No Three Musketeers

Maybe some thought the Three Musketeers would walk through the courtroom doors on June 25th screaming, “All for one, one for all!”

But this criminal trial is not a movie; the reality is there are two trials wrapped in one: one against the Balch & Bingham partners Joel Gilbert and Steven McKinney, and another against the Drummond executive David Roberson.

Our sources confirm that Drummond is allegedly furious at Balch & Bingham for engaging the company in an illegal, criminal scheme.  The anger allegedly is weighed more against Gilbert than McKinney.

Why the anger?

As we reported before, our sources tell us that allegedly this was Drummond’s first time using Balch & Bingham for a significant legal matter. They were expecting sound, responsible, ethical legal advice.

What Gilbert and McKinney did appears to have been unsound, irresponsible, unethical, and criminal.

Who could be a voice of credibility in this trial to counter Gilbert and McKinney?

Besides the bought-and-paid-for politician Oliver Robinson, who appears to be genuinely remorseful for his criminal conduct, the other voice of credibility could end up being Roberson, the indicted Drummond executive.

Besides testimony from federal investigators and other experts, Robinson was in the know while Roberson’s legal team could easily demonstrate he was mislead.

As we wrote in May:

For Drummond, they paid Balch to get sound, responsible legal advice. Instead, it appears the partners at Balch & Bingham allegedly bribed a politician with $360,000 in funneled money through a Delaware entity; ghost-wrote the politician’s correspondence and declarations; and set-up the scheme to discourage African-Americans from having their toxic property tested by the EPA.

Even a jury will understand that doesn’t sound like professional legal services, does it?

A jury can easily grasp that “routine legal services” were not provided and the masterminds must be held accountable.