folo

folo header image 2

(As DN says) like father like son – UPDATED

April 3rd, 2008 @ 12:40 pm - by lotus · 7 Comments

Delta Native passes along Zach’s motion to dismiss the Bar complaint against him too (once again, a Martz-Mikhail Production).

What took him so long, right?

UPDATE: Here’s Anita Lee’s story, maybe a bit skimpy by her usual standards but containing a couple of triggers for debate:

… Like his father’s motion, Zach Scruggs’ court pleading says the bar can’t file a formal complaint for disbarment unless U.S. District Court Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr. accepts his guilty plea. …

Michael Martz of Brandon, an attorney representing both Scruggses in the disbarment proceedings, previously served as attorney for the Mississippi Bar.

Asked why the Scruggses have filed the motions objecting to disbarment, he said, “We want the bar and the court to follow the law.”

Tags: ,
Filed Under: Herald & Examiner

7 Responses so far ↓

  1. Justsittinhere says:

    have gun in jail zach!

  2. hazel75 says:

    These really ought to go a long way with the judge when it comes to sentencing.

    I’m assuming they weighed the costs/benefits and decided the benefits were higher than the costs.

  3. lotus says:

    Well, golly, hazel75, I never have admired their cost/benefit analyses much . . . know what I mean?

  4. NMC says:

    This one really is asinine because I think Judge Biggers can (and I would guess, but it’s just a guess, will) hold it against him in sentencing. Judge Biggers has the discretion to go from zero to 2 1/2 years. Complete discretion.

  5. hazel75 says:

    Neither have I, lotus, neither have I. I’m just really more than a little shocked by these motions — they’re not engineered to engender sympathy, that’s for sure.

  6. Justsittinhere says:

    Oh now Dickie and Zach care about the law? Too bad their love for the law did not keep them from bribing Lackey and Delaughter. Too little, too late Mr. Martz. Now tell us the real reason. Wonder if Martz ran this by the Scruggs’ criminal lawyers?

  7. Old Muley says:

    Let’s say Zach thinks that he might have some remote chance of skating by without being disbarred. How better to attempt to take some of the heat off of him, than have Dickie make his ridiculous motion first? I would think that any possible move by the Scruggs and all of their counsel is for the benefit of Zach in some manner. Of course it must be remembered that there is at least one more criminal matter to be resolved by both Scruggs. I would never think that with all of the legal firepower that it should be doubted that every move has some desired result. And I would feel certain that all counsel is aware of every move. Further, there might be an attempt to engage and highly pay all manner of attorneys to create some attorney/client privileges. I would not sell them short.