Finally got home after some bad weather and even worse plane flights. Just before the flight took off I got a number of messages with a couple things that, if I had had access to a computer, I would have used as an update to the last post. However, enough time has passed that a lot of people won’t see it, and I like that post the way it is, so I’ll throw a few things together in this post and resume my Christmas break.
— This story by Errol Castens in the Daily Journal is a well-written profile of Tim Balducci. What caught my eye, however, were these grafs near the end:
Attorney General Jim Hood says Balducci’s status as a special assistant attorney general was strictly as an employee of The Langston Law Firm.
“His only involvement with our office is in whatever tasks he was assigned by his employer,” Hood told the Daily Journal.
Hood’s chief of staff, Geoffrey Morgan, added, “To my knowledge, Timothy Balducci has not handled any part of the Eli Lilly case since on or about Dec. 1, 2006, when he left the Langston Law Firm.”
Hood talked to the Daily Journal? Then I’ll definitely be waiting to hear from him and his assistant AG Courtney Schloemer about when I get to conduct those interviews of them next week. After all, according to Schloemer’s comments published in Legal Newsline, I’m ignoring their side of the story. So again, I’m ready to tell it, and I have a lot of questions.
— This Anita Lee story in the Sun Herald contains a fact I did not know — the Scruggs(less) Katrina Group has stopped paying the Rigsby sisters their annual $150,000 salaries for "consulting" work. The way I have linked to the story is to its second part, and the relevant part is the second paragraph from the top. Maybe Dickie Scruggs is still paying them out of his own funds.
— You may remember that, in Renfroe v. Rigsby, Judge Acker requested a written response to the court to his question about when Scruggs agreed to indemnify the Rigsbies and pay for their attorney fees in this case. Here is the answer. There is no written agreement, but instead evidence of when such an agreement came into being through partial evidence and performance of the agreement. The pleading says the attorney fees have been paid in large part out of SKG funds, and it also appears that Scruggs may have committed the SKG rather than himself as the indemnitor. In light of the Anita Lee story about the SKG declining to pay further consulting fees to the sisters, I wonder if they will also repudiate the attorney fee payments and the indemnity agreement itself. If so, that probably leaves the sisters with no agreement and dependent solely on Scruggs’ goodwill.
—Here’s an order from yesterday in the Scruggs bribery case from Judge Biggers granting the request for a continuance, but note that he moved the trial date only to February 25. Here’s a second order extending the date for plea agreements to February 11. Wonder if there will be any more.
— That’s it for now. Merry Christmas.