Jackson Jambalaya

Did I miss something? Is there some relevance to the Sharrod Moore filings in the first link?

Ms. Binder refers to it and included it as an exhibit.

One is left to wonder why she's fighting this so hard and why Stuart wants to pay more billable hours for her to do so.

Perhaps Stuart's injuries prevent him from being able to parse words.

Your statement that Ms. Binder just has to have the last word like a "typical" woman is ridiculous and shows your lack of knowledge of the court's procedural rules. A response to a motion is not only allowed, but is required lest the motion be granted as unopposed. A reply to a response is also allowed and in some instances, even a sur-reply. Failing to respond on behalf of her client could result in a claim of malpractice if the client was aware of the motion to strike and intended his counsel to respond and oppose it.

Lack of knowledge?

You're the one with the lack of knowledge and no reading comprehension. Why don't you go read Mr. Beasley's FIRST motion, then HER response where its quite obvious she lied to the Court or was very lazy. Mr. Beasley NEVER made Irby's medical records available to the public, something she either knew or should have known.

For her to keep beating this dead horse is ridiculous and makers her AND you look very stupid.

On behalf of typical women everywhere, let me make something clear -- we don't claim Ms. Binder OR Mrs. Irby. I consider them both to be atypical. Very, very atypical and awful. Chicks like them give chicks like me, just trying to live my life, a bad name!

Anybody want to talk about Belhaven baseball or fall enrollment there? I wonder how warmly Stuart has greeted the various women who have come to visit him since he came out of that coma.

9:43 Yes indeed. Dr. Parrott's (Pres of Belhaven College)written comments on Stuart Irby's health were very, very telling, and this man has absolutely no reason to not tell the truth. It certainly seems if he can visit with family and friends like Dr. Parrott and be healthly enough to ask questions and understand the response, he can certainly be interviewed by the DA for fifteen minutes.

Memo to Ronnie Mathews:

You need to contribute significant sums of money to the Forest County Sheriff's political campaigns to receive the Irby kid gloves treatment.

The Sharrod Moore case isn't even about the same thing.

The Grand Jury wanting to talk to an out of state "witness" and the DA's office wanting to talk to a "victim" of a crime are two entirely different things.

How can she even try to make the connection? You would think that even she would know the difference.

Apparently not. So, she should really be surprised when it doesn't work.

Just being able to watch Judge Green deal with this woman in court would be worth the price of a ticket.

Anyone else have the feeling that before this is over Ms. Binder is going to wish she hadn't taken the case....because I honestly can't see her coming out of this with a good rep.

4:07 I was thinking the same thing about Ms. Binder. She might have an enjoyed a very good reputation as a lawyer before, but I wonder about her now. I seriously wonder why Irby picked her to represent him in the first place and why she accepted the case.

Special Treatment:

1 life = 1 million dollar bond

2 lives and serious injury to a third = 0 dollars

Having connections does seem to be working for Irby.

It will be interesting indeed to see how long it takes for them to release the blood alcohol level on the guy.

Has Irby even been charged with a D.U.I.?

You should have been in the courtroom that day. It was like watching the Rumble in the Jungle. By the end of the fight, Binder never really tagged Beasley and got embarrassed by Green several times. At times Binder looked like Foreman when he missed Ali and went into the ropes.

Judge Green is impressive.

The motion to strike is a whole new motion and requires a response if it is opposed. The post is about the NEW motion and the response, regardless if the subject matter is included in or covered in other motion(s). Whether she has a valid argument is a wholly different matter than her duty to respond to the Motion to Strike. Kingfish, you are on lengthy record here with your thoughts about the Irbys and I agree with most of them, but the attorney here is just doing her job with whatever legal bases she's got, good or bad, valid or ultimately invalid. Lawyers, like all other humans, are entitled to mistakes. Happens in every single criminal and civil case, you just have to get your arguments on record for appeal. Men and women lawyers do the same thing everyday in every court in America, for the good or the bad.

Anon 9:39pm

The comment made about the problem with the motion and the Exhibit were made by me and I'm not Kingfish. I'm kinda on the female side.

My comments were made because Judge Green appears to be pretty up on things in her Courtroom and Binder should be on her toes.

I've read comments by KF that were in Binder's defense...so I don't take any comments here that anyone is actually against Binder. Even my own.

But when you look at how she is handing things, it does make you wonder. If she continues this way throughout the case, she is going to deserve whatever she gets in the courtroom.

Also, KF, last response was to my comments.

Ms. Binder simply needs to get it together in that courtroom.

Anon at 10:39, my comments above yours were to Kingfish's post and his comments at 9:21. But while we're on it, you don't consider sexist comments ala a "typical woman" and calling her (and me) stupid to be "against her?" Especially when she has an ethical obligation to respond to the motion? Whether she has a winning response is another issue as long as she is not lying to the Court by misrepresenting facts which she KNOWS to be false. In this case--let's just suppose for a minute--that she might actually know more than the bloggers. Again, bad arguments and mistakes are made every single day, that's no reason to attack someone's gender when they are just doing their job. She is representing a very high profile client and I'm sure a demanding one. God, I wouldn't want to be in her shoes regardless of the hourly rate she is getting.

Ugh. KF...just throw out an apology, somewon wants you to do it. And, just sayin', you should retract. Binder is a cretin. imbecile, fool, foolish, not a woman as you describe.

I think that KF's comments on the wording of the Motion is valid...and it is continuous throughout the Motion.

Mistakes are made all the time...sure I know that, I've seen that myself in the courtroom.

My point is that she should be more professional and leave out the complaints and get to the business at hand. Do a better job.

I'm not even a lawyer and I could see the problems with her Motion. Hell, ask for help...do something that looks like one actually made a real attempt.

I don't see those comments as being sexist...the legal profession does not care what sex you are and it should not be apparent in the writings of any documents filed within the court.

And I don't care whether she is female or male. She is a lawyer and that is the way my comments were directed. If a guy had wrote the same motion my comments would have been the same. As I am pretty sure KF's would have probably been a bit more so.

I'm sorry if you seem to take it as the bashing of a fellow female.

I also said in another comment she would probably wish she had not taken the case.

11:18 we are all friends here, just kicking in KF's teeth for comparing a fools (Binder's) notion (motion) with a woman...LOL.

Yeah, I bet it would have read, "just like a man who won't let go of an argument" and "has to have the last word." BTW, it is the State who will likely have the last word here, in the form of the allowed Reply to Binder's Response. If a sur-reply is not allowed, it is the movant who has the last word. The movant in regard to the Motion to Strike-- which is the subject of this post--is the State, not Binder.

11:26 I don't take things personally...so no biggie there.:)

As to KF...have fun. I've had lots of practice ignoring stuff.

Anon 11:30 Pick and choose your battles.;)

There are other ways. lol

ho,hum...

Actually you are missing the point. Ms. Binder in her first response falsely accused Beasley of "disseminating" Mr. Irby's medical records to the public. It was simply not true as they were filed under seal and not once were available to the public. Such an attack was without merit and slandered Mr. Beasley.

He was within his rights to call her on the carpet for it in his motion to strike. She can't have it both ways as she fabricates something out of thin air then whines about him "disparaging" her when the disparaging was his merely defending an office against such a blatant lie concocted by Ms. Binder.

Mr.Beasley indeed had a right to respond to false accusations.

If Stuart is medically unable to sit for a 15 minute interview and if there was a doctor to say so, I doubt this motion would be necessary.

Dr. Parrott is not the only Jacksonian to have seen and communicated with Stuart since he came out of the coma.

Stuart has travelled out of state and has interacted with numerous people... even at a formal social gathering.

The people who report how well Stuart is doing are joyous and consider it miraculous. Like,no doubt, Dr Parrott, they believe their prayers were answered. The ones I've spoken with are unaware of any legal maneuverings.

The people who've shared "the good news" have either known him all his life or for decades and are his peers.They decided long ago that Stuart's wit and generosity and loyalty to friends outweighed any shortcomings.

More than a few , count me as one, worry that his long term best interests aren't well served with the current strategy.

Is the strategy to minimize Karen's prison sentence or to minimize the damages from the civil lawsuit?

I have every confidence that Patrick Beasley has the utmost ability to handle himself in the courtroom, whether by motion or personal appearance. Ms. Binder is doing her job quite well, however, my confidence is in Patrick's abilities as a fine representative of the victims and the states interest.

10:20 I take it from your comments about Stuart Irby that he is doing quite well if he is traveling out of state and attending a formal event. He certainly sounds like he is able to be interviewed by the DA. Since you know about Stuart, I assume you know also about Karen, too. Could you tell us how she is doing? Does she still have trouble walking?

10:26 She, of course, wasn't at the social event.
I know only that she's spoken with a few people and they report very little ...nothing about her physical situation.