Jackson Jambalaya

This is going to be good. Who has the popcorn? Hopefully JJ will be the bastion of truth and not employ "silly journalistic license tricks" like a certain tabloid in this town.

where's the order, kingfish? or are you having trouble, er, uh, getting it up!?

Anderson, I think you will be vindicated on this one.

Yeah! Go Fortner, go. Jane

Would somebody get the phone number of Cal-Maine over to DonnerKay so that she can order up a whole truckload of eggs?

I hope the Supremes are very cautious about how they break this news to Tomie because she's very prickly about how one does and does not communicate with her office.

I'm hoping they send an tweet.

Or, maybe a Facebook update? And a text to ensure she gets the message. Although, they could probably post it here in comments too.

Badum Bumpff Tsssshhh!

Nice NMC! If he needs some help, perhaps we need to send him a link to a site that can help with that issue (technology of course) ;)

She'll probably conduct the hearing anyway and hold everyone in contempt when they don't appear.

Congrats Kingfish on another evidence-based primary-sourced breaking news story.

Amusing that the Bugle is using a sparse secondary source that indicates online as WLBT but directs to a WAPT link instead.\

I'm sure their collective "head" is spinning over there considering all the corrections they had to issue this week. As always you get what you don't pay for.

No doubt this is Jane's fault for not letting those old grudges fall by the wayside.

Then I'll take all the credit. Jane

Who the hell is jane and why are we making it all about her, whoever she is?

I'll wait now while Cap'n tells me to search the archives.....

You don't know her. She would eat you alive. She's fam-ly.

And a fave of mine. Fun times. ;) My endorsement will probably drop your credibility Jane. If you need me to retract, correct, or rewrite b/c I can, I will.

The order does not release anyone from custody. All the filings are considered interlocutory appeals, not petitions to release, etc. Tommie T's TRO remains in place until further order - but - at least she doesn't get a chance to botch anything Friday.

Everyone hates me already, Kapt.
(but I hated them first).

- Jane, pissed-off since conception.

Loved Jane when we all sat down at Lotus's table. Interesting times in Mississippi and I want this over with ASAP so we can get on to the next thing that might excite the whole world.

Jane transcends all opinion and blogs that are online in Jackson SFax.

She's been here from the beginning. Day One.

The fact that DonnerKay has so much hate in her heart for Jane is all you need to know about truth and effectiveness.

Jane is a decorated veteran. Anyone who lands on the fightin' side of Jane finds them facing a whole army of online whupass.

Love you Jane!!

As someone has already noted, the order does not release anyone. Status quo is left in place as noted above. I've posted about this on my blog.

Jane = Morpheus

I spent four months on the Meridian Star blog telling the world what a terrible judge Sarah Springer was. She lost by 2000 votes. Her replacement is a smart, level headed man who has his own blog advising lawyers as to what to expect in his courtroom. Springer headed to Texas, Lawyers have a duty to speak out when we encounter really bad judges, Jane

I was just wondering if there is anyone that Jane doesn't hate because she sure is full of it, herself. She hates Hood, she hates Judge Green, she hates Donna Ladd, she hates Sarah Springer, she hates Faye Peterson. I don't even know this woman and I know that she hates all of these people. She must be republican. In any case, you can say with assurance that she is very hateful. And she has a very nasty mouth. Goodness help her clients! Nothing worse than an angry lawyer who hates everyone else because they are more successful and she isn't one of them and she doesn't really have anyone to blame for that except herself.

I hate stupid people and even more so I hate stupid people who have power and use it for evil. And I have the guts to speak out about those people in order to effect change. Sarah Springer had a case involving child abuse wherein she flat out refused to consider the allegations. And she placed a gag order on the case so the public would not know what she was doing. (read D.G. v. D. C. to get the story. My co-counsel and I also got the Court to adopt better guidelines for GALs in that case). Is that the kind of chancellor you want? The people of Lauderdale and Clarke Counties, once they discovered that the horror stories they'd been hearing weren't rumors, decided that didn't. Green is not smart and she treats lawyers really, really badly. Not a good judge. Faye Peterson - crappy at her job. If you live in Jackson, Faye Peters0on was not good for you. Jim Hood, crappy at his job. I'm not a Republican. You don't have to agree with my opinions but when you read mine, they are informed opinions.

You want a list of my likes: all animals, books, Indian food, etc. Kinda boring. As far as public officials are concerned, a parolee stole my dad's car recently, Chris Epps responded as soon as he heard about it and had the guy arrested. No one in the Sheriff's office or the JPD would bother to do that. So, I can safely say that Mississippi has ONE really good public official. I'll let you know if I hear of any more.
Jane

I'm sorry I axed. May I be allowed to retract the question?

You said it all right here February 2, 2012 12:38 AM:

I don't even know this woman ...

You DON'T. End of story.

Everybody has likes and dislikes and the ability to effect change. Doesn't require a law degree or a big mouth. Sometimes the best approach to effecting change is 'quietly and behind the scenes'. Nor is it always best to say 'look what I did'. Just my opinion.

Yeah, everyone has the ability to effect change. Most people don't. And about that silently part, go tell that to Thomas Paine.
Jane

It is "affect change."

Beg to differ:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx

I have a question.
How usual is it for the State Supreme Court( or any higher court) to stop the proceedings of a lower court before a final ruling on a case?
What is the legal basis of the appeal to the State Supreme Court at this point in the proceedings?
I'm not a lawyer and I can't find the request for the emergency stay.
I'm just curious and it matters to me as a citizen whether there is a sound legal basis for a higher court to intervene as it seems to me our courts ( just like pardons) shouldn't be political or based on personality conflicts but principled.

12:38,

That you, Tomie? Doesn't quite sound like Hood's style but then again it isn't in iambic pentameter.

Toss up.

@8:20; Your timely admonition will have no affect on the dimwit at 8:07.

Also, after much serious study, I've concluded that Paine's good acts were rarely, if ever, self-serving.

(a student)

8:29, an appeal to the supreme court before a case is over in the trial court is called an interlocutory appeal.

Such appeals are unusual but by no means bizarre.

It's particularly appropriate in this case, because if the pardons are valid, then people are sitting in prison for no valid reason. I think that is the main reason the MSSC is rushing the case - I wouldn't draw any inference that they have made up their minds how to rule, but they realize that the issue needs to be decided quickly.

12:38 you might as well put your name on your post since you posted similar nonsense under your real name at the fondren Pravda. You lack the intellectual capacity to mask your sentence structure. So come on, you cyberstalking nutcase, introduce yourself to the group.

Alma, is that you???? It's been so long....thankfully.

NMC-hahahahaha. Made me giggle.

Glad they issued the stay. Now what I'd like to see:
1) all four news channels should stop recycling AG press releases as if they are news. Get off your asses, research this issue. Go to the AG, get his side. Go to the atty representing the parolees and get his side. Present the info. And it really wouldn't hurt you to have your station's atty look over both sides and give you some information on this issue, from a legal standpoint, that you could use in your broadcast. Interestingly, a legal standpoint is a great way of looking at this issue, not a rhetoric standpoint. And adding your personal inflection as you are *trying* to report on this issue is nauseating. If I wanted to know a tv reporter’s personal viewpoint, I’d ask, but don’t throw it in my face as your ‘*reporting*.

2) For God's sake, using idiotic catchphrases is a sad representation by any legitimate news organization. whatever-gate. Did I miss the announcement that it was sweeps week?

3) Thanks to NMC and KF, those of us online have the opportunity to read the documents and see comments from different standpoints. It’s a shame that those in TV land can't get up out of their chair and do some work. It is so exacerbating to try and watch local news and know that they didn’t bother reading or researching anything.

whew. sorry for interupton, putting soap box up now.

I've had Green automatically stay the case when I filed an interloc, and I've had the supremes stay cases after they agreed to accept interloc. Here, I think they were 1) trying to keep Green from screwing up the procedural posture of the case and 2) mindful of people who might be sitting in jail without a legal basis for keeping them there. (lawsuit anyone?)

I just hope the Court sent someone to tell Green in person, and they didn't just leave a message on Frances's voicemail.

10:43 - Top Ten post of All Time

12:38 - it's TWO green pills, then ONE red pill each day.

Shall I call your attendant and review this with them?

I'm in love with Jane.

Sorry, that is one word I don't allow for any reason. Repost.

I just want to say that I appreciate Jane's smart commentary and sardonic humor. And she's hot.

That is one word that Jane loves to use, sorry. I don't use it myself. Any client Jane had/has before Judge Green would be at an immediate disadvantage. She obviously cannot keep her biases to herself. Not very good for a lawyer. Probably why judges rule against her and then she blames the judge. Crybaby in the court, cry baby in the court.

What's interesting, psychologically, is to imagine *being* the person who wrote that 2/2 3:56 comment, and to imagine thinking that was a really good comment.

Instead of thinking, "wow, this makes me look like a jackass."

Difficult to imagine, but evidently it's possible.

I am stunned!!!! Bostick, was pardoned while sitting in jail for a FATAL DUI when pardoned. That w wasn't CLEAR in early reports. The fatality happened AFTER all his friends and colleagues wrote of his "reformation" and newly found " faith".
I hope to hell that is a wake up call for those on this blog who are blinded by friendship. WAIT you gullible , wishful thinkers for LONG time behavior change! Words are cheap shouldn't be a news flash to those over age 5!
It is OUTRAGEOUS that this man was pardoned while in jail for killing a young girl with a great deal of promise.It was his FOURTH DUI!!!
There wasn't just an open beer in his car and a refusal to be tested as the early reports stated. He and his car were LOADED. In the film he is obviously drunk as a skunk.
UN F ing Believable!

743, you left one very important fact out of your analysis. The other driver who tragically died PULLED OUT IN FRONT OF BOSTICK. The State hasn't even established that he was even remotely negligent in causing the accident. If sober driver causes a wreck with drunk driver and sober driver dies, the drunk driver isn't responsible for the death.

Facts are important. I suggest nmc's post on this topic. Mr. Freeland analyzes the fault issue in the comments.

8:41 pm, I can't even believe you wrote that.

YOUR analysis is based on the ridiculous assumption that every who is entering the roadway is at fault. The posted speed limit, the failure to brake, etc.,etc. and the testimony of the survivor is irrelevent?

Have YOU seen the film of the scene AND the photo of Bostick's truck and the other vehicle?

Or, like Haley, do you just not want to be bothered with the facts because his buddies said he gave up alcohol? Guess that open , way less than full bottle of champagne was drunk by Mr. Bostick's pink elephant.

And, if THAT weren't bad enough, YOU and Freeland are apparently defending the pardon of someone with FOUR DUIs BEFORE this fatality was tried in court and thus the FACTS established.

If Haley hadn't pardoned this risk to the public, you'd be wanting to hang Bostick!

Bwahaha! The word verification "word" for my comments is "hatin". How funny!

I love reading the comments here! This is one of my last stops via the internet before I go to bed.

10:43; good post. But, I'm exasperated at your use of "exacerbating".

3:23, sorry bout that. i was so mad by the time I was writing it, I'm lucky I hit even some of the correct keys.

I'm wondering if the 4 local newschannels would apprecitate the public running into their offices at morning, noon, 5 pm, and evening and shouting FIRE several times. Not that there's an actual fire anywhere, but just because someone else wanted to see it happen.

And, if THAT weren't bad enough, YOU and Freeland are apparently defending the pardon of someone with FOUR DUIs BEFORE this fatality was tried in court and thus the FACTS established.

What an idiot. (1) Neither DJC nor NMC has "defended" this pardon; they've pointed out some facts that may be relevant to Bostick's fault. (2) Uh, hello? Since you yourself admit that Bostick has not been tried in court for this latest charge, and the FACTS are not established, then why are *you* acting like the facts are established? Innocent until proved guilty - ever heard of that?

TO: 9:19 AM

I am with 9:28 AM's comment. Your anger and ignorance is quite evident.

10:22, my analysis is based on the fact that the other driver pulled out in front of Bostick on the highway to then immediately make a left turn off the highway. This is a pretty damn important fact that was omitted from the previous comment.

Your post assumed Bostick caused the other driver's death, when you have no idea if that's true or not. Were you aware that MHP has not accused or charged Bostick with DUI-Death?

Were your comments a political drive-by on Haley Barbour, or just the result of ignorant Pavlovian conditioning that the drinking driver is automatically the one at fault?

And since you asked, I would like to be bothered with the facts that are relevant to determining the cause of the accident. Since you evidently know the facts of the accident, what was Bostick's skid distance? Drag factor? Braking percentage? Perception-reaction figures? Yaw marks?

These are some of the facts that can help determine fault. Without the math and physics info, that half-empty bottle doesn't prove a damn thing about who caused the accident.

Haley's grand pardoning is going to haunt this state for a long time. Not sure what it get's us. Regardless, we are in it for the long haul and it is unfortunate, but damn it, it sure does make people pay attention.

Suddently a light is given to provide attention to details of a state that is conflicted within the legal society that dominates the very culture of this Great State. I pray the legal society wakes up and finally cleans house. This has gone on long enough. The legislature is busy passing laws that benefit themselves, the AG is busy building a resume for Governor, attorneys are scraping by since the "Cap Reform". Perhaps this was the last parting shot across the bow. Criminalize everything in MS if you want, you cannot keep creating laws that preserve your industry. Maybe it was the very real observation of the over-lawyered society we live in here that was the statement in of itself. I mean, if you read the constitution, it wasn't illegal.

In light of thinking, I support Curt's position. It is the rule of law.

Don't hold your breath waiting on that house cleaning.

9:28 am, making excuses before the facts are in IS a defense.

10:17 am DITTO

The FACTS are as follows:

Bostick has documented history of drunk driving.

Those petitioning for his pardon claimed he was no longer using alcohol.

An open container of alcohol was in the car he was driving.

He was driving said car and hit a young girl who DIED.

The officer at the scene suspected Bostick was intoxicated and asked to test him for alcohol . Mr. Bostick refused.

Mr. Bostick was sitting in a jail cell and under arrest for this incident when he was pardoned.

Gov. Barbour pardoned Mr. Bostick before the facts could be presented in a court of law.

DVDJ suggests the accident was the young girl's fault simply because she pulled out onto a road.

It is ONLY that assertion that was being addressed.

THAT is a ridiculous assertion particularly in light of the fact she was hit by a man with a history of drunk driving. DVDJ doesn't know if the turn was completed or nearly completed or if a sober driver could have avoided the accident.

DVDJ then goes into a further diatribe on how even a drunk can be blameless entirely missing the point that Bostick was pardoned BEFORE the facts were in and IF he was at fault, the young girl's family will never have him held responsible.

DVDJ also misses the point that drunk drivers are not known to be good at defensive driving as their reaction times are impaired.

oh yes! how sweet it is! this is nothing more than green acting like a spoiled princess because karen got to go home and conway twitty is willing to carry her water because he is in deep dodo with this repub freight train that is fixing to run him over!

Kingfish, get online, grap opinion, read the dissent, starting at page 8, paragraph 15. Carlson puts the hammer down.

http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO81891.pdf