From June 2011

ZNN has now started to proclaim that Zach Scruggs’ effort to set aside his guilty plea may go to the US Supreme Court. That seems to me to be wishful thinking. I read that to mean that Zach’s team believes that Judge Neal Biggers will not find in his favor and are messaging through a very supportive Patsy Brumfield who is the only one paying them any positive attention. It’s my belief they are now playing for other appellate venues.

All of this leads me to this conclusion. My opinion is that Zach Scruggs legal team doesn’t want the legal result they say they’re seeking. Instead, I think they’re just looking for the righteousness of the fight. Bear with me here. From someone who has studied this for three years, I can tell you that PR and their public narrative are indescribably important issues for them. I believe they want a comeback narrative and this legal fight (which has the high likelihood of losing on the merits) gives that to them. My opinion is that Zach will strike out at every level with the legal argument, but will get the karmic benefit of being able to say something like, “the government was out to get me and my lawyer screwed me and I have fought them at every level and even though I lost, I maintain my innocence.” Mind you, there doesn’t seem to be any proof for that narrative whatsoever, but I believe he is setting himself up from a PR perspective to be a martyr of sorts for “overzealous government prosecution” or some similar tune. Time will tell if I’m right on that, but given the circumstances, it’s the only way I can reconcile their behavior.