Scruggs Nation, March 17

small shamrocks.jpg
If you missed my post from yesterday, go back and read it, it’s got a roundup of some of the Scruggs stories of note, some stuff about Jim Hood, some Katrina litigation stuff — it took me some time to put it together, so I hope you’ll find something you like. I’ll talk about a couple stories here that I didn’t include in that earlier post. 

One is this story in the Clarion-Ledger [originally had the wrong link, now fixed] in which John Jones, formerly part of the Scruggs Katrina Group and whose attorney fee lawsuit against Scruggs and the SKG firms gave rise to the Scruggs bribery conspiracy, says he was completely shocked by Scruggs’ plea agreement.  I myself don’t think it was very hard to see coming at all.

But this part of the story was curious to me, so much so that I read it twice:

Although he was a millionaire, Scruggs saw himself as a champion of the little people, Jones said. "Dickie’s emotions were all on the ends of the hairs of skin. He was the most sensitive guy about his own self-image."

As Scruggs once said in describing himself, he wanted to be one of the ones who killed the rhinoceros, "not just be one of the scavengers who ate the meat," Jones said.

In 1998, he bagged the biggest rhino of all, the tobacco industry, earning the largest civil settlement in U.S. history. Scruggs and that case were portrayed in the 1999 Russell Crowe-Al Pacino movie The Insider.

When two of Scruggs’ former law partners sued Scruggs, Jones became one of his defense attorneys.

"I became convinced he was a really good guy who was being shaken down by others," Jones said. "He was a great client and did everything we asked him to do."

In 2005, Scruggs went to trial in one of those lawsuits.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jerry Davis awarded Alwyn Luckey $17 million for legal fees due from the asbestos litigation.

Jones viewed the ruling as a victory since he had successfully protected Scruggs’ interests with regard to any legal fees earned from the tobacco litigation. Luckey had argued in a second lawsuit that he was entitled to a portion of the tobacco fees because asbestos earnings helped fund the tobacco litigation.

Scruggs saw the defeat as a sour loss, Jones said. "He thought he couldn’t trust the system."

From that point forward, Scruggs changed the way he operated, Jones said. "He always had to rely on some inside connection when he didn’t need to."

Now, come on here, with all due respect, Scruggs "thought he couldn’t trust the system"?  He got nailed in the Luckey lawsuit for holding back on a partner.  What does it mean, under those circumstances, to say "He thought he couldn’t trust the system"? He lost a fair fight, so he decided — as Joey Langston and Tim Balducci have testified — to make his own unfair system?

And if so, how much different in concept is that from the way he conducted the tobacco litigation — having P.L. Blake run around doing Lord knows what to earn his millions, making use of insiders stealing documents and mixing law and politics like a well-shaken martini?  It’s time to take that standard profile of Scruggs and round-file it.  Let’s admit that prior conceptions and explanations of the man were woefully wrong, let’s admit that many or most of the people closest to him were the most wrong about him, and let’s start again from scratch. Throw away all those newspaper and media stories sucking up to Scruggs, and let’s start anew.  I don’t say the man is all bad, far from it, I find many things about him to admire.  But now maybe both the good and the bad will get a hearing — one where someone hasn’t put the fix in. 

The second story is also from the Clarion-Ledger.  I’m going to criticize this lede and second graf:

Dickie Scruggs, the Oxford attorney who grew up poor in Pascagoula, had it all – the opulent private jet, the shiny Bentley, the 120-ft. yacht, the vacation home in Key West, reputed legal fees earned of nearly $1 billion and a reputation as one of the most respected and most feared trials lawyers in the world.

But on Friday, Scruggs was reduced – apparently by his own inexplicable greed – to just another felon copping a plea bargain in front of a federal judge. Scruggs pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers of conspiring to bribe a state Circuit Court judge with $40,000 in cash in exchange for a favorable ruling in a case over disputed legal fees.

First, what private jet is not opulent by any normal definition of that word? I mean, maybe the private jet of a Saudi prince is markedly more well-appointed than some corporate private jet, but in any meaningful sense, isn’t ownership of a private jet itself one of the indicia of an opulent lifestyle?

Second, the juxtaposition of the list of the Magnificence of Himself in the first paragraph with the guilty plea by Fallen Scruggs in the second appears designed to support a "why would he risk it all on something like this" storyline.  But what if all that stuff in the first paragraph came his way because of activities that bear many similarities to the activities in the second paragraph?  The story doesn’t consider this.

Third, if Scruggs is indeed "one of the most respected and most feared trial lawyers in the world," why didn’t the Clarion-Ledger devout more resources to covering the case against him? Sounds like a criminal charge against a big shot like that in a newspaper’s own back yard would be worth a heck of a lot more coverage than we saw.

On a somewhat different topic, I want to provide a description of the courtroom before the guilty plea from a reader who e-mailed me about it (don’t freak out, all you e-mailers, I asked permission to use this):  

 It was quite a show. I found it remarkable that he was politicking and socializing with everyone just prior to the hearing.  Dick was on the prosecution side of the seating area shaking hands and speaking to folks like a politician.  Keker was in the seating on the defense side of the courtroom with Diane and called out to him "Dick" and motioned him back to his seat with his head rather firmly, in my opinion. He did not try to shake my hand thank goodness.  I doubt he knows who I am but chose to not make eye contact with him because I felt like that would bring him over. I had no clue what was about to happen and a chill ran down my spine when I heard the judge say that he had two plea agreements.

I find these first-person narratives of events so much more compelling than the typical inverted pyramid, dispassionate news story, don’t you?  I’m pledged not to say more about this person’s identity, so we’ll just leave it at that. 

Lastly, thanks to the citizens of the Scruggs Nation for keeping me company these past few months.  Thanks for the e-mails of support, and a special thanks to all those who provided information and tips.  I’ve gotten to know a lot of people really well through this blog, I count many as friends.  Life never ceases to amaze me, how exactly I got in the middle of this, I don’t think I could tell you.  To be honest, I didn’t really want to do it, this Scruggs blogging, but I’m the kind who believes in omens, and in a way I really haven’t been able to explain to myself, it seemed like this was the role that had fallen to me and it was what I had to do.  With all the people I’ve met, I’m glad I did it, and something tells me I’m not quite done yet.

We began this post with a time-honored icon, the shamrock, and we’ll close it with a new one, the sweet potato, forever to be remembered as the symbol of the Scruggs Nation.  I’ll tell you what, I don’t ask for much, but if any of you are good at sewing and could slap together a Scruggs Nation sweet potato flag, I’d fly it proudly in my office for evermore. I’m thinking the most appropriate background color would be green, the green of a $40,000 bribe.   



Filed under First Party Insurance

22 Responses to Scruggs Nation, March 17

  1. alsoalawyer

    David, thanks again for your informative and entertaining blog.
    Like you, I have been questioning all along this line of thinking of “how could Scruggs do this after all the good he has done?” The more appropriate question is “how long has he been doing this?”
    The depostion from the Wilson case circulated around the legal community years ago and the P. L. Blake comments raised many questions about how Scruggs was getting results, but there were no answers and only speculation. I think many people were suspect. This case and Scruggs plea (and Langston’s plea in the Delaughter matter) just seems to confirm the suspicions that many of us already had.
    Unfortunately, the question of how long he has been doing this may never be answered and the apologists (like Mike Moore) will continue to tout all the “good” he did in the past. Admittedly, he did do “good”, but I have to wonder if he did bad things to get good results….

  2. M.Williams

    Here we go again – first the L.A. Times calls the man a “genius”, and then the tripe up in the top part of this post says “gee whizz”, he loved the little people.
    Of all the moments in the tobacco issues history, I recall one that stands out – Dickie never said a word about how he felt about the sick and dying. And when he had dough (about a billion) from Mississippi, Florida, and Texas, he donated a “20 mil” endowment to Ole Miss.
    This felon is not a music lover, but I udnerstand a music building was named in his honor at Ole Miss. Jesus, the man was as much a music lover as he was a lover of the victims he sucked up in his “Global Settlement”.
    But it’s not Dick Scruggs bye’s that strike me as the conclusive evidence that the point of the Global Settlement wasn’t about “dying people,” but about something else.
    Walking back one fresh noon day, when Dickie and his sidekicks were talking about the “market,” the very special ex-Navy prosecutor, Mr. Boseman, started talking about winning. His statement was a howl for the meaning of the Global settlement, and it is what it was, and it was what it is today. Dick stood tall, looking over his “territory” of victory, and never spoke of victims.
    Boseman didn’t either. But here’s what he said, like a childish boy writing down his Christmas list. Fat and fireplug red, Boseman spoke up clearly about what he and others thought the victory was about, “Dickey?”
    “Yeah, I hear ya.”
    “I want a plane too.”
    That’s about where we are today, and Katrina isn’t anymore goody goody than tobacco. Shame on Matt Myers, Shame on Matt Myers. And, if Myron Levin is still out at the L.A. Times – hey, pal, ever hear Dickie say I just wake up to help the people and do good.

  3. It'sAboutTime

    If John Jones thought dickie truely had no liability to his former partners, why did he consider it a victory when a federal judge awarded $17,000,000.00 to Al Lucky? It would seem Jones is merely trying to put himself in a better light. He knew dickie was trying to screw Lucky and Wilson as he had other partners in the past and for him to enter into an arrangement with scruggs to share fees in Katrina litigation without a written ironclad fee split was simply foolish.

  4. Little Kenny

    David…..Might be time for a treatise on HUBRIS!

  5. Entertained

    David, I am so glad to have been able to get your insights as this thing was unfolding. And, putting aside for a moment your mammoth gift of wit, I am looking forward to your book because of your sharp intuition. While others insist on characterizing Scruggs as a benevolent go-getter who unwittingly developed — and fell victim to — an addiction to winning, you have refused to accept such notions at face value. Scruggs has got to be more complicated than that, and I am looking forward to your portrait of him, if indeed that’s what you’ll give us. Thank you, thank you, thank you for taking us on this odyssey; man, has it been fascinating.

  6. mslayer

    I think your views of the coverage of Scruggs is dead on. If you check who has been shocked by this guilty plea of Scruggs it is mostly people in high places (no pun intended) – Grisham, George Cochran of UM Law – and reporters – a testament to his PR prowess. Ask the everyday person in Mississippi, or lawyers like me, and you will find a completely opposite response – more of a “we knew all along” or “’bout tme.” Secondly, lawyers here would tell you that in the courtroom Scruggs is more of a house-cat with a bad temper than a lion – his strength was his multiple front attack on his opponent. He would his opponent sued or investigated by the IRS, push through legislation, or simply bribe and make backroom deals. That is where his strength was and that, in turn, results from both a deeply ingrained belief of himself as simply better than others around him and an extraordinary type of hubris; hubris that led him to believe he was not only above the system, but that the system was not applicable to himself.

  7. Miss Lawyer

    I am wondering how Jones could have been a “source” for the Clarion-Ledger on his representation of Scruggs? It seems to me that that is a violation of the attorney-client privilege…. The suit between them did not concern the representation and so I don’t believe that the privilege would have been waived. Thoughts?

  8. Nomiss

    The “multiple front attack on his opponent” tactic stated by the poster above appears to be a tactic that Scruggs taught his vbf Mike Moore. I’ve been told Mike Moore uses those same tactics–he threaten investigations about matters that have nothing to do with the case and he involves shady people and back room deals. Quite a team they must have made.
    Mr. Williams, you have some good insights into Dickie Scruggs.

  9. Nomiss

    David, maybe the Sweet Potato Queen will send you an autographed photo.

  10. Scruggs Nation Detox

    This may not add much, but here’s a pre-plea clip of Charlie Merkel discussing his dealings with Scruggs:

  11. MSnative

    Scruggs is not sorry he did wrong…he is only sorry he got caught.


    The many posts and comments regarding greed as a principal motivator seem to me to be a bit off the mark, at least as far as the bribery attempt is concerned. In my view, these interesting events likely had little to do with money, but, ironically, had much to do with Scruggs’ desire to avoid the public airing of dirty laundry and to protect his golden public reputation.
    The bribery attempt was made in a case in which Scruggs is being sued over the proposed distribution of millions of dollars in attorney’s fees generated in a previous case. The Complaint regarding the attorney fee dispute, brought by some of Scruggs’ angry former associates, contains much unnecessary but salacious detail not normally set forth in a Complaint that is filed in the public records. The bribe was not made to obtain a particular outcome in the fee dispute, but was simply intended to move the fee dispute to Arbitration, thereby eliminating the possibility of a public trial and avoiding any further public airing of the alleged misdeeds that gave rise to the Complaint. And since there has never been any suggestion that there was any intent to “fix” the Arbitration proceedings, the only real benefit to be derived from moving the case to Arbitration was not money – but privacy.
    Talk about your unintended consequences . . .

  13. dixie68

    Mr. Rossmiller, we will never be able to thank you enough for keeping us up to date on the Scruggs affair, and as someone has already said, it is a rare person who can be as intelligent as you, but still have a delightful sense of humor.
    While much has been said about Scruggs’ generosity, I wonder whose dime he did it on.

  14. Nomiss

    As much as I enjoy reading you, Mr. Rossmiller, I also enjoy Mr. Williams’ language. I’ve re-read the description of Mr. Boseman several times and can’t seem to get enough. Such a picture–fat and fireplug red—wish I could write like that.

  15. M.Williams

    Lameador, what’s the question? That the Arbitration Panel for tobacco fees weren’t fixed? Is that it? OK – tooth fairy time. You have no idea that Mr. Calhoun of Texas was bound by the notion that money for his grin essentially was paid up front by the tobacco companies – assurance for big wins to keep the big firms away from tobacco ever again.
    And who was Mississippi’s Arbitration hometown boy – not a simple man for sure, but a vainglorious phantom of law so selflessly defined he glowed in Brioni moonlight suits – or was that a silver ceiling?
    It was “fixed.” Mike Moore travelled to almost every State while he was the Attorney General of Mississippi, slightly out of character for a man who was doing the business of the people of Mississippi, and Mike Moore’s job was to “fix” the fee’s for Ness Motley and Dickie Scruggs who had interests in almost every State.
    How nice it would be to think that the men who change our laws are so fine and silken pure that their stockings don’t smell nearly as much as their underwear – and isn’t that a misfortune, because if we could see underneath, I just wonder what we’d find?
    The “fix” was in for the Arbitration Panels, who, by the way, got a per centage of the lay down money.
    Incentive is good, but greed is elemental in this matter. That’s why the boys who shook down the deal, including Mike Moore, always got more than the people – who got nothing. I do have a dog in this hunt. And I will find more hounds.
    One climbed up a tree today – to find a privileged branch in the guise of defending a poor little man whose daddy was doing another deal.
    I imagine, I suppose, if Zach gets off, and Moore and Dickie make it to 90, there’s going to be the same old winding roads – and maybe one license that hasn’t been surrendered. But each generation invents it’s own morality. Does the law – I wonder….
    Sadly, a tradition in law will go on. And law, by it’s very intent, is the creative renovation of politics.

  16. Nomiss

    If you go to, you’ll see photos of the Sweet Potato Queens Ball at Hal & Mals. Happens each St. Patrick’s Day after the parade.

  17. bothered

    Mr. Williams: is what you say about arbitration panels appilcable to the Mississippi arbitration? Also can you expound about pl Blake’s role?

  18. M.Williams

    Mr/Ms (Bothered): There’s no question in my mind that the universal “Arbitration Panel” and the momentum to add tributes to the war chest of big firms, particularly Mike Moore’s team, Ness Motley, but dozens of others – yes, of course. The “fix” was in the contract. The pick -your -boys was in the method of decision.
    The participation by Mike Moore, who did NOT actually create the Global Settlement, was singularly in order to benefit his best friends – particularly Don, Dickie, Paul, and – are we so naive that we believe Moore received nothing? This isn’t Greek mythology.
    What you saw in the Arbitration Panels was lay down money being paid out – willingly, with a few hyperbolic voices charming “panels” wherever they were. Mississippi’s deal was settled along with Texas and Florida, just about the time the Senator Lott put a stop to Moore’s Bill – it didn’t pay much to the lawyers.
    Minnesotta said they weren’t going to play along with the sneaky Pythonics in Mississippi, so they actually had a trial, but finally settled.
    So, Mississippi’s “Arbitration Panel” was just a hiking up of the original pay out in the trial settlement – and that’s where felon D.S. fired up his jet and paid his respects to the other States his legal scam was processed – and Moore told the tale.
    Nobody knows how much junk cash was involved in the transfer of the tobacco funds from the tobacco companies to the lawyers and the Attorneys General. It was intended to be that way. It is further obfusgated by the fact that the “Arbitration Hearings” are forever sealed by law.
    Tobacco clearly wanted to muddy the waters, and keep the lid on the winners of big time money. The purpose of the Global settlement, not only was to confuse the public, but was to confuse the recipient membership, a massive number of lawyers and providers – and the cherry on the top is that this always be “hiden” from the public. Only a few select lawyers know where the bodies are buried in the Arbitration Panel “decisions.”
    Moore knows the whole story, and he’s smart to keep himself in a low profile. He may not have bearer bonds, but he’s certainly alluded to his jesting audience, in a self-deprecating way, that “pay-off’s” to him were the brunt of his parculiar interest and devotion to D.S. and his friends.
    Human nature is not as sweet as Mike Moore, and the Arbitration Panel in tobacco is more sour than sweet, but it’s the perfect Chinese Menue.
    The Arbitration Panel’s decisions were entirely “inside” the closed-off media, and inside Mississippi, whether the papers and reporters knew or not, shows no evidence that anyone was interested.
    It’s like saying there was a report from sea that the Titanic sank, but, for some reason or other, the report got lost, so nobody knew there was a story out there.
    P.L. Blake is no more or less an Emperor of gathering and distribution. Sort of like the thing that makes NetFlicks and Wallmart work – one of many conveyor belts, assembly points, distribution centers, and trucking up points.
    D.S. knew nothing about tobacco companies. He learned some things along the way. Euphemism is one thing. Code words is another. In tobacco blending, the HHS is the keeper of hundreds of killing and destructive “words”, codified in a similar way in each company, which by now is merely BAT.
    While the issue of “learning” business in attacking tobacco, D.S., in the fashion of making money for himself, learned that “codes” are the task for masters and slaves.
    This P.L. Blake is simply a very tight rose that doesn’t blow out because it’s like the HHS – the business of tobacco ingredients is hardly an issue. It’s how the mix makes sense.
    P.L. Blake is just one of the Wallmart type distribution. There are more. There are so many – you have to believe it’s like finding fossil fuel which takes forever to make slush.

  19. Jennifer Wagner

    Merrill: You seem to be leaving out a lot that went on during the tobacco days in Pascagoula, probably because you were in a drunken haze the entire time you were in Jackson County, that’s probably why you never heard Dick’s comments about the sick. You comments re: Bozeman

  20. M.Williams

    Dear Jennifer Wagner:
    1. Merrell worked for Barton and Williams, a law firm in Jackson County beginning in April 27th, 1994, and ending in 1998. It was understood that funds were paid monthly from Scruggs office to Barton and Williams’ office to cover Williams’ employment. Part of Williams “constructive contract” with Mike Moore and Dick Scruggs was to have a residence, private protection, health insurance, use of a car, and a “business” aside outside Barton and Williams employee status.
    2. It is Williams’ belief that Mr. Bozeman worked for Scruggs, Millett, Dent, Lawson, on or about April, 1994. Also, Mr. Bozeman and Mr. Scruggs held meetings for the purpose of learning certain public information, research, and contacts which were meant to be used in the Mike Moore lawsuit, Mississippi Ex Rel vs. tobacco companies[sic].
    3. Scruggs, Moore, Minor, Barrett, Boseman, have been and are violating the Commonwealth of Kentucky State Court Orders.
    4. Moore and Scruggs intentionally initiated the “theft” of documents which were obtained under false pretenses from Nina Selz. These were called the “Brown and Williamson documents”.
    A. The Brown and Williamson documents, first used as “evidence” in a lawsuit, Grady Carter vs. American Tobacco, is documented as a favorable victory for the work of Mike Moore and Dick Scruggs.
    B. The documents were also claimed as the basis for many books, including The Cigarette Papers by Stanton Glantz,
    C.The AMA Journal, July 19, 1995, based an entire journal on the “Brown and Williamson Documents”.
    D. While it is moot, Mr. Moore and Mr. Scruggs used the evidence which was spread to reach a settlement in Mississippi Ex Rel.
    E. Moore and Scruggs rightfully acknowledged that they had lawfully obtained information from Dr.Wigand, Dr.Stanton Glantz, and others, and took direct credit for the public recognition of their work.
    F. Mike Moore’s continued effect of a Master Settlement began with his special efforts to obtain documented evidence and a spokesperson to launch his united effort against tobacco companies.
    3. Mr. Scruggs, working with Charlene Bosarge, arranged for a “phantom” purchase of a house for Williams’ occupancy while in Jackson County. The house, 1415 Diller Road, was purchased by Scruggs/Minor/Bosarge, in the State of Mississippi by the unregistered Mississippi entity, M&S Enterprises.
    4. M&S Enterprises is known to be “owned” by Paul Minor and Dick Scruggs. A price was paid through Charlene Bosarge and a Mr. Anderson, lawyer, drew deed to the property at 1415 Diller Rd. to M&S Enterprises.
    The residence was occupied by Merrell Williams from June, 1994 through April, 1999.
    4. The banking business that Scruggs, Mrs.Bosarge, and the bank presidents issued for “car loans and a boat”, are destroyed evidence of Dick Scruggs; however, nothing exists that indicates that any car or boat was not actually owned by Mr. Scruggs as the grantee of loans.
    Ms Wagner: Mr. Williams states that your husband should know that there is no truth in the notion that he slept with you. MORE TO COME>

  21. M.Williams

    Response to Jennifer Wagner/Merrell Williams.
    1. As I told my lawyer friend, I am not a Saint and as I recently told Daniel Elsberg who purloined the Pentagon Papers, and created a genuine celebration of an absolute duty to inform the public when there is a wrong, even as a citizen, and also as a lawyer, I would not accept his praise as being a “hero” since I did not believe that I accomplished what I intended to do beginning on January 6, 1988.
    While you are old enough, I think, to know that Elsberg was not only responsible for putting out truth in the form of documentation that was sufficient to put an end to the Vietnam War, it also was powerful enough to cause the demise of President Nixon, who was caught violating the law.
    2. There are, as I expressed to Daniel Elsberg, no persons to match the value of what he did. Even though I did not solicite Mr. Elsberg’s communication (it was the other way around), I maintained that Elsberg was flawed in fact by not disclosing the information he possessed earlier which would have most likely put a quick end to a trumped-up war, and, in spite of his status as a “hero”, I placed blame on him for that failure to present his evidence as soon as he knew of it. I also advised him that, while my actions were begun long before the documents were released, there was a public misunderstanding of my role, and I disagreed entirely with the manner in which the industry of tobacco was let off the hook. I didn’t agree to that.
    3. In several letters and phone calls, I indicated to Mr. Elsberg that, if I could have spoken out, I would never have done what Mike Moore and Christine Gregoire did – cause the Government to be in business with tobacco. For that, I take no interest or do not want any sort of misunderstanding about what I did or did not do in the so-called Master Settlement or the Mississippi Medicaid Lawsuit.
    4. However, in lieu of my distance in the facts of tobacco’s liberation from big lawsuits, and the public’s right to know, and the invariable waste of resources and write-off’s by the tobacco industry, I can’t and won’t adopt any posture of goodness in what I allowed to happen. I can only be subjected to condemnation for allowing Dick Scruggs, acting in concert with Mike Moore, to know that Nina Seltz, Orlando, Fl. was my friend and had archived many documents, including the so-called Brown and Williamson documents. I am sorry that I did participate in a conspiracy of misjudgement by providing information that was helpful and brought about many wrongs in the Master Settlement (1998).
    5. In answering your comment that [I] “never heard Dick’s [sic] comments about the sick”, let me assure you that I repeated heard many comments in the public media about Dickey Scruggs’ concerns, and, perhaps I am remiss in forgetting that Mr.Scruggs had a particularized interest in his administrative task which theorized beneficial hand-outs to “the sick”. I believe that “sick victims” remains the cornerstone of the Mississippi Medicaid Lawsuit and the Master Settlement.
    6. What “Dick” [Scruggs] may have said about “the sick” and what he did are not one and the same. In fact, the virtue espoused by Dick Scruggs FOR the sick is that of his merit as a lawyer, which, by now, is vitually valueless.
    7. “You [sic] comments re: Bozeman…” I think it is quite clearly remembered by me that, one fresh day, behind the Scruggs’ offices, upon return from lunch at LaFoutain Inn buffet, Mr. Bozeman stated audibly in the context of winning money from tobacco, “I want a plane too.” I don’t often think that Mr. Boseman was a dishonest lawyer in his plain spoken manner, and, if I can imagine his desire, Mr. Boseman may now own a plane. He may now also be fat.
    8. In the personalization of your comment, I doubt that you are aware of how much blatant sarcasm and bitter commentary I have received when I first began my trip to Mississippi. I can say simply, clearly, that you have few facts to gather from additional information, other than that which I feel is now “open territory” since Lott, Moore, Scruggs, Hood, and many of the “family” on the Coast have been given a public airing. It’s freed me, and your attentive reaching out is worth proofing for a new generation:
    Common practice for Dickie Scruggs was, in 1994, to enter into oral contracts with parties necessary to carry on his business. I think of Dickie as a Mafia-type boss. He had some legal skills, but he was in fact an extremely good business man and a person who was content to establish many techniques which proved useful. Apparently, he used many of the “tools” today that were in his toolbox in 1994. Here is what you are putting out “have you forgotten about the toys…” These are the facts:
    1. I worked as a document analyst at the world’s largest tobacco firm from January 6, 1988 to March 13, 1992. During work hours, I took out and copied documents that expressly explained a universal conspiracy that was carried out by the firms of Shook, Hardy, Bacon (Kansas City), beginning in 1956 to “purchase” false, misleading, science of disease to use in defense of the laws of the United States and the lawsuits brought against tobacco.
    I was the only person in the history of tobacco to be in a position to access ALL entities of tobacco, and this was an important role, as no individual had ever been in charge of putting the puzzling pieces together -and hopefully sharing them with the public. I carried home documents and spent over four years of research to get “evidence” sufficient to level the ground for Plaintiff victims of tobacco products.
    2. In 1991-92 I wrote, using hard copies as documentation proof, a book called Intent to Decieve. Toward the end of 1992, I sent a copy of the book to J.Fox DeMoissey.
    3. In order to get the documents, and the book, in the category of “evidence”, I was allowed to file suit under a claim of personal injury. On September 29, 1993, I was sued, and on March 4, 1994, I countersued Wyatt and Brown and Williamson.
    4. Since my family lived in Jackson, I had initiated a meeting with Don Barrett, and he brought along Dickie Scruggs and Cindy Lott. At the meeting, Scruggs offered to find me a job on the Gulf Coast where I had previously lived.
    5. I came to the Gulf Coast on April 7, 1994. Dickie offered to find me a job with Barton and Williamson. I accepted the job, and moved with my children to Jackson County, MS.
    6. Within weeks, Dickie Scruggs offered to me a “constructive trust” agreement, which he failed to keep. He did sign off, as was his practice, on loans for my car (and since I had custody), a car for my daughters. I had no health insurance, and was housed in a “home” which was purchased by an unlawful entity which was explained to me as a means of disguising certain financial transactions, including Minor’s money which he kept out of reach of a recent divorce.
    In the freeing up of information, where the felony prospects in Mississippi are likely to continue, and they should, I am very happy that Jennifer Wagner, who in her generosity, allows me to put forth information to help investigations into the financial deals which are on-going, brings me questions for those not so familiar with the answers – or the questions. If I think of how else I can or should answer you, Ms Wagner, I will do so.
    I should add this. In January, 1999, Dickie Scruggs followed up on a “contract” which he failed to grant following his multi-billion dollar Mississippi Settlement. Any issue of “loans”, which were part of my job in 1994, and the constructive trust, were included in a Settlement.
    I think, in conclusion, you may know a lot about “where the bodies are buried”, so it’s terribly peculiar that you’ve popped in here – but should you want to “go further”, fire away.

  22. M.Williams

    Dear Ms Wagner – your swat at personalizing an issue is comparativity on the level of a gnat chew on a rhinoceros. I don´t know of anything that has been more enduring in the last 14 years, that could have less than a boring and more justified to accomplish less than to hitch up your mules to more of the same rubbish.
    My personal endurance of tripe reached the pothole stage about 10 years ago, and I´ve enjoyed every swat. Dick and sick in rhyme is about as far as we could have agreement. As a matter of fact, your mention of toys, is a familiar m.o. of felon Scruggs, as he repeatedly made loans for his soldiers, and there~s not a bit of difference here in your statement that isn~t found in the conviction of Paul Minor and Dick Scruggs who both were the owners of toy shops which were sued in Brown and Williamson vs Merrell Williams, M&S Enterprises [Minor & Scruggs}, John Does 1 – 10 [Biloxi Federal Court,2/14/95]; my countersuit covered that as 60 million dollars, part of the tobacco settlement, January, 1999, to me. What you refer to is an m.o. for felons, not my settlements with tobacco. re Boseman, don~t know if he~s still fat. He may have a plane.
    Do you really want to expose yourself and Charlene´s bookeeping, and yours, at a time like this? Demonstratively dangerous for the Gautier office to pop up right now, ya think?