Miss. Attorney Asks Judge to Dismiss Katrina-Related Contempt Case

February 11, 2008

  • February 11, 2008 at 8:54 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Not that there is much love here for Scruggs (except some of the loonies like Kim David), but this will help put this in context and explain the contempt charges. From http://www.insurancecoverageblog.com:

    Instead of returning them, Scruggs called Hood (Scruggs has testified to this), and they made an arrangement to send the docs to Hood in an effort to take advantage of the injunction’s law enforcement exception. Now, there are three problems with this course of conduct. One, Hood already had his own copies, so he didn’t need any more from Scruggs. Two, the law enforcement exception in the injunction was so Hood wouldn’t have to return his own copies, not so he could become the public library for anyone with papers who wants to take it on the lam from the law (it was also so the Rigsbys could cooperate with Hood’s criminal investigation without violating the order). Three, it torqued off Judge Acker, who by and by issued an order ripping Scruggs and referring him for prosecution for criminal contempt of court.

    Good to see Scruggs setting his for thumbing his nose at the courts!

  • February 11, 2008 at 10:39 am
    Denise in Mass says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I went to New Orleans with 49 other students to help gut houses. What was done to the people of New Orleans is horrible. Including the Secretary of Hud, Alphonso Jackson. Whatever is right is what the judge should uphold…remember..J U S T I C E ????

    What is right and just?

    Rather than who got away with what and who found what loophole, what is right and just? I know that is a foreign concept to many Corporations, businesses and government officials, scamming is the norm. Lying, cheating, stealing, swindling. I don’t know who is right, but I say…Do the right thing, not just…what can you get away with. Uphold the standards of the law, will you?

  • February 11, 2008 at 2:46 am
    Calif Ex Pat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thanks, Dustin – appreciate the background info

  • February 11, 2008 at 6:43 am
    Ol Man Of The Mountain says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Now, let’s see…..if I’m under Federal court order to return (stolen)records to the true owners, but instead, I hand them over to my local sheriff (a friend and confidant), then that satisfies the court order? Sounds awfully fishy-stinky!

    And…..let the trial begin!

  • February 11, 2008 at 6:50 am
    Let them go to trial says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If the evidence is so overwhelming that he is innocent, why are they asking for a dismissal instead of clearing him with a public record of the trial? AND what about the scheeming, etc. that he is supposed to be standing trial for shortly? Will be interesting to see how that plays out.

  • February 12, 2008 at 5:58 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So Denise,

    If your mortgage company or landlord asked you to pay $100 more per month because it would help some of their less fortunate employees, I guess you wouldn’t have a problem with that.

    Never mind the contract you signed with them, it just seems right and just…

  • February 13, 2008 at 12:05 pm
    Denise says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    thanks dustin for the clarification..sometimes the facts get lost. i like explanations simplified and numbered :) d

  • February 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm
    d says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    you are comparing apples and oranges. the example you use is moot.

  • February 13, 2008 at 12:12 pm
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Who are you talking to? And what point is moot?

  • February 13, 2008 at 12:27 pm
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    d,

    I assume your response was to me.

    A contract is a contract; this for that, not this for that and what ever else I feel you owe me based on the tragic event I just through.

    Katrina; huge catastrophe

    Total loss of home; tragic

    No coverage for storm surge without a flood policy; not the homeowner policys’ responsibility.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*