Jackson Jambalaya

Non-attorney spokesperson here. What the heck did I just read?

And we wonder about the failure rate to be Barred. I agree with 11:28 ???

Who is the plaintiff's lawyer?

that respose was written by a paralegal who is being paid about 25$ per hour, then submitted to an associate, or god forbid, a partner, who then signed off on it and billed the insurance company for the defendantds about $10,000.oo.
what a racket.
you dont know why you insurance premiums cost so much?..................well...........now you know.

Mumble jumble, bim bam, flim flam, bla bla bla. Here is my bill, full payment due in 30 days. Can't come to me? I'll come to you.

I think it's posted because the Plaintiff's lawyer clearly doesn't understand summary judgment. "No genuine issue of material fact" is usually argued that there are no facts in dispute. Plaintiff's lawyer allegedly argues that there are many, many disputes of fact, which contradicts his own motion. On the bright side, it made the defense lawyer's job easier.

Not sure it will happen, but the Court should impose fees/sanctions via Rule 11 and/or litigation accountability act. Roy was kind in his response given what has to have been craziness that led to this. Can't tell who the judge is. One would think if the judge had already seen this a year ago, more evidence to show the disputes in question would not go well this time around for the plaintiff.

215 docket entries? Mercy, someone is stroking the pencil on those bills.

Summary judgment is a procedural vehicle for the court to enter a judgment where there have been no issues of fact presented for a jury to decide. In other words, it's a heck of a lot cheaper than a trial, when a trial would be futile.

11:33 No such thing. To be admitted to the Bar is not to be "Barred." To be barred is to be "Obstructed by a bar; subject to hindrance or obstruction by a bar or barrier which, if interposed, will prevent legal redress or recovery; as, when it is said that a claim or cause of action is “barred by the statute of limitations."

You must've picked up this erroneous usage in the absolutely horrific piece penned by attorney Abby Robinson in an earlier post on this site (can be found at http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2020/06/attorney-criticizes-bar-on-racism.html)

My goodness, I read Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. My goodness that motion was bad.

12:34 - interestingly enough,the docket sheet on this case indicates Plaintiff's counsel is Abby Robinson

The first indication that plaintiff's counsel is a dumbass is found in the style of the case. "First Judicial District of Rankin County" ? Somebody tell this mensa that she ain't in hinds county this time.

This......I mean......words.....words escape me. This is an embarrassment to the MS Bar, the educational system (in any state), and to the English language. The grammar is awful, the sentence structure is atrocious, and that doesn't even get to the substance of the arguments. How a judge can read this and not laugh is a testament to their professionalism.

I had a feeling her treatment in court was not the result of racism, but of her own . . . screw it. This crap she filed speaks for itself.

Thank you Attorney (I use the term lightly) Abby for showing us how incredibly inept you are. If you don't know the meaning look it up in the dictionary. If you have one. Otherwise, google is a lazy lawyers friend. I feel so very sorry for your client.

Is this the same attorney that wrote the masterpiece of a statement to the Bar Prez a few weeks ago?

4:26 You bet

Her grammatical errors and poor grasp of the law are the result of 50 years of lowering standards.

She probably doesn't even understand that can be no real achievement when the goal is lowered and all of the challenges are removed.

I would probably feel some sympathy toward her, but for the public letter she wrote about being the victim of systemic racism in the judiciary.

When someone so obviously cries wolf, if they are found out they will be held accountable. And it will probably sting a little . . . maybe a lot. That said, I wonder how she passed the bar exam.

Mr Madison, I mean Ms Robinson, what you just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this blog is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

What does she expect to get from Judge McDaniel by playing the race card in her pleading? Race has no place in a Med-Mal case or in any other case that does not apply to civil rights.
I looked at the docket and noticed that she issued SDT's to so many varied medical facilities that her client must have been going all over town for medical treatment.
She would not have passed the Bar Exam back when I was admitted. The passage rate was about 15%. A few years ago the percentage went up to the mid 80's but I have heard that it is back down to about 50%.

To follow up on 10:02, I wonder what she will do when she gets the bills for collecting all of those records? Some providers charge just for a records search, even if they don't have any records, then charge per number of pages.