Jackson Jambalaya

I had no idea the Fem-O-Crat Party in Mississippi had an orginization and a CHAIRMAN...and they endorse people and everything....Thats so cute!!!! Do they still burns crosses and wear white sheets and stuff at there meetings???? I heard a rumor they tricked black people in to joining them after they bought and sold them as slaves once. Im sure its just a rumor...no way anyone is that stupid!!!!

The MS Dems won't support Bill Waller's son, maybe the most evenhanded justice on the Court?

Rushing into irrelevance.

I hate that either party injects itself into judicial races.

I'd like legal competence to be the only measure for a judge and partisanship to stay out of the judicial branch.

Interpretation of the law should not be partisan. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason.

We are indeed fools if we wouldn't want an impartial judge who well understands the law and applies it without thought to political consideration.

Is this the same Banks family of Karl Banks "bury low for a High fee" in the Canton "funeral" home business--

Sadly, sitting on the Supreme Court involves neither driving heavy machinery nor consoling widows. What a stupid line.

Yes. First cousin to Karl.

This is once again a testament to how often a political race is about race. The Democrats can no more endorse a white man over a black man than they can call for tax cuts. Chief Justice Waller has been fair and non-political in his rulings, and it's not his fault that our system requires him to be elected rather than appointed. At the very least the elections should be non-partisan. Bill Billingsley

A few questions: How would you take the partianship out of electing judges? Even if a judge didn't run as a member of one party, surely his political leanings would be debated by the media and he'd be labeled, wouldn't he? I've heard comments in years past that judges should be appointed, but surely that would result in partisan judges. Who would appoint judges? The governor?

Mr. Bill Billingsley,

Although you and I would like to believe that Chief Justice Waller is an honorable man, he is not.

My experience is that Chief Justice Bill Waller is dishonorable and does not deserve the public’s trust.

In my company's case, Chief Justice Bill Waller let stand a legally and procedurally flawed trial court decision in order to appease State Representative Cecil Brown and his banking partner, who together benefited personally by about $12 million in a banking deal.

My case was so solid legally and procedurally, neither Waller nor his staff could spin an opinion against our position – so, he did not write an opinion either way. Rather, he took the unusual act of disposing my appeal by convincing the Court to issue a “per curiam affirmance” ruling, which was not only arbitrarily rendered, but also in violation of supreme court rules.

At the time Chief Justice Waller convinced the court to render it’s arbitrary and cowardly ruling, he was soliciting exceptional budget consideration from Cecil Brown, who personally benefited from the bank deal, which had been placed in jeopardy by my company's lawsuit against Brown’s and his partner’s bank.

Chief Justice Bill Waller did not have the integrity to issue a written opinion consistent with Mississippi law or Supreme Court rules; but he chose to take the underhanded, cowardly and dishonest route so he, and other members of the Court could personally benefit.

After arbitrarily disposing of my appeal, Chief Justice Waller got his special budget consideration from the legislature, upon recommendation from Brown’s committee. Consequently, Chief Justice Bill Waller now receives higher personal compensation from the State of Mississippi than before, and will also receive much higher retirement benefits, especially if he is re-elected to another 8-year term.

Based on my experience, Chief Justice Bill Waller is a dishonest, cowardly and arbitrary judge who has demonstrated that he does not deserve the public’s trust.

u mad 11:30?

Dismayed is probably more accurate.

@ 11:30 a.m.
Per curiam affirmances do not violate supreme court rules. Rule 35A of the appellate procedure rules says:

(c) Per Curiam Affirmance. The Court, with the concurrence of all justices participating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court without rendering a formal opinion when an opinion would have no precedential value and one or more of the following
circumstances exist and are dispositive of the appeal:
(1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary implication by the
trial court;
(2) there is material evidence to support the verdict of the jury;
(3) no reversible error of law appears.

When was your case affirmed? What was the case number?

@ 12:51 PM

Thank you for your comment in response to my post, especially in view of the probability that your comment required some level of research.

Per curiam affirmances do not violate supreme court rules AS LONG AS they are in compliance with Rule 35A of the appellate procedure rules, as you cited.

In my company’s case, CJ Waller’s court violated Rule 35A(c) as follows:

An opinion of the Court would necessarily have had precedential value, in that the Court had never previously ruled on at least two of the specific statutes at issue (either of which would have been dispository) and; 1) there was no material evidence to support the verdict of the jury (to the contrary, there was incontrovertible material evidence in direct contradiction to the jury’s verdict), and 2) there was clearly reversible error of law.

The dishonorable Waller Court arbitrarily disposed of my case in violation of Mississippi State statute and in violation of Rule 35A of appellate procedure rules on December 3, 2009.

Clerk’s docket # 2008-CA-00608-SCT

Your comment and questions imply that you are interested in determining whether or not my comments are accurate. If so, will you be willing to post your findings?

But for the ballot box, judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, are practically never held accountable for their actions. That is why it is vital for voters to be informed about the character (or lack thereof) regarding judges who are placed in extraordinary positions of public trust.

Thanks again for your comment/response.

3:26, stand up and be counted if you feel that strongly about something. Only you know why you choose to remain anonymous, but your comments lose credibility when you refuse to put your name on them. I don't doubt that you see Chief Justice Waller through a more personal filter than the rest of us who aren't attorneys and who haven't been personally impacted by a case before his court. My comments were in response to the Democrats' endorsement of his opponent. Many people see the Chief Justice as even handed and fair, although it certainly sounds like you have good reason not to. I imagine lots of people whose cases have been decided against them are similarly dismayed by the court that rendered the decision, and exactly as many people are happy with it. I stand by my opinion, though, because I think Rep. Banks would be much more likely than Chief Justice Waller to rule for political reasons. BB

3:26 thinks Waller was out to get him, but looking up the case (Beacon Props. v. Bank of the South), it turns out (to my surprise) that the author of a P.C. opinion is in fact disclosed.

And this one was "written" by Randolph, not Waller.

BB,

I am conveying facts from my experience with the Waller court that you will not hear from attorneys; because, among other things, it’s not good for business for attorneys to disclose when a judge rules arbitrarily and in violation of the rules over which the Court holds exclusive jurisdiction and authority.

If you don’t think that my posts reflect “standing up and being counted”, then please let me know what else you would suggest that I do? File a Bar complaint? (If so, please refer to the “Rankin grand jury indicts Mike Brown” piece directly above this one.)

By citing the docket number of the case to which I have referred, I have not remained anonymous – and it’s a matter of public record that Beacon Properties is owned by David Case.

My posts are more credible than the arbitrary and cowardly manner in which the Chief Justice Bill Waller court disposed of my appeal – he lacked the integrity to write an opinion supporting the Court’s decision. The reason is that the Court’s decision in my case could not be supported by State law; otherwise the Court would have done what it does hundreds of times when it decides an appeal - it issues a written opinion which supports the Court’s decisions. After all, that is what supreme court justices are entrusted (and paid) to do.

And I am not advocating voting for Rep. Banks in the least; because I don’t know a thing about his qualifications for being a supreme court justice; but, I do know CJ Waller to be dishonest and lacking in integrity for the reasons I have stated.

I did not believe that CJ Waller was dishonest either, until this experience. It’s a matter of record, but not something that a non-lawyer would know and not something an attorney would disclose, even if he did know.

You may or may not have any experience with the Waller court from which to base your voting decision – but I do, and voters are entitled to be informed about this candidate’s arbitrary and cowardly actions taken in his official capacity. Election season is the only time that justices can be held accountable to the people that entrust to them such high levels of authority.

I am simply informing voters and readers of this blog regarding my experience with the Bill Waller court – which is a matter of public record.

Mr. Anderson,

I had absolutely no reason to believe that Waller “was out to get” me. That’s my point – Waller didn’t care if it had been me or any other unsuspecting citizen; he believed that he had to appease Cecil Brown, (director of the Bank of the South) from whom he was soliciting extraordinary budget considerations, as Brown was also the committee chairman.

According to Mississippi statute, the bank unlawfully converted a $208,000 check with a fraudulent endorsement made payable to my company – it’s black-letter law.

The bank was in the process of negotiating a sale that would yield Cecil Brown and his banking partner together about $12,000,000.

The Beacon lawsuit jeopardized certain critical aspects of the deal.

Sure, Randolph’s name was on the heading, but it was entirely meaningless because there was no written opinion by any justice.

It’s my understanding that you are an attorney, so you know that no appeal could be decided by pca without the support of the Chief Justice – in my case, the same Chief Justice Bill Waller who was soliciting special budget consideration from a director of the plaintiff bank in my appeal.

Make no mistake, CJ Bill Waller controlled the disposition of this appeal on behalf of the bank for “the greater good” that his budget solicitations were granted, and it didn’t matter who would be the victim of this “lesser” injustice.

Anon, I've been screwed over by a MSSC that won't bother to explain itself. It is frustrating and wrong, and it shouldn't happen.

But your theory is missing some legs. How did Waller corrupt 8 other justices to do his bidding?

Randolph seems to be the justice assigned the case. He, or his law clerk, read the briefs. They seem to have concluded there was no real issue.

Maybe they were wrong. But unless you have some facts you're not sharing, you can't really get from "Court blew my case" to "Waller fixed my case." If you have those other facts, it would be a public service to share them.

Anderson,

The generalization (border-line rationalization) that you also have “been screwed over by a MSSC that won’t bother to explain itself” simply does not apply to the arbitrary manner in which my appeal was disposed of by the Waller court. If I am mistaken, please cite the application of black-letter law that was ignored and the specific violations of the appellate procedure rules that were violated in any of your “screwed-over” experiences.

Again, both parties in my case STIPULATED to the facts that meet the definition of a fraudulently endorsed check as set forth by MS state statute.

Although I am not a lawyer, I have read hundreds of MSSC opinions over the last 8 years and, respectfully, your “s**t happens” characterization does not apply to my appellate case.
~
Re: “But your theory is missing some legs.”

I am not disclosing all of the “legs” on this blog. As much as I appreciate JJ and KF, this is not an adequate venue for a comprehensive presentation of my case. I am working on a more comprehensive documentary, for a much broader audience, that I plan to present before the election – as a public service - in order to better inform the Mississippi voters regarding the dishonest Waller supreme court.

Re: “How did Waller corrupt 8 other justices to do his bidding?”

In order for me to provide an answer, please clarify your question. The inference from this question is not compatible with the inference made in your following paragraph that Randolph and his staff were responsible for the disposition of my case – please pick one and withdraw the other.

I take the assertions that CJ Bill Waller is a dishonest, underhanded and arbitrary judge seriously – but, so is the trust and authority conferred to him by the citizens who are subject to the Mississippi “justice” system that he oversees.

Every person who is a citizen of Mississippi is entitled to the property protections provided under state statute; but to the Waller court, this is a selective and arbitrary process, and not an equitable one as Mississippians are led to believe.

This is a distraction and a very unpleasant undertaking for me; but, it is important that MS citizens know how corrupt the Waller court can be.

Thanks again for your comments.
DC

Bill Billingsly is wrong to suggest that in order to be held as credible, one must be willing to disclose his true name on this blog site. 95% of the posts on here are anonymous and I'm almost certain that more than 5% of them are credible. But, as the anonymous writer said (and he practically revealed everything but his underwear size) Billingsly ought to be able to easily find out who he is, which is irrelevant.

Ah, in the circumstances here, where detailed accusations are levied, it would be important and credible to provide an identity to back up the claims. Face it SFX, you are wrong.

As bill engages in many discussions here, his credibility is not in question, but a random anon citing some case is at best a fly by as it relates to the ability to decipher the credibility of the criticism.

I believe bill is simply trying to engage in a public discourse that involves knowledgable and credible debaters.

The important question of how to keep politics out of the judicial system shouldn't go unanswered.

I am old enough to remember when political parties weren't involved and qualifications and prior decisions/cases were the only issue.

Once upon a time, as a matter of ethics in the profession and in politics, everyone understood it was important NOT to inject partisanship.

Perhaps, it was no more than a " gentleman's agreement" among those who aspired to BE gentleman. Perhaps, it was that those who fought in two World Wars knew there were things more important than themselves and that the worship of money and power had dangers attached...that at the base of all things evil is a lack of personal integrity. They didn't consider selfishness a virtue but did see duty and sacrifice as virtues.

The Bars of each state rated those running for judge. Professional legal groups endorsed or didn't endorse candidates.

These are the people who know the legal competence or scholarship of those running. They have worked with or competed with or attended law school with or taught law to the candidates.

In those days, the law was considered a profession and attorneys took pride in professionalism. They also understood the overriding importance of having impartial judges decide cases on the merits...not on personal or political connections.

No system is perfect and I'm not suggesting those endorsed all turned out to be exceptional jurists or that there weren't unethical people in the ranks...just not so damn many.

I am saying it worked better.

Now , a career in politics is a surer path to judgeship than a career in law. The parties looked at which loyalists had law degrees and thought how to get them elected.

The political parties also decided they could corrupt the system , even in states where running as a party candidate was banned, by introducing political " buzz words" and " position statements" into campaign literature..." family values" was one of the first examples.

Of course, in Mississippi, there was always a problem because a deliberate effort was made to keep any lawyer from other than Ole Miss from practicing law in the State. Incompetent lawyers from that school could practice law and those at the top of their classes at other law schools, even the best law schools in the Nation, couldn't pass the MS Bar without some " friends".

Eventually, thank goodness, Mississippi law firms and growing Mississippi businesses figured out that if they were to compete on the larger stage and make real money and attract big clients, they needed to attract the best law students from the best law schools .

But, let's be honest with ourselves. Those who had money and power in Mississippi wanted to keep competition OUT. They wanted to maintain power and control and their legacy is still holding us back today.

The legal community, bears some responsibility . They have not policed themselves well or maintained the level of integrity within their ranks that is needed. They also did not defend themselves well or take needed measures when the profession came under political attack. I guess they were too busy competing with each to know when to close ranks.

Sorta like what's happening in this country...we are too politically divided and in compatition to know and so uninterested in individual integrity to see that we need to close ranks and address the threats to something more important than our egos and ambitions and personal financial success...our Nation.

Cousin-brother KK,

Read the posts. The specific appellate case has been cited and all relevant parties have been named in the above posts and specific issues were raised that, as yet have not been objectively refuted –so this ain’t no “fly-by”.

Rather than the very serious integrity issues raised by Beacon regarding the MSSC, you seem to be more interested in personalities – except the only personality that really matters – that of CJ Bill Waller.

I take no issue with the comments. I am only supporting bill's intention behind his assertion.

I believe he wanted to at least have a grasp on who he was talking to, maybe not. That is bill's call.

Shadow's attempt to derail bill's comment was more to my target.

Please press-on. I did read the filing and came away with, "you roll the dice when you go to court; especially in MS."

KK,

My mistake - thanks for the clarification.

Anon 9:44 AM

If anyone's curious about the Beacon Properties case, the motion for rehearing and response opposing same are posted online at the MSSC's general docket, so you can read what Beacon's lawyer wrote and what the response was to it. (That is unusual for those pleadings to be posted, I think.)

You have to go to the link and then input 2008 for the year and 00608 for the case number.

As for the whole "I have SECRET FACTS as to why you should vote against Waller" argument ... meh. BB upthread is surely right to wonder why Banks would be *less* political than Waller.

Anderson - where is the "I have SECRET FACTS as to why you should vote against Waller" quote?

I have read all of the posts and can't find it.

I was of course being glib, 10:42 (see the "Anderson" warning label on my comment), but I was referring to this:

“But your theory is missing some legs.”

I am not disclosing all of the “legs” on this blog. As much as I appreciate JJ and KF, this is not an adequate venue for a comprehensive presentation of my case. I am working on a more comprehensive documentary, for a much broader audience, that I plan to present before the election – as a public service - in order to better inform the Mississippi voters regarding the dishonest Waller supreme court.

So presumably "DC" will be back with a YouTube link in the near future. Anyway, I think that is reasonably summarized as "I'm not disclosing all the facts I have, at least not at the present time." My apologies if I have misread the quoted language.

Anderson,

Thanks for linking the MSSC docket search page and for providing the 2008 - 00608 instructions to access the Beacon v BOTS docket and pleadings.

Hopefully, the most relevant issues to this election won’t get lost in the weeds.

1) Why did the Waller Court take the unprecedented action to violate Miss Rules of Appellate Procedure 40 and 35A(c) when deciding the Beacon v BOTS case?

If the reason is not related to the fact that CJ Waller was negotiating the Court’s budget (involving Waller’s personal salary and retirement) with a director of the plaintiff bank, concurrent with the Waller court’s consideration of an appeal to which the bank was a party – then what is the reason that the Waller court took the unprecedented action of violating it’s own established procedural rules?

2) If the Waller court had a legally valid reason to rule in the bank’s favor, why did the Waller court hide behind a pca ruling, and not issue a written opinion as it does in over 95% of the Court’s decisions?

Those are the fundamental issues regarding Waller’s integrity and character qualifications necessary to be given the privilege of serving as Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court for the next 8 years.

DC