The Supremes hammered Hinds County Chancellor Tametrice Hodges-Linzey after she forced attorney Matthew Thompson to pay $1,500 for contempt of court.
This tale of legal woe begins with the rather nasty 2011 divorce of James and Angela Jones in Hinds County Chancery Court. The couple shared joint legal custody of one child while Angela enjoyed primary physical custody. Chancellor Denise Owens awarded standard visitation to the father: every other weekend and four non-consecutive weeks during summer vacation.
Angela wasted no time in refusing to let James see his son. James took his ex-wife back to court in 2015. Judge Owens found Angela Angela did not allow James to have a full weekend of visitation with his son for more than three years and thus was in contempt of court. The Court also ruled Angela owed her ex-husband $6,000 for a medical debt.
Predictably, the couple wound up back in court again for the same issues. James filed another petition for contempt of court in 2022, claiming Angela still did not allow him to have reasonable visitation with their son. The petition charged Angela still owed James $5,472 on the medical debt.
Judge Owens retired and was replaced by Judge Hodges-Linzey on the bench. This is where the real fun begins.
The parents agreed to a temporary order restoring James' visitation. Unfortunately, Angela could not leave matters well enough alone and filed an emergency motion to suspend all visitation because James was getting his first visit with his son in six years. The Chancellor held a hearing on the motion.
James blamed Angela, claiming she allowed him to have only a few visits with his son over the years. Angela admitted she did not allow visitation after a three-hour visit in 2023 nor did she allow him to have his summer visitation after 2015.
When questioned why she denied visitation, Angela did what so many wayward clients do - she blamed her lawyer. Angela testified under oath her lawyer, Mr. Thompson, told her she did not have to exercise visitation after the order was entered in 2023. The attorney did not dispute her testimony.
The hearing showed how fractured the relationship was between father and son as the son testified he had "deep animosity" towards James.
Fed up with Angela's intransigence, Chancellor Hodges-Linzey found the mother disobeyed two successive judges without providing an excuse. The Court incarcerated Angela Jones for thirty days to enforce compliance while granting custody to James. Unfortunately, the change of custody did not change the relationship between James and his son. James eventually relinquished his parental rights.
Concerned with whether Mr. Thompson advised his client to ignore court visitation orders, the Chancellor scheduled a show cause hearing for March 28, 2024 for the attorney.Thompson did not appear and sent attorney Chad King in his place. Mr. King explained to the Court Mr. Thompson was traveling with his son on his senior trip in North Carolina and would return later in the week. After pointing out Mr. Thompson did not notify the Court he would be absent, Judge Hodges-Linzey rescheduled the hearing for June 3.
Mr. Thompson sent the Chancellor a letter explaining why he was absent on the morning of the hearing. The letter argued he sent Mr. King in his stead because the order did not specifically require Mr. Thompson be present at the hearing. Such an excuse did not sit well with the judge.
Judge Hodges-Linzey held the hearing later that day and told Matthew Thompson, Esq. the Court expects everyone to appear when it issues a show cause order as the Court wanted to speak directly to him.
The judge drilled Mr. Thompson:
THE COURT: Okay. Now, one of the main reasons for this show-cause hearing was that the Court heard something very concerning during the fullday hearing in this matter. One of those concerning things outside of visitation never having happened since 2011 was that your client, Ms. Gartman, made the -- well, she stated on the stand during her direct testimony when the Court was examining her that . . . once you filed your emergency petition to terminate visitation or to stop visitation, that she was told that she did not have to follow this Court’s order to continue visitation in this matter. And when the Court inquired further by asking, “Well, who told you you didn’t have to do that?” She stated, “my attorney.” And then when I continued to inquire even further, she persisted that you told her that she did not have to follow this Court’s order that was entered last year regarding the visitation of the minor child. That’s extremely concerning to the Court. This case is unique in that visitation -- the mother has not allowed visitation. She’s been really good at doing that on her own. And you-all made an agreed order. Y’all came to your own agreement about visitation. And then she stated that she didn’t have to follow it because you had filed a motion on her behalf….
The Court was not finished chewing out the bow-tied-wearing lawyer:
Usually, attorneys will stand before the Court and make some response and tell the Court, no, that’s not what happened. Instead, you sat with your head down especially when I asked should I hold you responsible for not obeying the Court’s order or should I hold your attorney responsible or should I hold you both responsible? And at that point, she really didn’t have a response. She was looking to you, and you did not provide one….
before finding Matthew Thompson in contempt of court:
And so I have to hold you responsible, and I’m going to sanction you $1500 to be paid into the court registry by this Thursday at 12 noon. If it’s not paid, we will happily take you into custody. And then I will do whatever I need to do to suspend your bar license if you feel that this Court isn’t serious about the sanction.
Mr. Thompson said he never told Angela Jones not to follow any order of the Court. He never had the opportunity to question her in court because the Chancellor stopped the hearing at 7 PM and ordered the parties to return in several months to finish the hearing. Thus, Judge Hodges-Linzey held the lawyer in contempt of court based on incomplete testimony.
Angela paid James for the medical debt in full in 2024.
Ms. Jones and her lawyer appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
The Justices made short work of Judge Hodges-Linzey, holding the sanctions were improper. The Court held Mr. Thompson was not properly noticed for a constructive criminal contempt proceeding. The Chancellor violated his rights to due process by failing to recuse herself from the contempt proceeding.
The Mississippi Supreme Court sent the case back to the Chancellor and ordered her to recuse herself from contempt proceedings. The Court directed the Chancery Clerk to return $1,500 to Matthew Thompson.
The Court also refused to refer Judge Hodges-Linzey to the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, counseling Angela she could file a complaint against the Chancellor either under her own name or anonymously at the Commission.
27 comments:
This birthing person(mother) stole the boys father away from him and turned the boy against the father. This is 15 years in the making, the mother should get a 15 year sentence in prison for this. The boy will likely be derailed for life from these actions. Just a mother telling a child their father doesn't love them derails a child in so many ways and is a favorite thing to do by certain people.
As the stomach turns.
Still waiting for a double hyphen. Who'll be the first?
This was a fund (sic) read, notwithstanding the hanging participles, incorrect pronoun appearances and various disconnections of confusion.
Am I supposed to believe that the citizens of Hinds County have elected an incompetent chancellor? Color me shocked. Not.
Power hungry
This is the classic hateful/spiteful ex-wife inflicting as much pain as possible on her ex-husband through their child. If this conduct destroys the child's life so be it. It's the cost of war. Never marry a crazy woman. That sex isn't worth it.
Hinds County Chancery and Hinds County Circuit Courts are a minefield for lawyers. You have to watch where you step and which Judge is assigned your case. There are a few good ones and you never know who you will get. Some lawyers just avoid the mess and stay out altogether.
The son will soon be found in the annals of WLBT.
So typical for Hinds County/Jackson.
3:58 is spot on!! Thank you!
There is only one chancellor in the state who is worse than this one….Judge Willie Perkins.
I’m glad the MS Supreme Court took the judge to task, but I don’t feel like it went nearly far enough. They are well aware of what is happening (or not happening in the case of due process), but still haven’t slapped her down hard enough yet. She’s a power hungry crazy woman. Period.
Especially if you’re white. Media doesn’t speak of it but black judges will punish white lawyers
You are welcome.
And white defendants.
When the judge has a hyphen or a name with Willie-ness
You know you’re in for just a whole bunch of silliness.
A $6,000 medical debt? Wow. Wonder what that was about. He bought her a pair of tits and then somehow the marriage went south, reckon?
7:18 Please stop generalizing. It's silly. That is a knife that has cut both ways. No race has a monopoly on unfairness.
7:18. I thought it was hyperbole until it happened to me. The path we’re on will not end well
I think this particular judge was unqualified when she was elected. She came to the bench with a lot of personal baggage, that she implemented into her own "policy." And I don't understand why a trial that can't be concluded in a day has to pick up several months down the road.
That said, the docket report for this case looks like more than 10 years of fighting over child support and visitation, and that's after the divorce was granted. Multiple lawyers came and went, and drama continued.
Eventually, the father surrendered his parental rights, which I assume was for the purpose of terminating child support. The maternal grandmother was clearly in the mix, keeping the pot stirred.
This whole case just turns my stomach. The legal system should never be used to maintain and ongoing and never-ending feud. In my opinion, the point is to develop your case, get your day in court, present your case, get an order adjudicating the case, then move on.
When the fight is the whole point, you need a therapist, not a lawyer.
First off and foremost it is obvious that this is not the entire story. The lady had no chance to tell her side. No defense. How can anyone Judge. Also looking at records there seems to be a long history of domestic violence and extremely shady behavior by this father who appears to have never been out of contempt or had the interest in the child. This child was old enough to speak for himself. Every one can speculate but until you know the full story then judgement should not be given. This Judge was wrong and has a long history of abusing her authority. She is dangerous and should not be allowed to do what she does.
Quite the opposite. Looking into records this father has never been out of contempt. A long history of bad behavior. You couldn't have this more wrong. This child tried to speak for himself and was ignored. From documents Counselors were ignored along with all the warning signs of abuse.
You could not have it more wrong if you actually looked into this case and its facts. Sounds like you need to seek counseling for relationship issues. This ex husband has long history of issues and never been out of contempt according to documents.
It is obvious that you do not have any legal knowledge or experience. The legal debt had to be involving a minor. Sounds like you need to seek help for mother issues. Speculating and saying things like this is sickening.
2:31/2:33/2:35/2:37: You are obviously the same person, and most like either the woman, or her mother.
A non-custodial parent's failure to pay child support is NEVER an excuse to deny visitation. That's the law.
If there is an allegation of abuse, then Child Services should be involved, and the case goes back in front of the chancellor to determine whether visitation should be modified to include supervision, or even terminated.
"The lady had no chance to tell her side."
Actually, the lady did have a chance to tell her side. She was called as a witness during the father's case-in-chief.
It was her attorney who didn't have a chance to defend himself, after she threw him under the bus.
The witness who is first called on cross-examination really doesn’t have a chance to tell her story. She can only answer questions posed by the attorney conducting the cross-examination. That attorney wants only to elicit information that helps his client’s case. Direct examination by her attorney would be the chance to tell her story from her perspective. Her attorney chose not to conduct direct examination during the husband’s case for a reason. He wanted to wait until he could question her as part of her case, rather than present her case piecemeal.
Post a Comment