Jackson Jambalaya

giving 4-1 odds all these people involved are democrats

Someone please tell this clown the phrase is 'et al.' which stands for 'et alia', which means 'and others'. And it is 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants', not "plaintiff's' and 'defendant's'. I didn't feel the need to proof the rest of it.

English comes in handy in practice, Andy...

Oh my Lord. The second one is written so poorly, it's embarassing.

I feel certain that the "et all" involved are actively posting daily on Facebook, where SINCERITY is all that counts, and grammar, spelling, wit, etc. are viewed as pretentious show-offy things practiced only by snobs.

Golly gumtrees, though---I sure love "et all." But given the venue, shouldn't it be "et y'all"?

And wouldn't filing mutual restraining orders kind of be each parties' own best assurance of bein' left alone?

Just axin'.

Sorry, I'm not allowing links to that website. Much was unsourced or unsubstantiated. Not worth the lawsuit. I saw it when it came out months ago and said no thanks when people asked me to cover it.

actually 8:25 AM I believe 'et al' means 'and all' ?

So, Kingfish stirs up an old hornet's nest yet claims he ain't gettin' involved and won't cooperate in the provision of related information.

What's wrong with the stupidity of this picture?

"Et Al. An abbreviated form of et alia, Latin for "and others." When affixed after the name of a person, et al. indicates that additional persons are acting in the same manner, such as several plaintiffs or grantors.

When et al. is used in a judgment against defendants, it means that the quoted words are applicable to all the defendants."

So, Kingfish stirs up an old hornet's nest yet claims he ain't gettin' involved and won't cooperate in the provision of related information.

So you are acknowledging that you are too lame to find the other online material without KF's linking to it?

It's quite simple. One is a court record, one is not and has little, if any, supporting evidence. Not worth a slander suit. Pretty simple.

Didn't approve your comment because you were cussing someone out.

Since when is the content of emails and back and forth chatter not fit for publication on this site? On occasion you rely 100% on it. As an example all that crap involving shootings on the stack that derived from nutty emails and gossip passed off as legit.

On other occasions you publish conversations you lifted from other sites via email, twitter, et al.

The back story of these people is important to understanding and resolution. The accusations of people hacking into accounts to post untruthful things is dependent, in part, on the production of those accounts.

This is nothing more than the story of someone who popped off her mouth ad infinitum on social media and someone else copied and pasted it into the public domain ~ followed by nervous denials and hasty lawyering up. Obviously what you lift off social media, without stalking, is not actionable.

What we have here, is a failure....Well, what we have here is selective editorial censorship.

WOOF WOOF, long live the pups.

2:39 & 3:46:

I can explain to to you, but I can't make you understand it.


but I do love 'et y'all'--

8:25

just read the 1st document, it is there. Either type in the entire link or google is still your friend.

March 5, 2014 at 7:16 AM = WINNER of JJ Loyal Reader Award for March 2014. Congrats!

So why did you only show one of the set of papers, and not the rest? Do you have a personal reason to show one woman's court documents and not the other people involved?
Since this case has not gone to court yet, how can you decide who is telling the truth? Looks to me like you are aligned with the plaintiffs and trying to lend some legitimacy to their case before they go to court.

Nice try. I posted the complaint and the counterclaim, in other words, I posted both sides. Which you very well know. I haven't checked the docket yet this week nor am I going to check it every day. I'll check it at some point in the next few days and if there is something relevant and new, I will post it. Quit lying.

You posted one counterclaim. It shows there are others. Why not post them as well? Can't understand why you only chose to post one counterclaim. That looks a bit one sided to me. How much extra effort would that have taken?

There was only one when I checked. I have not checked the docket since then. The more you gripe, the longer it is going to be before I check it again. That was a fair post as I posted both sides. This blog exists for my benefit, not yours. Don't like it, you don't have to read this website.

Can you explain why 2 people are named and then it looks like 3 more people are not named? Are there 3 more people? Could they be under 18 and that is why they are not named? Or does "Jon Doe" mean they don't know who else they want to accuse yet but they can add to the claim at a later time? I'm seriously asking because I don't understand the process. And why are the papers from all the other people not included here? Are they minors?

Then there was this new story on WAPT this morning...

http://www.wapt.com/news/central-mississippi/jackson/missing-dog-puts-shelter-owner-at-odds/24944090