Eugster Law & Comment

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.

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 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.

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.

Richard Scruggs and Sidney Backstrom were sentenced last week.

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 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?

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)?

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 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.