Jackson Jambalaya

Let the record show that I say HA HA HA!

Why don't they just disbar this clown? Maybe that will keep him out of the much beloved spotlight.

Carlos is an absolute idiot. There is no way he shouldn't be disbarred. Any law firm that associates with him will lose whatever credibility they have. Its gone from bad to worse after the Belhaven lawsuit. I wouldn't let him represent my dog.

He probably would have gotten away with it if it had been any other judge in the Delta.

Way to go Donner!!! Hitched your journowagon and the already meager reputation of your free entertainment weekly to a real winner.

When are you going to report Ladd with an update on Wayne Parish? You salivated profusely (2017 Most Intriguing) in advance of the jury trial you were sure was going to produce results for your hate agenda. Now, NOTHING.

#LaddFRAUD

And yet Clarksdale made him City Judge.

A non-attorney here. Is there some sort of rule that after x number of sanctions an attorney is disbarred? Carlos is a worthless parasite and should not be allowed to practice law any longer in this state.

I laughed when I read he "sent another attorney." He once "sent another attorney" to a 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition. The poor kid had not even the slightest clue what to do. He asked some general background questions, and concluded the deposition in about 10 minutes, after barely establishing that the deponent was an appropriate representative. There was a 7 page deposition transcript. Simply laughable. My client and I just kinda smirked at one another. For what it's worth, settled the case for basically a cost of defense basis, for less than the alleged medicals. Client and Carlos walked away with basically nothing.

11:15....Carlos aside, if you settled a case for less than the defendant's medical expenses, you should be disbarred. Yet you're proud of it?

Ole Carlos is still hangin' in there. As long as he's not disbarred sooner or later his ship is gonna come in. It does not matter what judges think of him, and it does not matter what other lawyers think of him... as long as he can keep his name on the lips of the vast majority of uniformed people out there who don't know a supreme court justice from a justice court judge he's got a shot. Law is mostly a hustle anyway.

11:15 is a slightly smarter, whiter version of Carlos. Dresses better, drives a nicer vehicle, but does just as much damage to the legal profession as Carlos without being as entertaining.

Somebody contact George Soros. I think Mississippi has another Donkeycrat he can own, er, support.

12:27, who is presumably 12:38 too......If the case was settled for less than the plaintiff's medical expenses, that means one of two things. Either the case was a weak one with little proof the defendant was even liable to begin with (which is true in many, many of Carlos' cases) and in which there was a very good chance the jury would not find the defendant at fault. Or the plaintiff bore some of the fault and liability for the claim. Your criticism of 11:15 is woefully uninformed. Before you make any future posts, you may want to consider the old adage "Speak not of what you don't know".

Jeesh, Moore cited to "F.R.A.P." in his interlocutory appeal (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure" instead of "M.R.A.P." (the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure).

Attn 12:59 I doubt if Moore knows the difference between F.R.A.P. and M.R.A.P., I know I don't.

Once upon a time the legal profession was known for it's strict adherence to ethical standards. Lawyers could actually embarrass themselves. Not any more. P.T. Barnum would be embarrassed in the company of most lawyers. Carlos is just the poster child for this crap. His ethics (or lack thereof) prevail. That's why he's not disbarred!

12:27, let me add to the rebuke appropriately given by 12:58 - it was said "alleged medicals", not "medicals". I am sure it was just a convenient drop of the adjective on your part, but in any case that could be a significant difference. In Carlos's case, I am sure it would almost always be a major difference.

Ummmm, 12:27, the DEFENDANT wouldn't be the one with the medical bills........that would, um, be the PLAINTIFF. But thanks for playing, anyway!

4:30 - Ummm; I'm aware of that and my point remains the same. Any attorney who participates in such a charade on either side of the swinging gate should be disbarred. If a defense attorney engages in slight of hand that denies a plaintiff his right to recover medical damages....he's an asshole.

I'm 12:27 but not 12:38 and thanks for having your head up your ass.

Where is the Mississippi Bar?

"Once upon a time the legal profession was known for it's strict adherence to ethical standards(3:32)." Uh, you mind telling me when that was?

to 5;45am............... thats a good question

7:31, how are you able to comment from Pluto? That is some great internet service.

Here in the USA, on the planet Earth, we have an "adversarial" system of justice. There are other systems, but this one is ours.

No defense lawyer EVER has an obligation to make sure that a plaintiff recovers. It's the plaintiff's job to prove his case. If the plaintiff has a lousy lawyer, that is not the defense's fault.

If a plaintiff settles for less than the alleged medicals, that typically means what's been said upthread: the plaintiff had either a lousy case, or a lousy lawyer, or both.

(And, although our system wears blinders in this regard, any "medicals" often turn out to have been paid by insurance, and if they're substantial, the insurer often seeks to recover them from the judgment. So you're probably crying either for Medicare, Medicaid, or Blue Cross.)

In reference to the comment above, even in situations when they’ve been confronted with conduct warranting sanctions from opposing counsel, I would wager most lawyers would be extremely reluctant to file a Bar complaint. It brings to mind the old adage warning against wrestling with a pig ... you get covered in mud and the pig likes it. Likewise, while a court can take the initiative, I would bet that a judge that imposed sanctions would be inclined to think that was enough. That leaves the Mississippi Bar. All of these sanctions have been reported and are public record, so you would think the Bar would be aware of it. It is possible, I suppose, that the Bar is waiting for these appeals by Mr. Moore to run their course before getting involved.

8:52....spin that bullshit with your two buddies at Shuckers. The point made was that if EITHER attorney screws somebody out of medicals or celebrates on facebook that fact, he/she is a punk-ass attorney. It's sort of like celebrating the kicking of a dog or pissing on a man's wooden leg, then running off laughing. Get it?

5:04, he didn't say anything about screwing somebody out of medicals. He said he didn't pay "alleged medicals". Knowing Attorney Carlos, what he claims were medicals might have been visits to the Toys R Us across the street from the Doc's office - having nothing to do with the actual case.

Not paying 'alleged medicals' is what I damn sure would want my attorney to fight - you keep on working to keep the man's wooden leg dry. I'll keep on fighting to get scumbag attorneys like Moore out of the courtroom, and the profession.

Carlos has done it again....This time his lies and lack of performance has caused another client to face the possibility of having the case to be dismissed.He needs to not be able to practice anywhere due to his unethical practices and it’s obvious that he has no heart for his clients
He is all about himself....

Carlos client was fired on FMLA. And he tries to settle a case without any monetary value after not meeting the discovery deadlines