Friday, April 8, 2022

Live from Downtown!

 Watch the "status" conference of Lumumba v. City Council of Jackson streamed below. 


 

The status conference started off with discussing whether the Mayor can veto a rejection of a contract by the City Council.  City Council attorney.  Judge Dickinson said the question is whether  an adoption of an ordinance includes a rejection of a motion by a City Council.  He cited Section 21-8-17(2) of the Mississippi Code as determining the matter: 

Ordinances adopted by the council shall be submitted to the mayor and he shall, within ten (10) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after receiving any ordinance, either approve the ordinance by affixing his signature thereto or return it to the council by delivering it to the clerk of the council together with a statement setting forth his objections thereto or to any item or part thereof. No ordinance or any item or part thereof shall take effect without the mayor's approval, unless the mayor fails to return an ordinance to the council prior to the next council meeting, but no later than fifteen (15) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after it has been presented to him or unless the council upon reconsideration thereof not later than the tenth day (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) following its return by the mayor, shall, by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the members present and voting resolve to override the mayor's veto. 

The Chancellor said  the definition of an ordinance was controlling unless someone could show him why it should not do so.* The Mississippi Code definition includes the language "The term "ordinance" as used in this chapter shall be deemed to include ordinances, resolutions, orders and any other official actions of the council."

  City Council attorney John Scanlon argued the rejection of the contract is a lack of action by the City Council.  However, Judge Dickinson questioned his argument as he wanted to know why "any official action" did not include a rejection of the contract by the city council under the statutory definition of "ordinance."  

Mayor Lumumba's attorney, Felicia Perkins, said it should not be an issue because it was never presented to the Court. She said the City Council did not dispute it when it was first raised in pleadings.  She said it made the argument such vetoes are invalid after the final judgment was already entered.  Attorney Robert Gibbs countered as he pointed out the City Council rejected the Mayor's recommendation six times but only after Judge Dickinson's footnote was entered into the record did the Mayor claim he could veto a contract rejection.  

Judge Dickinson took everything under advisement.  

Kingfish note: City attorney Terry Williamson addressed the Court on a timeline issue.  Um, why is he allowed to even speak? He does not represent anyone involved in this controversy.  His office is conflicted out of the case.   He does not represent the Mayor nor the City Council. 


* Judge Dickinson said said Section 21-8-47 defines ordinance:

The term "ordinance" as used in this chapter shall be deemed to include ordinances, resolutions, orders and any other official actions of the council, except those procedural actions governing the conduct of the council's meetings, appointing a clerk of council, and exercising the council's investigative functions

 

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

It’s literally Looney Toons

Anonymous said...

Just making shit up as we go. Stay 50th Mississippi.

Anonymous said...

Rejecting a contract is not an ordinance imo.

I will say that a broad reading of the term as provided could allow the court to find that the rejected contract was “an official action” and as a result required the mayor to submit the contract back to the council where the council would
Have to vote it down by 2/3 vote.

If this is how the city can be run…..the mayor is the man with almost unfettered power.

All the mayor needs is 3 votes and it’s over.

That’s easy too….one less person to bribe.

Anonymous said...

I still don't see how a veto of a rejection is the same as a contract approval. If we consider rejection -1 and an approval 1 a veto of a rejection is a return to 0 and not an actual approval.

Anonymous said...

So the mayor's lawyers aren't even going to address the substance. That's pretty risky but not surprising considering their lack of intellect.

Anonymous said...

No. The definition of “adopted” is what is controlling. No question the no vote is an action of the council, but is a no vote an adoption of an ordinance. Of course not. What is his problem?

Anonymous said...

There is no function with city county and state government working as they should. And when I say none I mean none. You still got folks "WORKING" from home !! And that means not working. Everything is being held up and taking months to years longer than it should. Especially in the 316 building. The lazy going on down there is beyond shameful.

Anonymous said...

You watch a show like this and any questions about how Mississippi allowed federal welfare funds to be looted to help build a volleyball facility at a university are answered.

Clueless is a state!

Anonymous said...

Good to see the Council added competent counsel to their table

Anonymous said...

!0:45 - after realizing that Deshun Martin can't even spell!

Anonymous said...

So, I guess the mayor will be able to do whatever he wants from now on.
Wish I could afford to move out of here.

Anonymous said...

Little wonder why the Legislature is only going to give Jackson the minimum possible until Lumumba is out of office.

Anonymous said...

Judge Dickinson is an embarrassment.

Anonymous said...

This is what a banana republic looks like. What a fucking joke.

Anonymous said...

@11:01 AM - The thieves in the legislature don't trust the thieves at the Jackiston city hall, right?

Jackistan will never be able to come up with the matching funds for that $25M. Even bonds won't be sufficient.

Anonymous said...

10:32 is right. Did none of the attorneys for the council or WM argue that point. Did nobody have any case law on that point? I don’t have a government job so I cant watch the entire video.

Anonymous said...

Elected representation may soon be rendered powerless. If this is the trend - that is, finding a way to shift power to the few (or the one) then we truly are changing as a nation.

Anonymous said...

So using Dickerson thought process the board could approve a contract 4-3 and the mayor veto the contract and if the board doesn’t override the veto the mayor can give the contract to who he wants?

Anonymous said...

I really hope Dickinson doesn’t screw this up as bad as his last opinion. He made a big mess even worse.

Anonymous said...

At the end of the day the council didn't honor the RFP. You cant ignore procurement laws. A lot of comments in here are alluding to the mayor, but the council can not reject a winning bid without good cause and the council presented no reason to reject the winning bid, just saying no ain't gone cut it. Like folk in here saying you may as well get rid of the council if the mayor can veto anything they do, well you may as well get rid of the RFP process if a winning big is not awarded to the most responsible and lowest bidder, the council is not abiding by state procurement laws, this would all be a non issue if the council didn't try to bypass the winning bid and backdoor Waste management into a contract.

Anonymous said...

What if the counsel denies a rezoning request. The mayor can veto that as well?

Krusatyr said...

Did Dickinson's summary at closing imply that a definition for "Action" vs "Adopted Action" is the controlling nature of a Council Action that does or does not permit a mayoral veto, which needs a State Supreme Court review to define?

Not only is nothing settled here, no other Council "action" going forward will be settled, either, until the State Supremes weigh in.

Jackson, rudderless in a sea of ineptitude, no shore in sight. Plus if your sewer or water geysers in plain sight, call a librarian or a zoo keeper since Public Works is circling the drain as well.

Anonymous said...

Justice Dickinson seems convinced that the mere act of voting is itself subject to mayoral veto, because the vote is an "action" of the council. The statute says:

"The term 'ordinance' as used in this chapter shall be deemed to include ordinances, resolutions, orders and any other official actions of the council, except those procedural actions governing the conduct of the council’s meetings, appointing a clerk of council, and exercising the council’s investigative functions under Section 21-8-13(4)."
Miss. Code Ann. § 21-8-47.

It's certainly debatable whether the mere act of voting constitutes an "official action of the council," but even if it does, isn't the act of voting the quintessential procedural action governing the conduct of a council meeting?

Anyway, it's pretty obvious that a vote that fails can't possibly be an ordinance "adopted," which is the only thing the mayor has the ability to veto:

"Ordinances adopted by the council shall be submitted to the mayor and he shall, within ten (10) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after receiving any ordinance, either approve the ordinance by affixing his signature thereto or return it to the council by delivering it to the clerk of the council together with a statement setting forth his objections thereto or to any item or part thereof. No ordinance or any item or part thereof shall take effect without the mayor’s approval, unless the mayor fails to return an ordinance to the council prior to the next council meeting, but no later than fifteen (15) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after it has been presented to him or unless the council upon reconsideration thereof not later than the tenth day (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) following its return by the mayor, shall, by a vote of two-thirds (⅔) of the members present and voting resolve to override the mayor’s veto."
Miss. Code Ann. § 21-8-17.

"The vote of the members of the council on any ordinance or resolution shall be taken by a show of hands. No action of the city council shall be considered adopted unless it receives the affirmative vote of that portion of the council dictated by state law under the circumstances."
Code of Ordinances, City of Jackson, Mississippi, sec. 2-66.

"At any and all meetings of the council, a majority of the members thereof shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum at any meeting shall be necessary to adopt any motion, resolution or ordinance, or to pass any measure whatever unless otherwise provided in this chapter."
Miss. Code Ann. § 21-8-11(2).

Anonymous said...

While I'm at it, I'll just add that Richard's Disposal has especially incompetent representation unless they're picking up garbage under these circumstances against advice of counsel:

"The substantive provisions of each contract approved by the city council must be entered, and appear, in the city council's minutes in order to be binding upon the city."
Code of Ordinances, City of Jackson, Mississippi, sec. 2-584.

"It is incumbent upon persons, or artificial entities (i.e., corporations, partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, etc.), entering into contracts with the city, or seeking to do so, to [m]ake certain that they are legal contracts; further, it is the responsibility of each entity contracting with the city, not the responsibility of the city itself, to ensure that the substantive provisions of the contract are properly recorded on the minutes of the city."
Code of Ordinances, City of Jackson, Mississippi, sec. 2-585(1).

"Anyone contracting or purchasing from the City must be aware of the limitations that apply. Martin v. Newell, 198 Miss. 809, 815, 23 So. 2d 796 (1945). In Martin, the court said that a party contracting with a county is bound by the requirement that a contract 'requires an entry on the minutes of the board.' Id. . . . There is no hint that JLG engaged in any efforts to assure the validity of a [lease] renewal if a renewal in fact was ever entered. . . . [N]o estoppel to the City would arise from what, under Martin v, Newell, must be considered a knowing failure to negotiate with the proper entity -- the City and its council. In the face of clear legal authority that the city manager had no authority to renew [a lease] on his own and in the absence of any agreement as to new terms, we find that no justifiable reliance on such action was possible."
JLG Concrete Prods. Co. v. City of Grenada, 722 So. 2d 1283, 1287-89 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998).

The mayor's unilateral contract with Richard's will be declared invalid and non-binding at the end of the day, and Richard's will not succeed in any lawsuit for payment based on an estoppel or quasi-contract theory. The only way Richard's comes out of this alive is if they can get the council to end up ratifying the contract, one way or another.

Anonymous said...

Jackistan will never be able to come up with the matching funds for that $25M.

Because Chuckway wants to spend money on boondoggles -- including a back door funnel to Rukia of $700,000. Screw infrastructure.

Anonymous said...

10:19, I agree with your opinion, but I can't find that broad reading.

The code does say that an ordinance is any "...... or action" of the Council. But in this instance, the proposed ordinance did not receive a majority vote so it was an "inaction" of the Council, as Attorney John Scanlon tried to make the point with the Judge - until the Judge interrupted him.

Going to the statute the Judge said he was relying on (21-8-17(2)) as being the question before him, it requires an Ordinance, after being adopted, be submitted to the Mayor where he could veto or accept it. The Judge claimed he was looking for the definition of "adopted" - something he should be able to determine if he would just read a few more words after the word "adopted".

Since no Ordinance was adopted, there was nothing to submit to the Mayor. An ordinance presented to the Council that does not receive a majority of the votes does not exist, ergo it cannot "be presented" to the Mayor for a possible veto.

Granted, if the proposed ordinance had been presented to the Council as "an ordinance to reject a contract with....." and that ordinance passed, then it would have been an action, therefore an ordinance and an ordinance adopted and able to be presented for a veto.

But it wasn't. The question before the Council was "an ordinance to ratify the contract with....." and it failed to receive a majority vote. Therefore it was not an action, rather it was an inaction. And there was nothing to be presented to the Mayor for his approval or veto.

Hopefully Justice Dickinson will be able to understand the simple definition of the word "adopted" - and if he would read the entire sentence he might be able to find that definition that he evidently needs to get his arse out of the hole he dug for himself.

Anonymous said...

Everybody else is swimming along turning a sprint into a marathon making $250.-$300. per hour. It's the Judge who's in over his head and drowning
in his own hubris.

The council is right that a rejection is not an "ordinance' to be vetoed but the mayor is also right that the Judge has no business deciding issues after his final judgment and not for his court under the original pleading. It's a mess a long way from being resolved.

$$$$$$$$ for attorneys.

Anonymous said...

RDS has trucks but not enough drivers. Thought they were ready to roll

Anonymous said...

Cha ching, can you say "billable hours?" I know you can. Any Gulf Shores realtors on here?

Anonymous said...

“Special” judges bill by the hour too…

Coincidence?!

Anonymous said...

Ok I have a solution ! I’m going to get my schoolhouse rock VHS and pirate some copies to all involved . ‘ I’m am a Bill sitting here on Capitol hill’ Now everyone knows how different branches of government work and they can all sing together.

Kingfish said...

The sooner it gets out of Dickinson's court, the better for everyone concerned.

Anonymous said...

A problem for the Council is that the Legislature broadly defines an ordinance as including any official act of the council and separately provides that a mayor may veto any ordinance adopted by the council.

The council only acts through its votes and both affirmative votes and negative votes are official acts of the council. Taking a vote is an official act, and under the statute, that vote is an ordinance. While the council may vote against adopting an ordinance to become effective within the municipality, for statutory purposes, that act of the council taking a vote has the effect of the council adopting an ordinance, which, again, includes all official acts, whether resulting from a passing or failing vote. The Legislature did not limit ordinances adopted by the council under its broad definition to passing items.

A negative vote is not an "inaction" as some posters here argue; it is taking an official act and it is an ordinance. Some posters here seem to believe that failing items disappear into the ether as if they never occurred, but instead, they are presented to the mayor alongside passing items.

Although the Legislature did not limit the mayoral veto to ordinances adopted with an underlying affirmative or passing vote, throughout the municipal code, the legislature is intentional about specifying when an affirmative or passing vote on an ordinance is required. Along the same line, in the Mississippi Constitution, the drafters specified that the Governor could only veto passing legislation.

If we read beyond the "ordinances adopted by the council shall be submitted to the mayor" language in the paragraph authorizing the mayoral veto, the Legislature goes on to add that “[n]o ordinance [which includes all official actions] or any item or part thereof shall take effect without the mayor's approval”. Although this would be another opportune place to declare no “passing” or “affirmative” ordinance shall take effect, as seen in other sections of the Code, the Legislature does not make that distinction on what ordinances are presented to the mayor for approval.

(The Legislature excepted from its broad definition of ordinances certain items that are solely within the council's authority, such as procedural rules and investigations. Interestingly, these exceptions align with the items not subject to veto by the Governor in the Mississippi Constitution. One could conclude that the Legislature was intentional about veto authority and its exceptions. Notably, they did not limit mayoral veto authority to passing items or exclude ordinances adopted by a negative vote.)

Finally, it’s amazing how quickly this group has turned on Dickinson with his only offense being interpreting the law based on the plain language set forth in the Mississippi Code. You all should direct your anger at the Legislature if you don’t like the way the laws are written.

Anonymous said...

8:40 It was Judge Jess who in his own overblown judgment suggested "new law" that is, that a mayor might veto a contract rejection and revive the contract. If that is so, municipalities all over the state have "new law" and surely must adjust their thinking accordingly. If he had not gone there, the mayor would not have pounced on that tidbit of wisdom to justify Richard's garbage pickup.

On the other hand maybe Dickinson has no jurisdiction of this issue at all. That's also possible.

anonymous said...

This so Crazy .... what about the taxpayers of Jackson.... Money spent on attorneys ...the Mayor Sucks and I hope it kills his career... who is going to run the city services divison if only his friends with no competence can be hired... can there be a vote of no confidence and remove him?

Anonymous said...

8:40
You use a lot of words to say that anything a council votes on, whether they vote yes or no, is “adopting “ an ordinance. You don’t cite any law or logic or use any common sense, basically just your opinion. I think you should look up the definition of adopt.

Anonymous said...

8:40, the legislature did not intend to give mayors unlimited power. Under your interpretation, a mayor submits ordinance, it is rejected by council, then mayor’s veto passes the ordinance in its original form. The council’s vote is meaningless, so their only defense against the mayor’s proposals is inaction by not forming a quorum or by not taking a vote. This would trigger other options for the mayor, such as the use of emergency powers, to keep the city running, so the mayor could circumvent all actions or inactions of the council.

Kingfish said...

If the Mayor's interpretation does win the day, he will have maybe. a year to run wild with it. Legislature going to clarify or strengthen that language.

Anonymous said...

can there be a vote of no confidence and remove him?

There needs to be a recall effort started immediately. The damage he has done to the City will take years to correct.

Clarence Darrow said...

Lets hope Justice Dickinson will use a little common sense and restore some faith in the judiciary and rule correctly on this veto. It is obvious to any sensible reading of the statute what the legislature meant. Apparently Dickinson is trying to overthink it to show how intelligent he is. The legislature did not define adopt because everyone (supposedly) knows what it means. They can’t define every word in every statute. At some point common sense and common usage of a word should kick in.

King Chowke said...

If a mayor is able to veto all actions by a city council then what you have is tyranny and a dictatorship.

Did re-electing this tyrant yield different results?

Anonymous said...

At any and all meetings of the council, a majority of the members thereof shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum at any meeting shall be necessary to adopt any motion, resolution or ordinance, or to pass any measure whatever unless otherwise provided in this chapter.

The authority of the council is otherwise legislative and is executed by a vote within a legally called meeting.

Ordinances adopted by the council shall be submitted to the mayor and he shall, within ten (10) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after receiving any ordinance, either approve the ordinance by affixing his signature thereto or return it to the council by delivering it to the clerk of the council together with a statement setting forth his objections thereto or to any item or part thereof. No ordinance or any item or part thereof shall take effect without the mayor’s approval, unless the mayor fails to return an ordinance to the council prior to the next council meeting, but no later than fifteen (15) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after it has been presented to him or unless the council upon reconsideration thereof not later than the tenth day (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) following its return by the mayor, shall, by a vote of two-thirds (⅔) of the members present and voting resolve to override the mayor’s veto.

The term “ordinance” as used in this chapter shall be deemed to include ordinances, resolutions, orders and any other official actions of the council, except those procedural actions governing the conduct of the council’s meetings, appointing a clerk of council, and exercising the council’s investigative functions under Section 21-8-13(4).


An "ordinance" requires an affirmative vote by the council to be adopted. Ordinances adopted must be submitted to possible veto by the Mayor. One can not extrapolate, using any logical pathway, to suggest that an "ordinance" that must pass by affirmative vote would include the actual vote for said "ordinance" (using the logic that "ordinance" includes "other official actions" that would include the vote yea/nay for said ordinance) and that the mayor could then veto said vote since said vote IS NOT an ordinance since it was not "adopted" by "affirmative vote" by the Council. The ambiguity with this stance appears clear to everyone except the Judge and the obviously dishonest Mayoral camp. I say "dishonest" because I can't believe anyone of the Bar could argue this position with a straight face.

"No ordinance or any item or part thereof shall take effect without the mayor’s approval..." - if a vote, itself, is an "action" then why is this not being applied? To say, no vote (action) can take effect without the mayor's approval? ..... and how does the Mayor "return an ordinance to the council" (with "action" being the vote itself) such that he is returning the nay vote of the Council?

Lastly, if the vote is the "action", then why can't the Mayor also veto the override of his previous veto?

If "the Mayor's interpretation does win the day" then we have truly progressed into a regression of an illogical made up clown world.



Anonymous said...

to add:

Dickinson can not, reasonably, ask about the definition of "adopt." Forget the logic of it, but when the statute states "the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum at any meeting shall be necessary to adopt", then it has defacto defined what is necessary for "adopt."

Anonymous said...

..we have truly progressed into a regression of an illogical made up clown world.

That accurately defines Lumumba world.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the comments posted at 9:47 AM TODAY & 10:54 AM TODAY (April 9). He needs to be recalled immediately.

Clarence Darrow said...

11:02, 11:09
Amen. Thank you. Maybe Justice Dickinson will read your post.

Anonymous said...

840, your wonderful interpretation overlooks the very item you state - and "ordinance adopted" has to be passed to the Mayor for his acceptance or veto.

Since no ordinance was able to be passed to the Mayor, then your interpretation of any "action" is therefore an ordinance (yes, I can read 47 but that still doesn't answer the 'adopted' part of 17).

If adopted, then there is an ordinance that was presented allowing the Mayor to issue a contract. But when the vote was against the presented ordinance, there is nothing to present to the Mayor to accept or veto.

If the vote of the Council was negative then therefore that was an "inaction" of the Council. They didn't take the action that the proposed ordinance requested.

Its not as poorly written as you try to claim in defense of the Mayor's position; and case law stands behind this interpretation. One old case in Mississippi but also (as the Judge requested) a Puerto Rico case and a Montana case. Those, along with the (non-binding as Dickinson likes to remind us regularly) several AG opinions that do provide a good base for the definition of "adopted" are going to be hard to overcome with your attempt at logically claiming adopted includes not adopting but rejecting.

Anonymous said...

11:02 and 11:09 gloss over the clause “unless otherwise provided in this chapter”. That clause allows for other methods to adopt an ordinance. One of those exceptions is provided for in the statute broadly defining an ordinance, which does not limit ordinances to affirmative votes. Instead, it arguably provides that all official acts taken by the council—their votes—have the effect of adopting an ordinance under that statute.

Kingfish is right. The courts decide and the Legislature can clarify if they so desire.

Anonymous said...

Mayor's counsel at 10:31

Omission doesn't make something so.

The clause you refer to says:
" At any and all meetings of the council, a majority of the members thereof shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum at any meeting shall be necessary to adopt any motion, resolution or ordinance, or to pass any measure whatever unless otherwise provided in this chapter. "

TO PASS ANY MEASURE whatever unless otherwise provided in this chapter. Voting Nay by the majority, in no language, equals passage of a measure.

Got any more blanks to shoot?

Anonymous said...

The mayor never interpreted the legislation like that until Dickenson dropped that dumbass footnote or Chokwe would have vetoed the same votes that were taken earlier. The only person having ever interpreted the statutes that way is the judge.


Recent Comments

Search Jackson Jambalaya

Subscribe to JJ's Youtube channel

Archives

Trollfest '09

Trollfest '07 was such a success that Jackson Jambalaya will once again host Trollfest '09. Catch this great event which will leave NE Jackson & Fondren in flames. Othor Cain and his band, The Black Power Structure headline the night while Sonjay Poontang returns for an encore performance. Former Frank Melton bodyguard Marcus Wright makes his premier appearance at Trollfest singing "I'm a Sweet Transvestite" from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." Kamikaze will sing his new hit, “How I sold out to da Man.” Robbie Bell again performs: “Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be Bells” and “Any friend of Ed Peters is a friend of mine”. After the show, Ms. Bell will autograph copies of her mug shot photos. In a salute to “Dancing with the Stars”, Ms. Bell and Hinds County District Attorney Robert Smith will dance the Wango Tango.

Wrestling returns, except this time it will be a Battle Royal with Othor Cain, Ben Allen, Kim Wade, Haley Fisackerly, Alan Lange, and “Big Cat” Donna Ladd all in the ring at the same time. The Battle Royal will be in a steel cage, no time limit, no referee, and the losers must leave town. Marshand Crisler will be the honorary referee (as it gives him a title without actually having to do anything).


Meet KIM Waaaaaade at the Entergy Tent. For five pesos, Kim will sell you a chance to win a deed to a crack house on Ridgeway Street stuffed in the Howard Industries pinata. Don't worry if the pinata is beaten to shreds, as Mr. Wade has Jose, Emmanuel, and Carlos, all illegal immigrants, available as replacements for the it. Upon leaving the Entergy tent, fig leaves will be available in case Entergy literally takes everything you have as part of its Trollfest ticket price adjustment charge.

Donna Ladd of The Jackson Free Press will give several classes on learning how to write. Smearing, writing without factchecking, and reporting only one side of a story will be covered. A donation to pay their taxes will be accepted and she will be signing copies of their former federal tax liens. Ms. Ladd will give a dramatic reading of her two award-winning essays (They received The Jackson Free Press "Best Of" awards.) "Why everything is always about me" and "Why I cover murders better than anyone else in Jackson".

In the spirit of helping those who are less fortunate, Trollfest '09 adopts a cause for which a portion of the proceeds and donations will be donated: Keeping Frank Melton in his home. The “Keep Frank Melton From Being Homeless” booth will sell chances for five dollars to pin the tail on the jackass. John Reeves has graciously volunteered to be the jackass for this honorable excursion into saving Frank's ass. What's an ass between two friends after all? If Mr. Reeves is unable to um, perform, Speaker Billy McCoy has also volunteered as when the word “jackass” was mentioned he immediately ran as fast as he could to sign up.


In order to help clean up the legal profession, Adam Kilgore of the Mississippi Bar will be giving away free, round-trip plane tickets to the North Pole where they keep their bar complaint forms (which are NOT available online). If you don't want to go to the North Pole, you can enjoy Brant Brantley's (of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance) free guided tours of the quicksand field over by High Street where all complaints against judges disappear. If for some reason you are unable to control yourself, never fear; Judge Houston Patton will operate his jail where no lawyers are needed or allowed as you just sit there for minutes... hours.... months...years until he decides he is tired of you sitting in his jail. Do not think Judge Patton is a bad judge however as he plans to serve free Mad Dog 20/20 to all inmates.

Trollfest '09 is a pet-friendly event as well. Feel free to bring your dog with you and do not worry if your pet gets hungry, as employees of the Jackson Zoo will be on hand to provide some of their animals as food when it gets to be feeding time for your little loved one.

Relax at the Fox News Tent. Since there are only three blonde reporters in Jackson (being blonde is a requirement for working at Fox News), Megan and Kathryn from WAPT and Wendy from WLBT will be on loan to Fox. To gain admittance to the VIP section, bring either your Republican Party ID card or a Rebel Flag. Bringing both and a torn-up Obama yard sign will entitle you to free drinks served by Megan, Wendy, and Kathryn. Get your tickets now. Since this is an event for trolls, no ID is required. Just bring the hate. Bring the family, Trollfest '09 is for EVERYONE!!!

This is definitely a Beaver production.


Note: Security provided by INS.

Trollfest '07

Jackson Jambalaya is the home of Trollfest '07. Catch this great event which promises to leave NE Jackson & Fondren in flames. Sonjay Poontang and his band headline the night with a special steel cage, no time limit "loser must leave town" bout between Alan Lange and "Big Cat"Donna Ladd following afterwards. Kamikaze will perform his new song F*** Bush, he's still a _____. Did I mention there was no referee? Dr. Heddy Matthias and Lori Gregory will face off in the undercard dueling with dangling participles and other um, devices. Robbie Bell will perform Her two latest songs: My Best Friends are in the Media and Mama's, Don't Let Your Babies Grow up to be George Bell. Sid Salter of The Clarion-Ledger will host "Pin the Tail on the Trial Lawyer", sponsored by State Farm.

There will be a hugging booth where in exchange for your young son, Frank Melton will give you a loooong hug. Trollfest will have a dunking booth where Muhammed the terrorist will curse you to Allah as you try to hit a target that will drop him into a vat of pig grease. However, in the true spirit of Separate But Equal, Don Imus and someone from NE Jackson will also sit in the dunking booth for an equal amount of time. Tom Head will give a reading for two hours on why he can't figure out who the hell he is. Cliff Cargill will give lessons with his .80 caliber desert eagle, using Frank Melton photos as targets. Tackleberry will be on hand for an autograph session. KIM Waaaaaade will be passing out free titles and deeds to crackhouses formerly owned by The Wood Street Players.

If you get tired come relax at the Fox News Tent. To gain admittance to the VIP section, bring either your Republican Party ID card or a Rebel Flag. Bringing both will entitle you to free drinks.Get your tickets now. Since this is an event for trolls, no ID is required, just bring the hate. Bring the family, Trollfest '07 is for EVERYONE!!!

This is definitely a Beaver production.

Note: Security provided by INS
.