listened to one of our Supreme Court justices, Anton Scalia, talk about a book --Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges -- he had written with another, a writer employed to write by one of the larger law book publishers, a "household name" in the legal profession. There was not much to listen too.

The judge was using the heights of his position to team up with a name one sees on significant publications of the law book publisher to tell lawyers how to make the lawyer's case to judges. And, to make your case, how to dress, how to write a brief, how to make oral argument, how to, how to, etc.

Lawyers with some spare change have many such books on their bookshelves (if they really have bookshelves outside of the bookshelves of their law firms). Such books not about the law, the history of law, the purposes of law, the major concerns of law over time. No, such books are books about how to "trick the law."

What I mean by "trick the law" is how to control the system of law and judges so that it works in one’s favor, so that it is possible for a lawyer to win. Tricking the law is about how a lawyer would go about getting his or her success in the law. Tricking the law books are all about how to conform so one can win – gain material success and favorable public opinion in the profession of the law.

Justice Scalia, a man lionized by many within and without the profession of the law, went on to say lawyers are merely "facilitators", that they do not contribute anything real or substantial to the process of life. They just help things along. I think I remember that as the essence of what the justice said, but I am also sure he would say I am simplifying it too much though.

I had never really thought about lawyers in this way before -- as facilitators. Or, if I had, I denied the truth of the characterization. The lawyer of my imagination has always been a person who, acting with courage and conviction and intelligence as best God gave it to him, would do more than just facilitate, he would lead and he would try to help the law evolve. I have naively assumed that a good lawyer would use his effort to help the filial sense of being evolve into finer thing.

I have had lofty thoughts about the law and lawyers and still do. But the justice’s remarks lead me to think I am out of step with the times.

Maybe a lawyer is just that, a facilitator. That a lawyer should be just that, and should aspire to be only that – a facilitator helping himself and his client trick the law for success and profit.

Does not seem much to aspire to.

Maybe we will be saved from this pecuniary view of the legal profession and the judiciary by a book, after the fashion of Babbitt by Sinclair Lewis. A Babbitt book about a lawyer rather than a realtor (trademark).

Earwigging for Some but Not Others in Federal Courts?

In Richard Sobol’s book Bending the Law: The Story of the Dalkon Shield Bankruptcy , a rather momentous example of earwigging of a federal district court judge is described.

In the Preface to the book, Mr. Sobol describes how A. H. Robins Company, the manufacturer of the Dalkon Shield, sought to consolidate the Dalkon Shield Litigation in the federal court in Richmond, Virginia before District Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr., a local law school graduate of the University of Richmond, and an "enthusiastic booster of both the city and the university."

The efforts to consolidate had been opposed. Robins "finally achieved the consolidation of the Dalkon Shield litigation in Richmond before Judge Merhige by filing for bankruptcy." Mr. Sobol reported Judge Merhige "is a neighbor of E. Claiborne Robins, Sr., who is a celebrated figure in Richmond. Three weeks before the bankruptcy filing, Merhige met in his home with Robins, Sr., and E. Claiborne Robins, Jr., the president of A.H. Robins, to discuss the company’s plans with respect to bankruptcy."

The rest is history. The liabilities of the company and its officers, directors, attorneys and insurer were transferred "to a trust with limited funding, and to allow the Robin’s shareholders to be paid the value of the company in excess of the fund before it could be determined whether the individual entitlements of the women injured by the Dalkon Shield exceeded the amount of the fund, or indeed, the total value of the company."

Thus, it might be contended there there are differing standards regarding earwigging and its progeny from case to case in federal court.

One would have had a different view, maybe a more enlightened view, of the Scruggs sentencings had Judge Biggers made some mention of the A. H. Robins - Merhige earwigging. I wonder if he would have found a difference between it and the initial earwigging of Judge Lackey by Timothy Balducci to get the Jones case sent to arbitration?

Will Mississippi Change the Social Ethic of Its Legal Culture?

The leaders of the social ethic of the Mississippi legal culture are handing out accolades these days. For instance an award was given recently to the Circuit Court judge who became an agent of the federal government who entrapped people in a judicial bribe which he had proposed.

The United States District Court judge who handed down punishments -- prison and fines -- to the people who got caught in the sting is being congratulated for his hard bitten personality and the severity of the punishments given the limitations the judge was under due to plea bargains. He is also being congratulated for speaking for himself and not necessarily for the court.

So what do we have from all this? We have heroes and villains. The good guys are congratulated, bad guys are in jail. The good guys are really good, and the bad guys are really bad.

Case closed, the Social Ethic of the Legal Culture of Mississippi has been cleansed. Now everything can proceed as usual. I would not bet on this. Things are more complicated than they seem. What we have witnessed in the Scruggs Matter is only an emanation of a social ethic of the legal culture of Mississippi.

Scruggs Matter and the Oedipus Complex

The Scruggs Matter may provide food for understanding and speculation about the Oedipus Complex.

The Oedipus Complex has to do with the love - hate relationship of the child to the father or father figure. Freud, as I recall, speculated that the boy child wanted to replace the father in the affections of the mother. Maybe, but the Oedipus Complex in my mind has to do with relations of any person who seems to have an unusual affection for and veneration of persons in positions of power or who give the impression of power.

Of interest, of course, is the amount of respect almost awe some of the main players in the Scruggs Matter dialogue seem to have for "judges", lawyer fathers, and mentors. And, at the same time, seem to have, or at least show, great sentimental concern for animals in distress and fathers long gone. That is to say on the one hand some of the players can be downright mean and on the other downright nice to small critters in distress. I can understand the latter but do not understand how it can co-exist with the former. But then, in America one encounters this on a daily basis, especially in hunting country. (Reminds me of the young man I met while staying at the warden's house at the Minnesota Penitentiary (what a nice name for the place) in St. Cloud. He was in for "statutory rape" he said. On one of his arms he had a tattoo his buddies had done for him using a needle, thread and India ink. It said, "Mother.")

Maybe more on this topic and my approach to the Oedipus Complex at a later time. I will have to see if it captures my interest more than in a passing way. Right now thinking about it is better than listening to a book while I go about my business. What I seem to be seeing in the matter is enigmatic. It has been impressing me for the last four hours.

Judge Biggers: A View Up To the bench.

Judge Biggers does not seem to comport himself while acting from the bench with any sort of true detachment, objectivity, impartiality, understanding or compassion.

He seems to have taken the Scruggs matter personally. He seems intent on doing harm rather than doing justice.

Reading the transcript of the Dick Scruggs sentencing hearing one gets the impression Judge Biggers seems to think Scruggs offended him (and his friend Judge Lackey?) and for such offense of Judge Biggers he should be punished.

Federal judges should speak for the court, not themselves. Adherence to the fact that a federal judge is speaking for the court would have, should have, a moderating influence on the judge who happens to be on that particular bench at that particular time. More importantly the public impression and understanding of the court then is directed to the court itself, not some person who was fortunate enough to be appointed to the court by reason of the political process.

One senses there is a great deal more to the story of Dick Scruggs and the trouble he finds himself in. It looks as though the trouble and concern for the system of justice may extend deeper into the judiciary and legal system in Mississippi and indeed America.

Why not tell the whole story?

It is interesting and perhaps telling that the bribe was proposed by a Mississippi judge. A judge who was earwigged by a close friend. A judge who then took his friend into his confidence and then, when the friend was hitting rock bottom financially and emotionally, proposed that his friend pay him a bribe - $40,000. Obliging, the friend, and then caught accepting the judge's proposed bribe of himself, proceeded to entrap his friends into the bribe in order to lighten the load he and his mentor judge had put on his life. There is much more to this sad tale than the shortcomings of Richard Scruggs, Sidney Backstrom and Zachary Scruggs.

The Sentencing

Richard Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom were sentenced last week.

The Souls of People.

Dickie Scruggs, his son and law partner are to be sentenced on July 2, 2008. Some Internet commenter's take pleasure in this, in the fall of a man. In their pleasure there is obvious animosity toward the man and satisfaction in his fall. Seems such expressions tell more about the critics than it does about Mr. Scruggs. The interest is prurient. It is like the interest some people express toward political figures. It is truly irrelevant in the wider scheme of things. If they can get others to share in the criticism of the people who are the objects of their criticisms they are able to themselves from their own capabilities. That is to say, the connection between their instincts and the object, and the approval of others in the connection, gives them an inner sense that they are not as deficient as they think they are in their own souls. The end result? -- their narcissitic satisfaction, sinister as it is, pleasure.

Robert Coughlin: Where's the Commentary?

Robert Coughlin has pled guilty. Justice Department, friend of Jack Abramoff. Involved in keeping the Abramoff prosecution in some check. Involved with Paul Minor prosecution. Where is the commentary?

Corruption Everywhere

In a recent interview published in the Jackson Free Press, Bill Minor, the father of Paul Minor said this:

It is clear from recent events that the U.S. Department of Justice was
corrupt. Just yesterday, the former deputy director of the Public Integrity
Section of the Department of Justice, Robert Coughlin who prosecuted Paul, was
accused of taking bribes to go easy on an investigation of the notorious Jack
Abramoff, the prominent Republican lobbyist who is now in jail for paying off
several members of the US Congress.

Yesterday, Mr. Coughlin, pleaded guilty. See this story Guilty Plea in Abramoff-Linked Case
Former Justice Department Official Admits Conflict of Interest in Lobbyist Case. For some reason I think the quick plea to "conflict of interest" probably will hide a whole host of wrongdoing. Wrongdoing reaching well into Mississippi and elsewhere. Let's see, what were the law firms Jack Abramoff was associated with. And, let us see, how did Abramoff move money -- through the accounts of what firm(s)?

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 Real Story About the Scruggs Matter

The real story about the Scruggs Matter is hidden from us. We can only speculate. We can, however, keep our speculation in check if we understand history and a bit of human nature.

What the heck am I talking about? The history of what I might refer to or think of as a "set piece of human events" (e.g. the Scruggs Matter) is the history of causes of the actions and causes of reactions. The causes of the actions and reactions have a source in human nature, in the particular the human beings playing out their parts in piece of history -- people who are playing out the events of the "set piece." These are the people who have some sort of part to play of the events which unfold.

The set piece is a sort of representation of the wills of the participants and a representation of will in itself -- it is as if there is some sort of flowering of actions and reactions and more actions and reactions until what is in the making is made and then comes to a rest, at least for the time being.

The part which is hidden from us are the particular "causes" of the actions and reactions. These causes are to be found in human nature. But, the human nature we must speak of is that of the particular human nature of each of the participants, known and unknown, in the course of the actions and reactions. And, it is the will of human nature in and of itself.

Whatever we do about and within this set piece and that which we observe is, in truth speculation, about human nature and the particular human natures of the participants.

We will never know the real truth, the full and real truth of the Scruggs Matter.

One thing for sure, as far as I am concerned is that the matter is far more interesting than it appears. Another thing for sure, the characters in the drama are not as guilty nor as innocent as those of us who comment upon the matter would supposedly cause us to believe.

The Scruggs Matter is life in the raw. It is also life which has a certain beauty to it when one relieves himself from the absurd notion he or she can pass judgment on any person in the play.

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.

Trial. A formal inquiry designed to prove and put upon record the blameless
characters of judges, advocates and jurors.

Ambrose Bierce

Public Opinion vs. The Truth About the Scruggs Matter

Columnist Carl Horowitz published an opinion piece on March 29, entitled "Dickie Scruggs: A Legal Career Up In Smoke." I found it on Townhall.com, a website of so-called "Conservative" columnists and others.

Referring to the Jones v. Scruggs case Mr. Horowitz says this:

Dickie Scruggs wasn't about to yield. In March 2007 he and four persons -- all future defendants -- paid Judge Henry Lackey a visit to make him an offer:
Rule in our favor and we'll make you richer. Lackey, not wanting to bring legal
troubles upon himself, quickly reported the incident to the FBI. That in turn
led to an undercover sting operation. Timothy Balducci, a New Albany, Miss. lawyer, along with former Mississippi State Auditor Steven Patterson, decided to cop a plea and work with the feds. During September 27-November 1, 2007, Balducci made three cash payments to Judge Lackey totaling $50,000. "We paid for this ruling; let's be sure it says what we want it to say," Balducci told Zach Scruggs and Sid Backstrom.

This looks a bit like the story, but it is not. Much of it is untrue. It is libelous. Libelous but none one of the "four persons" would make any headway bringing suit. See New York Times v. Sullivan.

So the story of Scruggs Matter twisted as Carl Horowitz has twisted it will be the Public Opinion about the Scruggs Matter and the character of Dick Scruggs, Sidney Backstrom and Zach Scruggs.

The Real Truth about the Scruggs Matter and these individuals will be lost to history.

Out of respect for the truth, let us look at the statement, parse it, and see how the truth has been sullied.

Horowitz starts out saying Scruggs was not "about to yield" in the Jones v. Scruggs case.

"Yield" to what? There was (and is) a difference of opinion as to the relationship between the plainfiffs and defendants in Jones. Yield to what, the plaintiffs' claims? Yield to the pressue of the case, one which had been sealed at the ex parte request of the attorney for the Jones plaintiff to the judge assigned to the case, Judge Henry Lackey?

Mr. Horowitz goes on:

In March 2007 he and four persons -- all future defendants -- paid Judge Henry Lackey a visit to make him an offer: Rule in our favor and we'll make you richer.

Tim Balducci was a longtime friend of Judge Henry Lackey. He met with Judge Lackey to "earwig" him about the Jones Case. Lackey had already earwigged with Grady
Tollison, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the case and consented to sign and did sign an order sealing the file in the case. Defendants were not made aware of the "motion" to seal the file. Nor were they made aware that Tollison had earwigged Judge Lackey.

Tim Balducci was the only person to meet with his friend Judge Lackey. Dick Scruggs and "four persons" did not "pay" a visit to Judge Lackey. (Interesting but not so clever use of the verb "paid" by Mr. Horowitz.)

Balducci did not ask Lackey to rule in favor of defendants in the case. The case could only go to arbitration. That was the agreement between the parties. Balducci did not seek a favorable ruling in the case, he only pointed out the fact of the case, that it should be in a different forum, the forum of an arbitration.

Horowitz says: "Lackey, not wanting to bring legal troubles upon himself, quickly reported the incident to the FBI. That in turn led to an undercover sting operation."

Nothing happened. Two weeks later, Lackey decided to go to the United States Attorney. He did not act "quickly" that is for certain.

This move by Judge Lackey is interesting. Why did he wait? Did he think he was being watched? Seems there something in a newspaper article in which it was said that Lackey may have been afraid he might be "investigated."

Lackey was then and still is a member of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance. He has ruled against judges who have had ex parte contact. Yet he had an ex parte contact with the attorney for the plaintiff in the Jones Case. Seems there is ex parte contact and then there is some other wrongful ex parte contact. What Balducci did in talking to Lackey, his long time friend and mentor was to have contact which was not thought to be wrongful. It was just Mississippi Earwigging.

One also must wonder whether the United States Government, the Office of the United States Attorney, was known by Lackey to be investigating persons in Mississippi which may have been targeted for possible prosecution if possible for such wrongdoing as "honest services" wire fraud.

Judge Lackey may have been a key in the "if possible prosecution" desires of the federal government, the US Attorney's Office.

In April 2007 Lackey, as a judge, agreed to become a "government agent." He agreed engage in conduct which would trap Balducci in an act of wrongdoing which would put him in jail.

But he wanted more and the record clearly shows this, he wanted to use his friend Balducci to bring down Dick Scruggs . He agreed to be a government agent to engage in an act of treachery to destroy his friend and his friend's friend.

Horowitz goes on to say:

Timothy Balducci, a New Albany, Miss. lawyer, along with former Mississippi State Auditor Steven Patterson, decided to cop a plea and work with the feds. During September 27- November 1, 2007, Balducci made three cash payments to Judge Lackey totaling $50,000. "We paid for this ruling; let's be sure it says what we want
it to say," Balducci told Zach Scruggs and Sid Backstrom.

Judge Lackey, now government agent and wearing a wire and having his phones wired, was having no success in his newly discovered role as federal government crime fighter. Nothing was forthcoming from Balducci which he might use to succeed in getting Scruggs under some federal government prosecution.

Things changed in August. Lackey became aware that his friend Balducci was in trouble, real trouble and was looking for some success.

Balducci had embarked on the formation of a new law firm. It was with Steve Patterson. Patterson was not a lawyer. They had offices in Mississippi and Washington, D.C. They had already enlisted a former United States Magistrate and a Mississippi circuit judge to appear on the their letterhead. There were others. But the firm was broke. In addition, members of the Mississippi legal fraternity were moving in on the question of whether the Balducci Patterson firm was not a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct because Patterson was not a lawyer.
Balducci put a good front but he was clearly in trouble, maybe even having a nervous breakdown. He was acting as if he had become manic.

Lackey certainly must have sensed this. It was then that he told his friend Balducci that he, Lackey, was in trouble and needed money. Lackey offered to help Balducci if Balducci would help him. Lackey said he needed $40,000. Lackey said he needed it from Scruggs. He said he would order the Jones Case to arbitration.

Lackey had a wire on his body when he talked with Balducci about his desire for money and Balducci's acquiescence. Balducci was caught. He was in deep trouble. He began to talk to the United States Government, the people who were working with Judge Lackey.

Facing many years in prison, he agreed to become a government agent to extend the Lackey "bribe" to Dick Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom and Zach Scruggs, Dick Scruggs 33 year old son.

He succeeded, and with Defendants Sruggs and Backstrom on tape showing various levels of participation or knowledge about what Balducci was supposedly working out with Judge Lackey (the "bribe" was not a bribe at all at this time because Judge Lackey was not really offerng a bribe), the government secured indictments from the grand jury against Dick Scruggs, Sidney Backstrom, Zach Scruggs, Tim Balducci and Steve Patterson.

(It is interesting to note that the grand jury was sitting and supposedly ready to consider such information about Scruggs and others.)

Treachery: A Poignant Truth of the Scruggs Matter?

Perhaps the most poignant aspect of the Scruggs Matter is the treachery of Judge Henry Lackey.

It may well be to some that the end justifies the means but the truth is Judge Lackey deceived his friend Tim Balducci and brought him down, bringing him to utter ruin as a lawyer. As if this was not enough, he forced his friend into a position where he then had to act to betray his friend, Dick Scruggs, Sidney Backstrom and Zach Scruggs.

These treacheries are not spoken of in the current discussion of the Scruggs Matter.

Perhaps it is because we are so full of hatred and ill-feeling and so many are irrationally delighting in the destruction of "wrongdoers" we do not recognize a telling and terribly distressful truth about what has happened. Judge Lackey and the United States Attorney in the Northern District of Mississippi are not heroes in this matter. They have acted with treachery. This conduct is permitted by our laws. But, I wonder is it permitted by higher laws?

I think not. The end does not justify the means. Not only was the entrapment in this case by Judge Lackey wrongful and a true a good defense for each of the Srcuggs Defendants, the entrapment was wrong as a matter of basic morality between human beings.

All of the wrong by the Scruggs defendants is not as wrong as the conduct of Judge Lackey in using his friend's trust to bring him to ruin and in forcing his friend to bring his friends to ruin.

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.