Judge Lackey: A “shock that I can’t put into words”

UPDATED BELOW

Today’s most notable development in the Dickie Scruggs saga has been Judge Henry L. Lackey’s interview in the Wall Street Journal (subs. only).

Judge Lackey, who’s 73, says that Dickie’s alleged co-conspirator Tim Balducci’s offering him a bribe for a favorable ruling gave him a “shock that I can’t put into words.”

“My first thought was: What kind of character flaw has he discovered in me that would lead him to think that I would do something like this? I was furious. I mean, this strikes at the heart of our judicial system.”

The judge says that when Balducci suggested the bribe back in March, at first he did nothing because, as WSJ’s Ashby Jones and Peter Lattman phrase it, “he considered himself friendly with Mr. Balducci and feared the ramifications.”

“I worried what would become of this young man, his wife, his children,” said Judge Lackey. “He was one of the brightest legal stars on the horizon that I’d come across, and I worried a great deal about the consequences.”

After a few days of feeling “like my reputation was being denigrated,” though, he “had to do something” and contacted federal prosecutors in Oxford. “Eventually” (an intriguing word in this context, no?), he agreed to help them and offered to wear a wire.

Mississippi’s “bodies buried”

UPDATED BELOW (X 2)

Mercy, there’s lotsa Scruggs-indictment kudzu a-growin’, so let’s wade on in. For orientation, it’s hard to beat bmaz’s comment yesterday at The Next Hurrah:

… [T]he indictment does not look good. No question, there is some bad stuff going on down there in the Gulf. What a rancid mess. Something doesn’t sit right to me though. I want to know a LOT more about Balducci, Backstrom, Judge Lackey and the relative interaction of all three with Federal and state investigators and prosecutors, as well as insurance companies (especially State Farm). There is a lot of referencing to Scruggs, but darned if most all of the overt acts alleged seem to only involve the people that have flipped. I wonder if they maybe didn’t turn a little earlier than they are letting on and they aren’t setting Scruggs up. I don’t know diddly about life and law in Mississippi and Alabama; but from where I come from, this whole scenario would be way [too] cheesey to have been the product of someone as accomplished as Scruggs. These are the big leagues, and you got to get your uniform a little dirty if you are going to play; this, however, just looks too stupid and sloppy to be Scruggs’ plan. I am not saying Scruggs is innocent or that he is clean and angelic, he most certainly is not; but the scene we are seeing is not what it currently appears to be irrespective of what culpability there is on the part of Scruggs. … I want to know the “rest of the story” as Paul Harvey would say.

Among ”people who flipped,” I think we’d better count Tim Balducci, apparently the only one of the five indictees who hasn’t yet been arraigned. Jackson Clarion-Ledger columnist Sid Salter highlights parts of his and co-defendant Steve Patterson’s website bios, but the WSJ’s Peter Lattman has an especially-interesting bit (and Balducci photo): Sure, ol’ Tim served hot cornpone to Judge Lackey up in Calhoun County — but his home page quotes William Faulkner (“In my time I have seen truth that was anything under the sun but just, and I have seen justice using tools and instruments I wouldn’t want to touch with a ten-foot fence rail”); in fact, his site features a whole Faulkner section. So the boy may be mortified by not just the content but the form of his “bodies buried” speech immortalized on F.B.I. tape.

Now as to “relative interactions,” the little we know of them yet is sorghum-molasses dark and sticky — the stickiest being of course the (ongoing) Katrina litigation beneath this fee-dispute that landed in Judge Lackey’s court. Here’s Overlawyered on how that’s looking now:

The internal cohesion of the anti-insurer lawyer consortium known as the Scruggs Katrina Group (SKG) appears at present to be under extreme pressure. Rossmiller reports that “policyholder lawyers in general tell me they are seething over Scruggs” and in particular that at least some lawyers who have been his allies “don’t want their names and their cases tarnished with the Scruggs name”. On Thursday an extraordinary contretemps developed in which SKG co-founder Don Barrett of Lexington, Miss. sent a letter (PDF) to a judge hearing Katrina cases against State Farm, suggesting that SKG was being re-formed without Scruggs and would take over the litigation with he, Barrett, as lead counsel (Lattman, WSJ). Within hours, Scruggs had dispatched a letter of his own (PDF) saying that Barrett was misinformed, that it was up to plaintiff families to decide who they wanted to represent them, and that many would undoubtedly wish to retain Scruggs (Lattman second post). As of Thursday evening, the Scruggs Katrina Group website has prominently posted the Scruggs letter but not the Barrett one; one might speculate that if some sort of split within SKG is imminent, the website operation, at least, may have maintained loyalty to the Scruggs side.

STOP THE PRESSES!

UPDATED BELOW

I think we’ve found Bustednuckles‘ Momma’s Bean Soup!

Busted (a long-lost ol’ pal o’ mine from around the tooobz) showed up here a few weeks back, looking for help finding the secret to his dear momma’s brown beans, whose recipe went with her to the Kitchen Beyond. Welp, I set my food-editor friend on the scent, and she rounded up her posse of other food-editors, and long-story-short, they ended up getting the bigfoot Southern-food guru John Egerton himself in on it.

Now, back through a whole email chain of salivatin’ food-editors, comes this from JE hissef:

Ronni, here’s an old recipe that sounds close to what your searcher remembered, the dry spice additions being oregano and marjoram.

… All’s well here, so we tiptoe along, not asking too many questions. Lots of love,

John

from Lovin’ Spoonfuls, an Egerton family Christmas cookbook, 1980:

KITTY AND MAMA’S BEAN SOUP

Winter weekends around W. O. and Kitty Smith’s house are often enriched by a simmering pot of bean soup that is as delicious as any we ever ate. Kitty and her mother, Mrs. Bernice Kinney, have perfected the recipe through years of careful adjustment. Here’s how they make enough to serve about 10 hungry people:

Soak 5 cups dried beans overnight (pinto, navy, lima, whatever you prefer). With fresh water covering beans in large kettle, bring to a near boil, skim off the foam, and let beans simmer for about 4 hrs. Saute about 8 sticks of celery, 2 green peppers, 3 medium-size onions, and a pound or so of hamburger meat, and add this mixture to the beans. Also add 1 pkg. of onion soup (dry), 1 large can of tomatoes (cut up), 1/2 tsp. each of chili powder, oregano, marjoram. Salt and pepper to taste, and add a few dashes of Tabasco if you like your soup hot and spicy. When the entire pot has blended and simmered for an hour or so, you have reached the moment of truth. Your patience will be richly rewarded.

Busted, honey, you try that. If it’s there or close, lemme know, and I’ll add it to Flowahy Cookin’, where we can all find it again.

Now let’s hear a big ol’ grateful WOOT to all them foodies from Editor Jan to Kitty and Miz Bernice!

lotus

UPDATE: Lest you be overwhelmed, I should warn you that this recipe makes TWO GALLONS of soup. Unless your family’s as big as the Egertons’, you might want to adjust the ingredients to your own (foreseeable) needs . . .

Perve: Emergency rules ends on Dec. 16

So report the BBC and the New York Times.

I’ll post a full update as time permits . . .

lotus

Trent Lott’s indicted kinfolk

UPDATED BELOW

What/whether this has to do with Trent Lott’s sudden retirement two days ago I can’t say, but late yesterday some of his close kin sho’ly got themselves heavy-duty indicted (pdf). Along with three alleged co-conspirators, they’re accused of bribing a Mississippi judge (who, having received an “overture” in late March, promptly tipped off the Feds and apparently wore a wire thereafter).

Trent’s brother-in-law Dickie Scruggs, due to his success in asbestos and tobacco cases, is probably Miss’ippi’s best-known and richest lawyer, not counting his friend John Grisham — and he’s also a big Clinton supporter. In fact, until yesterday, he was set to host Bill Clinton for a fundraiser at his home. But no doubt that’s off now that he’s joined his son and law partner Zach; Sidney A. Backstrom, another Scruggs firm lawyer; Timothy R. Balducci, an attorney in New Albany, MS; and former State Auditor Steven A. Patterson, a non-lawyer working for Balducci’s firm, as honorees themselves — of a 6-count, 13-page indictment.

The co-operating witness, Circuit Judge Henry L. Lackey, has been presiding over a wrangle between law firms over $26.5 million in fees to be divvied up after State Farm settled some Katrina claims. Dickie an’ them allegedly gave Judge Lackey either $40,000 or $50,000 (the indictment is unclear about his receipt of the final $10,000) to rule in favor of The Scruggs Law Firm, the name defendant in that case.

The indictment says the alleged conspiracy began “between on or about March 15 and March 28, 2007,” when the fivesome met at Dickie’s office in Oxford to discuss how they could influence the outcome of the fee-dispute case. Phone calls and visits from Tim Balducci to Judge Lackey ensued; between September 27 and November 1, he visited Lackey’s chambers in Calhoun County three times to deliver cash (which Dickie reimbursed, allegedly phonying-up some paperwork to look like he was compensating Balducci for work on a different case). Returning from the last meeting with a court order, according to the indictment, Balducci told Zach Scruggs and Backstrom, “We paid for this ruling; let’s be sure it says what we want it to say.” (Um, ya think Backstrom’s turned? Me too.)

I must say, Balducci’s (alleged) talk gives the indictment great tang. Have a taste:

On or about May 9, 2007, TIMOTHY R. BALDUCCI had a conversation with Judge Lackey wherein BALDUCCI stated that “my relationship with Dick [Scruggs] is such that he and I can talk very private [sic] about these kinds of matters and I have the fullest confidence that if the court, you know, is inclined to rule . . . in favor . . . everything will be good . . .” “The only person in the world outside of you and me that has discussed this is me and Dick [Scruggs].” “. . . We, uh, like I say, it ain’t but three people in the world that know anything about this . . . and two of them are sitting here and the other one . . . the other one, uh, being Scruggs. . . he and I, um, how shall I say, for over the last five or six years there, there are bodies buried that, that you know, that [Scruggs] and I know where. . . where are, and, and, my, my trust is his, mine in him and his in mine, in me, I’m sure are the same.”

Perve to lift state of emergency — ToL

From ToL:

Zahid Hussain, the Times correspondent in Pakistan, said: “By stepping down as Army chief, Musharraf has met an important demand. This is a very significant development.

“Well-placed sources have told me that Musharraf is now considering lifting the state of emergency imminently, and that this is likely to happen in the next few days.”

More here.

lotus

Romney’s sly Muslim-bashing strategy?

I haven’t posted on the presidential candidates yet because, for one thing, I’m trying to avoid them as long as I reasonably can (the Republicans repel and the Dems confuse me), and for another thing, most other bloggers have much more they want to say about them than I, and they say it better. But I just read something that I do want to bring to your attention, so exception hereby made.

You may have read/heard about Mitt Romney’s latest contretempts, having to do with what he’s variously said then variously denied that he’s said on whether he’d choose a Muslim Cabinet-member. If not, you can catch up via Josh Marshall’s quick video primer on the whole amusing thing.

Now go read Scott Horton’s idea about what we’re really seeing here, of which this is the nut:

Some are calling Mitt’s statement a gaffe. I don’t think so. This is the most cautious, most carefully planned performer on the Republican side of the stage. He leaves nothing to chance. This statement is a calculated attempt to play the race and religion card in the South Carolina primary.

The reason I don’t much worry about Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee is that he apparently cannot tell a non-lie to save him, and not only all of the Dem candidates but most Americans are smart enough to nail him repeatedly. The reason I worry a little about Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee is that I learned months ago that he’s Jeb Bush’s candidate. And as far as I’ve observed over the years, anything Jeb Bush is in on is good only for BushCo. Do we agree that the world’s had all of that it can stand? Bon.

Now coincidentally, Scott Horton’s usual practice is to post first thing in the morning an excerpt from classical literature, often accompanied by a related work of visual art. It happens that today (some hours before his Mitt-on-Muslims post bubbled up) he chose a passage from the 14th-century Abū Zayd ‘Abdu r-Rahman bin Muhammad bin Khaldūn:

Politics is the ordering of the household or the city as they ought to be according to the requirements of ethics and wisdom so that the multitude could be made to follow a path leading to the protection and preservation of the species. [emph. original]

Ain’t that a thing? You have to go back to a medieval Muslim to find the perfect enunciation of Bush-Cheneyism – well, if you leave out according to the requirements of ethics and wisdom and read “the species” as “Bushes and Cheneys and their very close pals.” Serendipity.

lotus

A story from Mustafabad

Henry Chu, as is his wont, has written a most interesting story in the Los Angeles Times today.

MUSTAFABAD, PAKISTAN — Mohammed Rafiq has only to look at his dinner table to find reasons to hate President Pervez Musharraf.

What would a meal be without chapati, the flatbread that is a staple of Pakistani cuisine? But flour, when you can get it, costs a third more than it did just a few months ago. How can anybody drink unsweetened tea? But the price of sugar has shot up by half.

“These are basic necessities,” said Rafiq, 50. “The maximum wage for a laborer is 200 rupees a day [about $3.30]. How can he manage everything on that?” …

[T]he president’s deepening unpopularity at home has as much to do with economic as political grievances. Conversations with ordinary Pakistanis quickly turn from the state of emergency of their national polity to the state of emergency afflicting their household budgets. Price hikes are routinely cited as one of the biggest problems, if not the biggest, facing the nation.

Those conversations are sharp, all right. A farmer tells Chu, “I’m 40 years old, and I’ve never seen a ruler like him. The government has [lost] control over prices. Shopkeepers are raising prices however much they want, and there’s no authority to check that.” A driver says, “All of Pakistan is suffering. It’s all because of Musharraf.” A shopkeeper adds, “How can you say that when you don’t have electricity in this country, when you have load-shedding for five hours a day? How can you say there’s prosperity? [Musharraf]’s a liar.”

Gen. Mr. Musharraf

UPDATED BELOW

See for yourself: he did it.

LAHORE, Pakistan, Nov. 28 — President Pervez Musharraf resigned his military post as Chief of Army Staff today, handing over the command stick to his successor in a ceremony at army headquarters and ending his eight years of military rule. He remains president and will be sworn in to a new five-year term in the capital on Thursday, but as a civilian president his power will be diminished. …

In addition to the BBC’s and the New York Times‘ above, other photos of the colorful handover, or yesterday’s review ceremonies, run in the Washington Post (attached to an AP story), the Los Angeles Times, and The Guardian. There they are: Pervez Musharraf’s last acts in uniform.

In an analysis for the BBC, M Ilyas Khan calls his retirement from the army “the most significant development in Pakistan since the coup of 1999 which brought him to power.” Khan points out that, although in the past “the army’s support has been crucial for presidential action against elected governments,” under Perve, it has lost credibility as a fighting force and drawn criticism for playing in politics.

Many analysts believe the main concern of the new army chief will be to restore the army’s image and streamline its combat efficiency. However, Mr Musharraf will be counting on the military leadership’s shared wish to deny the politicians full powers under an ‘unbridled democracy’.

“In the short term,” Khan expects,

his chief concern will be the electoral performance of the PML-Q party, which has provided him with what is widely seen as a ‘rubber-stamp parliament’.

But even a PML-Q victory in January’s elections is unlikely to produce a prime minister who will not at some point begin to see Mr Musharraf as a rival laced with ‘undemocratic’ powers.

Also any attempt by the government to manipulate the elections might, as one analyst put it, “prove to be his Waterloo”.

A backstory grows

UPDATED BELOW

I wanted to point this out yesterday but had trouble getting hold of a (bootlegged, so I dasn’t share, sorry) link to the original story, and then forgot to try again until just now.

As emptywheel noticed yesterday, Raw Story reports, in part:

The Bush Administration knew that Pakistani strongman Pervez Musharraf planned to institute emergency rule but did not act or speak out about the plan, according to officials with knowledge of the discussion who spoke anonymously in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.

“In the days before the Nov. 3 announcement, the general’s aides and advisers forewarned U.S. diplomats in a series of meetings in Islamabad, according to Pakistani and U.S. officials,” the paper said.

Because the US response was “muted,” Pakistan interpreted American silence as a green light to instituting martial law, quickly deposing an intransigent Supreme Court, which had ruled against the general in the past.

“One of Gen. Musharraf’s closest advisers said U.S. criticism was muted, which some senior Pakistanis interpreted as a sign they could proceed,” the Journal said. “‘You don’t like that option? You give us one,’ the adviser says he told his American interlocutors. ‘There were no good options.’”

A U.S. official “familiar with the discussions” told the paper the talks were part of “‘intensive efforts’ to dissuade Gen. Musharraf from declaring a state of emergency.”

“There was never a green light,” the U.S. official told the New York daily. [emphasis emptywheel's]

As you can tell by her bolding, emptywheel’s prime interest in the story is the form-and-theory of this American rhetorical vagueness.  “I’d love to know a little more about these conversations,” she says.

The most obvious question, of course, pertains to the role of Dick Cheney in these purported “intensive efforts” to dissuade General Musharraf from imposing martial law. Was this vague guidance just one more consequence of having Dick in charge of Pakistan policy?

Tossing a “More than likely” over my shoulder, I nip ahead to the point that most interests me: how long it’s taking to pry this piece of the story loose. Quoting myself on November 6 now:

According to both the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, at the beginning of last week Pakistanis told the U.S. what was coming. If it truly worried them, wouldn’t Bush or Cheney have picked up the phone to Musharraf? Instead, as Juan Cole notes [link], Bush “sent the weakest member of his team, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, out to warn Musharraf against the coup, indicating how little he was in reality worried about it. … Many observers are viewing Musharraf’s coup as a major setback for Bush’s policy, but in fact it changes almost nothing.”