Asked about similar documents in the Scruggs case, he objects to relevancy, notes that the parties all got the orders and opinions, and then says: “Respondent is not certain which draft opinions/order may have been furnished to Ed Peters, but it would not have been any different in substance than the final draft entered and furnished to all attorneys in the case.”
I think we can call that pretty close to a confirmation that, in Wilson v. Scruggs, Ed Peters got draft opinions/orders which quite likely differed from the final version. Though not, uh, “in substance.” Note that, here again, Peters did not have a public role in the case.
Judge DeLaughter did have his own phone bills and produced them. He does not have documents showing where Ed Peters has been spending time recently. Asked about documents he’s given to a governmental agency relating to any investigation relating to Peters, Wilson v. Scruggs, Kirk v. Pope, or related investigations, he once again objects to relevancy, and notes that any Mississippi Judicial Performance Commission investigation is privileged. He then notes he has no such documents.
Here is DeLaughter’s response, which was filed on his behalf by Cynthia Speetjens.
FOLO
5/28/8
