Jackson Jambalaya

Attorney Curt Crowley filed a motion for recusal yesterday in Hinds County Chancery Court on behalf of this website in Motorola v. Hinds County. Jackson Jambalaya filed a motion to intervene on May 24, 2011 seeking a copy of the settlement agreement between Hinds County and Motorola. JJ filed the motion for recusal after numerous efforts to obtain a hearing date from the court were unsuccessful.

Mr. Crowley sent a request to the court via email requesting a hearing date on June 1, 2011. Mr. Crowley called the court and left messages. Mr. Crowley finally sent a letter on September 16, 2011 to the court with the same request. Judge Thomas still did not set a hearing date despite what Mississippi Code Section 25-61-13 states:

"(3) Proceedings arising under this section shall take precedence on the docket over all other matters and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way. Such suits may be heard in termtime or in vacation."

Hinds County retained Attorney Precious Martin, husband of board attorney Crystal Martin and son-in-law of the senior chancery judge, to pursue legal action against Motorola. The county signed a contingency fee agreement with Mr. Martin. The two parties settled the case.

This correspondent filed a public records request with Hinds County seeking a copy of the settlement in the lawsuit. Hinds County did not fulfill or deny my request but instead notified Motorola. Motorola filed a petition for a protective order in Hinds County Chancery Court requesting the court permanently seal the settlement. This correspondent filed a motion to intervene asking the court to order Hinds County to release a copy of the settlement agreement. Hinds filed a response opposing the motion. See links posted below for copies of the documents filed by each side.

It is the position of this correspondent that since Hinds County IS a public body, the settlement is a public record and the public is entitled view it. The case is civil, not criminal in nature and is not part of an investigation. Such accountability is the foundation of representative government. The court will be the proper forum for me to discuss the merits of this motion.

The motion states:

"The movant has attempted for more than six months to set his motion to intervene for hearing, bu the Court has failed to set the matter for hearing or respond to movant's counsel's requests to set the motion for hearing. The failure of the court to set the motion for hearing has caused unjust prejudice to the movant and to the public, as the delay has enabled Hinds County to hide the expenditure of public funds form the personal enrichment of public employees and their relatives. The Court's inaction on the motion to intervene is likewise disturbing because the delay in adjudicating this matter violates the provisions of Mississippi Code Section 25-61-13*. Viewed in the totality of the circumstances, the unjustified delay in setting a hearing or ruling upon the motion creates the appearance of impropriety.

All Chancellors in this district previously recused themselves in related public records litigation between these same parties (see post linked below). That litigation involved public records sought by Motorola to assist it in defending the Circuit Court action filed by Hinds County. If recusal was warranted in the previous litigation, it is certainly warranted in the instant case. Unlike the previous litigation, the instant case involves the expenditure of public funds to insiders. At least one of those insiders is a close relative of the Senior Chancery Judge in this district. The Chancellors of this district should recuse themselves for the same reasons they recused themselves in the previous case.

Judge Thomas either currently or recently has a financial interest in other litigation, wherein he served as co-counsel with Precious T. Martin, Sr., the attorney in the instant litigation (From the footnote: Two antitrust cases were appointed as "Special Assistant Attorney General" to prosecute for Mississippi. Upon information and belief, the attorney's fees from one or both of these actions have not yet been awarded and disbursed. Judge Thomas and Mr. Martin both have a "continuing pecuniary interest in the outcome of these cases."). The business relationship between Judge Thomas and Mr. Martin gives the appearance of impropriety, as this relationship would cause a reasonable person to doubt Judge Thomas' impartiality in this case.

The public funds referenced in the records in issue were used in part for the personal enrichment of Crystal Wise Martin, who serves as Attorney to the Hinds County Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Martin is s the wife of Precious Martin. Mrs. Martin is also the daughter of Judge Patricia D. Wise, the Senior Chancery Court Judge in this district. As stated previously, Mr. and Mrs. Martin have a strong personal interest in avoiding disclosure of these records. Any ruling adverse to Hinds County would also be adverse to Mr. and Mrs. Martin. Considering that Mrs. Martin is the daughter of the Senior Chancery Judge in this district, a reasonable person would have doubts as to whether the Chancellors in this district could render a judgment adverse to Mrs. Martin's personal interests.

These facts, either singularly or cumulatively, necessitate the recusal of Judge Thomas and the Chancellors of the Fifth Chancery Court District. There exists a strong appearance of impropriety in the Chancellors of this district presiding over this case. A reasonable person, knowing all these facts and circumstances, would question the impartiality of the Chancellors of this district. For this reason, the movant respectfully requests that Judge J. Dewayne Thomas and all other Chancellors in the district recuse themselves from further participation in this case. The Movant further respectfully requests that this matter be referred to the Mississippi Supreme Court for the appointment of a Special Chancery Judge.


*Mississippi Code Section 25-61-13:
"(3) Proceedings arising under this section shall take precedence on the docket over all other matters and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way. Such suits may be heard in termtime or in vacation."

JJ files response to Hinds County
Hinds response
Hinds files response and tries to keep settlement secret
Motion to intervene post
Motorola public records lawsuit against Hinds
Precious Martin has a sweet contract

Note: WLBT is joining in the motion to intervene. Other media outlets, yes, including the JFP, are welcome to contact us if interested in doing so as well. A government agency filing lawsuits and then sealing agreements involving such large sums of money and family relationships is indeed a matter of concern for the fourth estate.

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy rolled out the updates to its Seethespending.org website. The new version provides readers with spending records from 62 counties in Mississippi. MCPP President Forest Thigpen pointed out that Hinds County was the only county that did not respond to the request. WAPT's Bulldog Simmons reported

"WAPT's Scott Simmons went to the Hinds County Chancery Clerk's office to find out why the county hadn't responded.

"I will accept some responsibility here, but I am not going to accept the total responsibility because I sent it to the board attorney," said Chancery Clerk Eddie Jean Carr.

Carr said she received the request from the center on July 16, 2010, and forwarded it to the board attorney three days later.

"After your questions, we have gotten a call from the county attorney," Thigpen told Simmons.

Thigpen said the nonprofit group had waited 14 months for a response. Crystal Martin, of the county attorney's office, said a response was made to the request, but the number called was disconnected. Martin said it was assumed that the public information request was withdrawn."

As my old friend TNT on Tigerroar.com would say, UH-HUH. This is typical behavior for Hinds County attorneys as they repeatedly play games with public records request. When Mr. Thigpen made these comments this morning, I immediately assumed Ms. Carr gave the request to Ms. Martin as Ms. Carr runs a pretty tight ship and has never been linked to the controversies produced by the Supervisors and their lawyers. Sure enough, WAPT confirmed what I thought. I considered it to be a typical experience when filing public records requests in Hinds County.

When this correspondent filed a public records request for a copy of the Motorola Settlement, Attorney Precious Martin sent me an answer via certified mail. Yup. Certified mail. Then there is one I filed in April. I submitted this request in person at the courthouse downtown. A copy was made, stamped, and initialed so it could be shown if needed at a later date it was indeed submitted on that date. Its a practice I follow after other agencies such as Medicaid and the City of Jackson have somehow lost my requests only to suddenly find them when I produced the receipt.

The response to my request was late by one week. When I pointed out they were a week late and the date I submitted them, I was told she "disagreed with the characterization" of when it was submitted. Yes, stating the date on the receipt is a "characterization", something to be manipulated, you know, fuzzy math. two plus two could be characterized as being four but it could be characterized as being three, or five, or whatever I say it is.

Then there is the change order provided to the FCC for one million dollars against Sprint/Nextel by Precious Martin. The change order was mentioned in the minutes. It was submitted to the FCC. It definitely exists yet when I submitted a public records request for it this year, Ms. Martin wrote in a response the county "was not in possession" of the change order. Got to love Hinds County sophistry. However, a case last year showed the lengths to which Hinds County will pursue to avoid complying with public records requests.

Motorola filed a public records request on April 13, 2010. Hinds County "failed to produce or deny access in writing along with a statement as to the specific reasons for the denial of access to such records within such time period." The records requested were board minutes, reports, emails, accounting reports regarding security for Hinds County circuit judges and their courtrooms. Hinds County replied nearly a month later that such information was..... attorney work product or related to litigation. yes, board minutes are exempt from public records law if you claim work product or lawsuits.

The lawsuit dragged on for over a year as Hinds County attorneys used every possible excuse to delay final judgment. Judge Zebert found for Motorola and awarded over $8,000 in attorney's fees to Motorola. Hinds naturally appealed the judgment but Motorola filed a satisfaction of judgment and release on April 28, 2011. About the same time it settled the civil lawsuit over the use of the radio system by Madison and Ridgeland with Motorola.

So today we get the "phone is disconnected" excuse. Given Hinds County's handling of other requests, one can only speculate why Ms. Martin suddenly forgot how to use the United States Post Office. While she is explaining that, perhaps she can explain why she did not inform the supervisors they needed to get permission from the Wireless Commission before purchasing over $100,000 in EF Johnson radios or why a contract with Derrick Johnson was legal when he was not a licensed attorney.

Just like the Energizer Bunny. It just keeps going and going and going...