This is PART 2 of Monday, May 9 hearing before Judge Neal Biggers. Zach Scruggs asked the court to disqualify prosecutor Robert Norman from the team which will represent the government May 23 at a hearing aimed at convincing Biggers to throw out Zach's 2008 conviction and sentence.

Here, we'll pick up the 5-hour hearing, with most of this paraphrased:

Biggers: (to Norman) What did you expect from their testimony?

Norman: Langston would testify about the Wilson case. (Norman refers to an e-mail between Zach and attorney John Jones assuring Jones they can prevail in Wilson v Scruggs. This is the notorious e-mail that basically says "we can write the order on a napkin and get it OK'd.") Langston said, well, he had ot know about  it (the DeLaughter scheme). Now, I understand Langston meant that Zach knew about Peters being hired, but it was not much of a stretch that he was "fully aware," althoug not necessarily feloniously aware of the scheme. That was enough for 404B, it goes to his state of mind. WE never said Zach was criminally involved with Wilson v. Scruggs. Our 404B doesn't hae to rise to that level. (Norman said the govt. likely would not have used this against Zach at trial, because "the landscape changed" when Dickie Scruggs pleaded guilty.

Norman: Farese's letter says Langston's situation didn't affect Zach. Tony called Mike Moore, and said Joey will not testify that Zach knew anything about Wilson. (Norman said he doesn't remember how the wrong impression was corrected with the court about Langston's testimony, but it was corrected.)

Biggers: Mr. Robertson?

Robertson: I'm sorry Mr. Norman says he's likely to get fired if these allegations are true. H says he corrected the record with the grand jury. Judge, you were right to ask about that. This "not a problem" and "sweet potatoes: stuff. These are key points about Zach joining a conspiracy and it never was corrected. Norman told you Langston would implicated Zach, that he knew friendly local counsel was hired (to influence DeLaughter ). That is not a felony. Both sides hired friendly counsel. We just must prove that you were misrepresented on material facts. Norman says the landscape changed, at the time the government said "no changes had occurred" in the case.

Robertson: He suggests we should have called Langston or tried ot. The premise is that we couldn't trust Mr. Norman's representation - the whole point is in making representations to curt, we are suppose to be able to rely on them. That's why we're here. Ultiamtely, we never received information that Langston would exculpate Zach.

Biggers: The court has heard arguments about who said what and when, differences of opions. Instead of relying on arguments, I want to hear the witness ay ait and when he said it. We will call Joey Langston at 1 p.m.

* * *

1 p.m.

Retired prosecutor Tom Dawson enters the courtroom.

Biggers returns. Norman calls Dawson to the stand.

Dawson: lead counsel in Scruggs I, the Lackey case. Went to the grand jury with Norman. Under Norman's questioning, they walk through Balducci's testimony to the grand jury about meeting Nov. 1, 2007, with Sid and Zach at the Scruggs Law Firm. Says Balducci tells them Lackey wants another $10K. "It was not a problem," Balducci said. Dawson says he realized that the actual tape refers to a "load of sweet potatoes," which Dawson said is "code " for the money.

Norman: Do you believe it was an intentional misrepresentation to the grand jury?

Dawson: No. He also said he felt the problem was corrected. Also testified about FBI agent Bill Delaney's testimony to the grand jury, whichs supported recordings of conversations by Balducci, who was wearing a wire.

Norman: Did they say "we're paying for it?"

Dawson: yes

Norman: When BAlducci said the $10K was "no problem," was that a direct quote from Zach and Sid?

Dawson: He didn't say either one said that, just no response from either one.

Norman: Did Say say, don't talk about this in front of Zach?

Dawson: No Also said he recalled Norman's telling the court that Zach and Sid had no involvement with Wilson.

Norman: Did Joey say he would say Zach knew about Wilson v. Scruggs?

Dawson: yes

Norman: Were they indicted for Wilson?

Dawson: No, no criminal evidence against them. We had knowledge that Langston said Zach knew about hiring Peters, because of his close relationship with DeLughter. Our inferene was this was corrupt infuence. I also knew about the e-mail about the brief on a napkin, and that ramped up the quality of 404B evidence. Joey wasn't aware of the e-mail but before the hearings he became aware of them. If asked, I believed he would say Zach had to have known about the Wilson case. The e-mail string was quite illuminating. If Zach had no involvement in Wilson, why is he writing an e-mail to John Jones, the Wilson lead counsel? It's clear, he believed the Fix was in!

Norman: Did we explain to the court about Langston's saying Zach was fully aware of Wilson?

Dawson: no. The hearing to consider those motions was abandoned. Langston could have clarified Norman's statement to the court, if he had been called at that hearing. Doors could have been opened. Then the landscape changed, and it left oy Zach. Joey would not have been a witness for the government agsint him. Different from Dickie.

Chip Robertson: Mr. Dawson, you're a book author. When did you talk to Alan Lange (about working on the book together)?

Dawson: February or March after I retired.

CRobertson: Did you ry to make sure the grand jury got accurate information:

Dawson: Yes, Balducci was not inaccurate. I think the grand jury knew code words were being used.

CRobertson: Is there a need to clarify, unless something's unclear or muddy?

Dawson: We want to be as accurate as possible.

CRobertson: wouldn't it be more accurate with a tape or to read a transcript?

Dawson" Not necessarily.

CRobertson: (Goes through $10K testimony and "not a problem" by Balducci) Isn't that an absolute false statement? It would have been brought out in the transcript.Nothing about $10K in there? About the judge feeling exposed?

Dawson: no, that comes later.

CRobertson: (Asks about transcript, where it says there's a pause during Balducci recording with Backstrom and Zach) How long is that pause? It's 8 seconds. Balducci says to get it how you want it.

Dawson: He's just talking about paying a judge for an order.

CRobertson: Where is the talk about $10K? I'n asking you, where is the $10K that Balducci asked about?

Dawson: He says a "load of sweet potatoes" code word for more money.

CRobertson: I can show you where Lackey uses "sweet potatoes" about another order. Does Balducci use "swwet potatoes" before Nov. 1? There's nothing in here about $10K?

Dawson: It's no on the page.

Biggers: What is the issue?

CRobertson: Whether it says $10K or not.

Dawson:No, it doesn't. He made a misstatement about $10K but a few minutes later, he used the word "sweet potatoes" to say the same thing.

(They get into a disagrement about whether the term was used before with the grand jury, to understand if the grand jury knew what they were talking about. CRobertson says the term doesn't appear before this, but Dawson says the grand jury understood.)

CRobertson: Why didn't you play the tapes?

Dawson: I don't hae a specific reason why. Transcripts were available, possibly tapes. CAn't be certain. The grand jury is a proaby cause hearing.

CRobertson: And so, proalby cause doesn't require prosecutors to give the grand jury the best information available?

Dawson: I didn't say that.

CRobertson: And so, the grand jury believes that Zach agreed to pay Lackey another $10K? Is ti a crime to hire a laywer friendly with a judge, to hire local counsel?

Dawson: It's a crime, the last p[art about trying to seek influence.

CRobertson: When I was a Missouri supreme court judge, I had 26 law clerks. If someone hired one of them, would that be a crime?

Dawson: No. But a person can be fully aware of the situation without knowing all the details.

CRobertsn: Let's move on, Didn't you say about the e-mail about the napkin that it would be read tow different ways?

Dawson: If I said that, I was mistaken. Only one way to read that e-mail. What is Zach doing e-mailing if he's not involved in Wilson case.He talks about Langston and Patterson. I take that to mean "the Fix was in."

Biggers: Says if you want to know what Sanders thinks about the e-mail, call him to the stand.

CRobertson: We'll bring that up in two weeks. Did Farese say you misstated the evidence?

Dawson:No

Norman: He said that to me.

* * *

2:05 p.m. Prosecutor Clay Dabbs called Joey Lanston to the stand.

Biggers - calls 10 minute recess.

(MORE IN A MINUTE)

slideshow

Today (Friday), Zach Scruggs' attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Neal Biggers to decide directly, without a hearing, to vacate Scruggs' 2008 conviction and sentence.

Read details in Saturday's Daily Journal.

If you want to read the motion - which has a lot more than what I wrote about - check the attached document here.

... patsy

This may look a little weird, for those who still follow the Scruggs case, it's today's response by the government to Zach Scruggs' request to depose nearly a dozen key players in the story that rocked the state's legal community.

Check it out:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3:07CR192

DAVID ZACHARY SCRUGGS

RESPONSE TO PETITIONER DAVID ZACHARY SCRUGGS’

MOTION FOR DEPOSITIONS

Comes now the United States of America, by and through the United States Attorney for

the Northern District of Mississippi, and in response to the petitioner’s Motion for Depositions

would respectfully show unto the Court the following, to-wit:

1.

In the petitioner’s Motion to Allow Discovery, the petitioner included “ . . . the right also

to ask for depositions of key persons.” The Court denied the petitioner’s request finding that “ . .

. the defendant has failed to set forth good cause for the requested discovery . . . .” The petitioner

now asks to depose eleven witnesses, and in support thereof he attempts to show “good cause.”

“Good cause” in this context requires an accurate proffer of what a witness is truly likely

to say, on an issue that is relevant and within the scope of the hearing, together with a showing

that a deposition is the only reasonable way to acquire the witness’s testimony. As a result, the

petitioner’s proffers of expected testimony require close scrutiny and careful analysis.

Sidney Backstrom, Richard F. “Dickie” Scruggs, Steven Patterson, Timothy Balducci and

David Zachary Scruggs possess, in varying degrees, personal knowledge that should be relevant

to the one issue before the Court that is justiciable and not time-barred: whether or not David

Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 9

Zachary Scruggs knew that money had actually been delivered to Circuit Judge Henry Lackey in

connection with their scheme to corruptly influence him or, in the alternative, whether David

Zachary Scruggs was, as a co-conspirator, responsible for the actions of his fellow coconspirators

(including the actual delivery of $40,000 to Circuit Judge Lackey). The government

has no objection to the aforesaid co-conspirators being issued writs or subpoenaed as witnesses.

The safest and most efficient way to produce their testimony is to require their actual attendance

before the Court. As regards the remaining witnesses, the petitioner’s proffers are at best

inaccurate and fanciful and they are only relevant to issues that are no longer before the Court.

They do not establish good cause.

As regards Circuit Judge Henry Lackey, the petitioner’s proffer doesn’t come close to

establishing good cause. Whether or not there was ever any real dispute about whether Judge

Lackey should order arbitration is irrelevant to the issues sub judice. Whether or not Mr.

Balducci “ever offered him a bribe” is well established and beyond dispute. “Who first

conceived of there being a bribe” relates to the entrapment issue that was previously litigated,

decided by the Court and not appealed. “Whether or not Mr. Balducci ever implicated

petitioner” in his conversations with Judge Lackey is irrelevant. Petitioner’s assertion that Judge

Lackey has knowledge of exculpatory discussions with federal authorities concerning the

petitioner is wildly speculative and untrue, with no basis in fact. Judge Lackey simply has no

knowledge one way or the other regarding what Zach Scruggs knew or didn’t know.

As regards FBI Special Agent William Delaney, whether or not he “ . . . is the person

who, along with Tom Dawson and John Hailman, first conceived of a plan to bribe Judge Lackey

. . . .” is not only untrue with no basis in fact, it would also be irrelevant, as the issue of

2

Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 9

government misconduct (entrapment) is, again, res judicata. Whether Delaney “pressured” Judge

Lackey to demand such a bribe is nothing but fanciful speculation; it is untrue and unfounded.

“Thus, Mr. Delaney has knowledge of exculpatory discussions concerning the petitioner . . .” is

again wild speculation; it has no basis in fact. The petitioner avers that Mr. Delaney “ . . . can

resolve the mystery of this missing evidence . . . .”, a statement which appears to create a

controversy that in fact does not exist; there simply is no “missing evidence.” Petitioner’s

proffers are recklessly speculative and disingenuous, perhaps useful to his public relations

campaign, but for purposes of this motion, ineffective. In any event, Special Agent Delaney has

already testified under oath regarding these matters and will be present at the hearing on April 25.

There is no good reason to depose him.

As regards Joseph C. Langston, the petitioner’s proffer is again disingenuous. The

petitioner is already in possession of Joseph Langston’s sworn affidavit, which is attached hereto.

The petitioner therefore knows that Joseph Langston will not testify that government counsel

“willfully misrepresented anything to the court.” He will not testify that no one corrected the

record, and he will not testify that he was threatened by the government to remain silent while the

Court was misled. He will not testify that there were secret negotiations for a month preceding

his plea. Petitioner’s proffer is inaccurate and inadequate, and he knows it. However, Mr.

Langston is (with leave of Court) available to testify via writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum.

As regards Anthony Farese, the petitioner once again attempts to mislead the Court with

his “proffer.” Petitioner filed a bar complaint against Mr. Farese some time ago. In response to

that complaint Mr. Farese filed a certified 27-page answer with 35 exhibits, totaling 288 pages.

The petitioner has had Mr. Farese’s response in his possession since approximately May 15,

3

Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 3 of 9

2010, and he knows or should know from a review of that response exactly what Mr. Farese

would say if questioned under oath. Contrary to the petitioner’s proffer, Mr. Farese would

testify:

1. That he received a verbal waiver from Petitioner on December 10,

2007, as to his dual representation of petitioner and Joey Langston,

later receiving a written waiver on January 7, 2008.

2. That petitioner told Farese that he (Zach) was not involved in the

Wilson case, and that Langston told Farese that he (Langston) was

not involved in the Lackey case, therefore there was no conflict

between them. Further that all information concerning the search

warrant on Langston’s office and the status of the case against him

which became known to Farese between December 10, 2007, and

January 4, 2008, was passed on to members of the Joint Defense

team. Contrary to what petitioner attempts to get this Court to

believe, members of that team were concerned about

DeLaughter/Wilson allegations and wanted Farese to keep them

informed of what he learned via his representation of Langston.

Petitioner, as well as Langston, knew this and consented to the dual

representation. (Please see the attached affidavits of Ronald

Michael and Kenneth Coghlan.)

3. That the “government” never pressured Farese in regard to any type

of waiver, either verbal or otherwise. That Farese alone secured

the written waiver, which was done before Langston pled guilty

and two months prior to the petitioner’s plea, and that petitioner

had known of and approved the dual representation status since

December 10, 2007 – which did not pose a problem, because there

again the petitioner was not involved in the Wilson case and

Langston was not involved in the Lackey case.

4. That the only potential 404(b) information connecting the

petitioner to the Wilson case, (the paper napkin e-mail) became

known only after petitioner had fired Farese, and had other

counsel.

5. That there were no month long negotiations between Farese,

Langston, and the government, and no secret deals cut in any

manner for Langston to testify against the petitioner, David

Zachary Scruggs.

4

Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 4 of 9

6. It should be remembered that at all times during Farese’s

representation of the petitioner, all parties, (petitioner, Langston,

and the government) represented to Farese that Scruggs I (the

Lackey case) involved Zach Scruggs but did not involve Langston.

Scruggs II (the Wilson case) involved Langston but did not involve

Zach Scruggs. Therefore, there was no conflict of interest between

Langston and Scruggs. Both Farese and the government maintain

that Joey Langston never incriminated Zach Scruggs in any illegal

conduct in Scruggs II (the Wilson case).

The government would therefore respectfully submit that the petitioner, Zach Scruggs, is

well aware of Farese’s position and does not need discovery to obtain or understand it. In fact he

misrepresented what Mr. Farese would say. Petitioner has a complete copy of Anthony Farese’s

response together with all 35 exhibits including nine affidavits from Tom Dawson, Bob Norman,

Dave Sanders, Vicki Slater, Ronald Michael, Joey Langston, Ken Coghlan, Shane Langston, and

Steve Farese, Sr. Because there is a pending bar complaint, the government is by a separate

pleading requesting permission to file with the Court a copy of Anthony L. Farese’s entire

Answer, with attachments, under seal, so that the Court will have all of the information that

petitioner has. Suffice to say, the petitioner has already had full discovery regarding Mr.

Farese’s position in this matter. Mr. Farese is also easily subject to the subpoena power of the

Court. No deposition is required and the petitioner’s proffer is recklessly misleading. It does not

establish good cause.

Mr. Dawson has already provided an affidavit in support of Mr. Farese’s response to the

bar complaint; the same has been served upon the petitioner previously, and it is attached hereto.

In his motion for authority to pursue depositions, the petitioner states that, “Mr. Dawson has

knowledge that despite that awareness (of an ethical conflict), the government co-opted

petitioner’s counsel and secretly negotiated with Mr. Farese and Langston in order to secure

5

Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 5 of 9

purported witnesses against the petitioner and his co-defendants.” In fact, as the petitioner well

knows, Mr. Dawson said in his sworn affidavit “. . . we were assured by Mr. Farese and Mr.

Langston that they knew of no conflict with Zach Scruggs and the prosecution team knew of no

such conflict. Between December 10, 2004, and January 4, 2008, there were no plea negotiations

with Mr. Langston or Mr. Farese.” Undaunted, the petitioner’s allegations continue: “Mr.

Dawson has also specifically written about the prejudice that these tactics caused to petitioner’s

case, stating that they [sic], Mr. Langston’s (false) testimony created an ‘insurmountable’

challenge to petitioner, one that ‘blew a hole’ in his case. Mr. Dawson will further explain that

the government knew all along that Mr. Langston would be adverse to the Scruggs defendants . .

. .” Mr. Langston’s testimony created an insurmountable challenge to Dickie Scruggs, but not the

petitioner. The petitioner’s allegation that Dawson would say the government knew all along

that Langston would be adverse is absolutely contrary to Tom Dawson’s sworn affidavit. “Good

cause” is not supplied by proffers that are fanciful and outright disingenuous. Mr. Dawson is

also local and easily within the subpoena power of the Court. No deposition is required.

Federal Magistrate Judge David Sanders and Assistant United States Attorney Robert

Norman are both local, and available to the Court and counsel opposite.1 Judge Sanders and Bob

Norman have already provided sworn affidavits which are attached hereto. Contrary to the

petitioner’s proffer, Judge Sanders does not describe efforts to co-opt petitioner’s counsel to

secure Langston as a witness against the petitioner, nor would his testimony establish any willful

misrepresentation. In a similar vein, petitioner’s representation that “Mr. Norman will also

testify with regard to why the government never corrected the record . . .” is irresponsibly

1Subject only to the Touhy regulations.

6

Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 6 of 9

reckless in that the petitioner’s own pleadings establish that, in fact, the government did correct

any misunderstanding.2 In addition, then AUSA David Sanders, as part of the prosecution team

and on behalf of the government, told the Court at the petitioner’s plea that “we have no

knowledge that he has any information on other cases at this time, Your Honor.” (Change of

Plea Transcript, p. 14)

In conclusion, the petitioner’s Motion for Depositions is reckless, speculative, and legally

ineffective. It does not establish good cause for authorizing depositions. Furthermore, a 28

U.S.C. § 2255 hearing is quasi-civil, quasi-criminal, and this Court clearly has the discretion to

authorize the issuance of writs and subpoenas for witnesses who reside outside a 100-mile

radius.3

Finally, depositions would require teams of lawyers to travel to each witness, as opposed

to the witness simply traveling to the hearing. Depositions would require significant

expenditures of time and money and, furthermore, depositions facilitate the intentional abuse of

witnesses, subject to protests and objections that are simply reserved for the Court to decide at a

2Page 3 of the petitioner’s renewed motion in limine to exclude 404(b) evidence filed

March 19, 2008, two days before the petitioner’s plea of guilty, states that “ . . . the government,

to date, has only indicated that Zach Scruggs was aware that Ed Peters was hired in the case

because of his long-standing relationship with Judge DeLaughter. Additionally, the government

provided counsel with a copy of an e-mail involving Zach Scruggs and Johnny Jones, wherein

they discuss the Wilson case . . . .” Thus, two days before his plea, the petitioner was in

possession of the latest and best 404(b) notice the government could provide – and it comports

with Joey Langston’s sworn affidavit. Any misunderstanding or misrepresentation had been

corrected, but the petitioner pled guilty rather than pursue his motion in limine.

3Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does impose a 100-mile radius for the

issuance of civil subpoenas, but Rule 12 of the rules applicable to Section 2255 proceedings

clearly vests the Court with the discretion to permit the issuance of writs and nationwide

subpoenas when necessary, and in fact, that has always been the practice in this district.

7

Case 3:07-cr-00192-NBB -SAA Document 328 Filed 03/11/11 Page 7 of 9

later date. For all the reasons aforesaid, the government objects to the taking of depositions.4

Actual, factual innocence (not technical innocence) will be the only issue before the Court

that is not time-barred. Witnesses who might therefore be relevant include the petitioner’s coconspirators,

Sid Backstrom, Richard Scruggs, Steven Patterson and Timothy Balducci. The

government respectfully suggests that the Court consider granting petitioner leave of Court to

issue writs and subpoenas to require their presence and facilitate their sworn testimony before the

Court. The petitioner’s motion for depositions should otherwise be denied and overruled.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN MARSHALL ALEXANDER

United States Attorney

/s/ Robert H. Norman

By:

ROBERT H. NORMAN

Assistant United States Attorney

Mississippi Bar No. 3880

4In Epps v. Hood, cited by petitioner, Chief Judge Mills was reviewing a death penalty

case wherein the petitioner filed a timely objection to the effectiveness of counsel who did not

produce mitigating evidence (that the victim’s mother did not want the petitioner executed).

Petitioner fails to mention that the State in Epps did not object to taking depositions.

My Reuters reporter friend Anna Driver reports from Houston, Texas, today quite a legal twist in the longrunning saga of financier R. Allen Stanford.

For the informed, he's suing for exactly the amount the feds say was lost by CD investors when Stanford Financial Group collapsed in 2009 under the weight of a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.....

Here's the latest:

HOUSTON (Reuters) – Jailed financier Allen Stanford, accused of running a massive Ponzi scheme, filed a $7.2 billion lawsuit accusing federal prosecutors and regulators of depriving him of his constitutional rights.

The government agents "undertook illegal tactics" to prosecute Stanford and "engaged in unfair, abusive law enforcement methods and tactics" that left him broke and unable to properly defend himself, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Houston on Thursday.

Stanford, 60, is in the process of being transferred to a prison hospital for treatment to addiction to a powerful anti-anxiety medication he was prescribed while jailed.

The Bureau of Prisons website lists his current location as a federal transfer center in Oklahoma.

The former billionaire is accused of running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme centered on fraudulent certificates of deposit issue by Stanford International Bank in Antigua. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges in a 21-count indictment.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney in Houston was not immediately available to comment. A spokesman for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission declined to comment.

The case is R. Allen Stanford v Stephen Korotosh et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, No. 11-00582.

• • •

Watch my blog for the latest on the Stanford case ... patsy

The Wall Street Journal's legal blogger Ashby Jones makes a curious observation today - whether disgraced financiers, Allen Stanford and Bernie Madoff, will meet, now that Stanford is headed to the prison where Bernie resides.

Stanford is moving, temporarily, to get weaned off anti-anxiety meds so that he can help his attorneys prepared for his trial in Texas on criminal charges associated with claims he ran a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme on CD investors.

Here's what Jones has to say in the WSJ:

Stanford on the Move: Will Allen Meet Bernie?

Word is drifting north from our state capital that Madison County Supervisor Tim Johnson plans to challenge long-time Transportation commissioner Dick Hall in the upcoming GOP primary.

My own words are inadequate to mourn that I do not live in the Central District, so that I might observe this race as closely as possible.

Johnson, whom I came to know when he was in the state Senate, has had his eyes on higher achievements for quite a long time.

After 2 terms in the Senate, he lost his footing when his legislative colleagues redistricted him out of his seat. That's when he decided he'd like to be a county supervisor.

Why all the ambition?

Goodness, he's already Elvis. No kidding, Johnson came to the state Capitol as, I believe, its first legislative Elvis "tribute artist."

Back in that day, when the daily roll was called, Sen. Johnson often responded – not with "here" or "present" – but with that curled-up lip and a tuneful "uh, huh, huh."

Late in the legislative session, when those small conference committees were busy working out deals for individual bills, and Johnson usually wasn't involved at that level, he'd arrive at the Senate in full Elvis gear to serenade whoever was in the chamber, as well as staff there or listening via the intercom.

He's also done a good bit of traveling in his Elvis work and is a favorite at many a central MS nursing homes, so perhaps he could bank that fan base, especially with absentee votes.

Dick Hall is a bit of a cool cat, himself, although now in his older age, he's less likely to go-Elvis on anybody. But I'm sure folks are still around from his MSU athletic days, who remember Hall as a suave kind of guy.

Hall isn't likely to take the Johnson challenge with a smile on his face, though. Hall was chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee in the Senate when Johnson was lucky to get on a committee, so Hall figures his stock should be higher with the folks who know different.

They would square off in the Aug. 2 GOP primary, which means the summertime airways could be full of heated advertising. We can only hope some will have Elvis themes.

I'm not sure North MS has got anything to rival that race. Probably a good thing for exhausted voters ... and political reporters!

Stay tuned.... patsy

Jackson-based legal blogger Philip Thomas, in his Mississippi Litigation Review & Commentary, has interesting observations about what happens now that MS Supreme Court justice James Graves moves to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Here's what Thomas sees happening, as well as a prediction on whether it will be a bellweather for Gov. Haley Barbour's presidential intentions...... patsy

* * *

PER PHILIP THOMAS:

With the U.S. Senate approving Justice James Graves' appointment to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, attention turns to who Governor Barbour will appoint to replace Graves on the Miss. Supreme Court. I posted on this issue in this post last June. I've had lines in the water for weeks on this issue and do not really have any fresh information on this topic. 

Speculation in Jackson legal circles continues to center on Barbour appointing Graves' replacement from the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Under this theory Barbour will appoint Court of Appeals Chief Judge Leslie King to the Supreme Court, a sitting trial judge to the Court of Appeals and an attorney to replace the trial judge. Hinds County Chancery Judge Denise Owens is a name that I hear as the favorite to replace King on the Court of Appeals if it this happens. Others speculate that Owens could replace Graves on the Supreme Court.

I've gotten mixed signals on the possibility of Jackson attorney La'Verne Edney getting the Supreme Court appointment. I've heard that she does not want the position. And I've heard that she is campaigning for the job. So I've got no idea.

One interesting scenario would be for Barbour to appoint former Hinds County Circuit Judge Malcolm Harrison to one of the available positions. Word on the street is that Barbour was upset with Judge Bill Gowan for running against—and unseating Harrison. Appointing Harrison to another slot would at least put Harrison back into public service.

With Barbour still in the 2012 Presidential race, expect the position to go to an African-American. If Barbour appoints a white person to the Supreme Court, then he's not running for President.

At this point, I have no prediction on what's going to happen here. Let me know if you've heard any interesting rumors on the Supreme Court seat. If requested, I do not reveal the identity of sources.

Straight from Washington: The Hill.com reports the likelihood of a Senate floor vote Monday on Mississippian James Graves' nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

(I also like the action on the Green Bay Packers.... prb)

Here's what they say:

The Senate adjourned at 5:04 p.m. after a little more than an hour of business Thursday afternoon.

The Senate is scheduled to return at 2 p.m. on Monday to continue consideration of amendments to S. 223, the Federal Aviation Administration re-authorization bill.

At 4:30 p.m. on Monday, the Senate will consider the judicial nominations of James Graves and Edward Davila. At 5:30 p.m., the Senate will hold a voice vote on the Graves nomination, followed by a roll call vote on the Davila nomination. Further roll call votes on FAA amendments are possible.

Prior to adjourning on Thursday, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) passed a resolution by unanimous consent honoring the Green Bay Packers for winning the Super Bowl.

If you thought the tale of disgraced financier R. Allen Stanford couldn't get more complicated, think again.

This week, court-appointed receiver Ralph Janvey in Dallas, Texas, went after the PGA Tour for $13 million.

As you recall, Stanford was indicted in June 2009 on multiple counts that he operated a $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme on certificate of deposit investors in his Stanford International Bank in the Caribbean.

James Graves of Clinton may finally be on his way to a full Senate vote for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee gave the OK to his nomination, along with a bunch of others who weren't acted on by the time Congress shut down in 2010.

Now, Mississippi Sens. Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran will lend their helping hands before their colleagues for Graves, the state Supreme Court's only black jurist.

They announced their support for him months ago, so that should help mightily with their GOP members.

Earlier today, Sen. Leahy said these nominations needed to get moving.

Perhaps they have.

Stay tuned... patsy