For those of you who are so inclined, ABC News’ blog, The Blotter, has posted a copy of the actual indictment against the Scruggses.
The document describes in legalistic detail exactly what the charges are, and the series of events that are alleged to have constituted the events. The Blotter’s summary:
The indictment alleges that Scruggs and other attorneys at his firm, including his son Zach, conspired to payoff a federal judge with $40,000 in cash in exchange for a favorable ruling in a civil case.[...]
Scruggs is alleged to have used an outside attorney named Timothy Balducci to offer the bribe to Lackey in return for a ruling in favor of his firm. According to the indictment, after the payoff was made, Balducci told attorneys at the Scruggs firm that “we paid for this ruling; let’s be sure it says what we want it to say.” Scruggs is also charged with creating false documents to cover up the scheme.
I know that I have not been shy about sharing my issues with the Scruggs’ and Lott’s war on the insurance industry. If they were simply acting to tenaciously protect consumers’ against perceived injustice…I could give them credit for that.
But buying judges in this high-profile a crusade? That’d be an incredibly stupid thing to do.
Besides, it’d diminish the satisfaction of the industry winning the war fair-and-square.
(Note: David Rosmiller has a most excellent post discussing the indictment and adding some context to the story.)