Everything But A Child of God

One can only assume Mississippi doesn't have a corner on the market for injustice . . . there's always hope (and, of course Illinois politics.. and then there's South Carolina governors and Nevada Senators, but I digress).

Say it ain't so.

Well, this morning, while poking around my usual suspect list for interesting tidbits and to generally keep myself informed of the ongoings of my surroundings, I found something.

As is my usual, I scrolled down the right portion of my blog to read the "usual reads." These are snippets of blogs of my prior choosing (would that be chosings? plural) with their most recent blog postings titles/first few lines.

One my usual reads is a blog authored by a Mississippi lawyer in Oxford - nmisscommentor.com. Sometimes this blog has law/politics "stuff" that peaks/picques (pick one) my interest - and today was one of those days. The snippet that caught my eye read as follows:

NMissCommentor - Calling a Mississippi Supreme Court opinion everything but a Child of God - I want to start by noting that the opinions expressed in pleadings
quoted in this post do not represent the opinions of the author of this post or
the owne...

I read Supreme Court opinions like most tired moms read trashy novels. I'm just wired that way. So, I hopped over to read what the fuss was about in this "opinion".

Turns out, all but one Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court voted to strike some language from a recent Court filing ( a recent motion filed by a Jackson attorney who has been practicing 45 years - not exactly a young knucklehead smart ass just out of the gate law school grad set on making some sort of name for himself).

Why did the Mississippi Supreme Court want to strike language from a motion filed before it? Well, because they didn't like the language. Why didn't they like the language? Well, because it makes them look bad. Why does it make them look bad? Well, because it is bad. Why is it bad?

Well, it's bad because they reversed a jury verdict -- a few years ago -- in a case where the Plaintiffs won (some kids of a man who died after just having purchased a life insurance policy from Prudential). The man had purchased the policy, paid for the policy, policy had been issued, then the man stroked and died shortly thereafter. You can guess where this is going . . . Prudential, of course, didn't want to come clean with the million dollar policy since the man up and died just after buying the policy.

That's why the kids sued Prudential. Case went to trial, lasted a while, lots of witnesses, lots of documents, lots of back and forth . . . 12 jurors unanimously decided that Prudential should pay up as promised.

Prudential appeals to the Mississippi Supreme Court. Mississippi Supreme Court rules for Prudential. Case closed. Kids don't win after all.

Turns out .. now Prudential, who has now miraculously gotten the State Supreme Court on their side, wants the kids to pay a cost bill of half a million dollars!

Ok, let me get this straight. Man buys insurance policy. Pays money for it. Contract is signed. Policy is issued. Man strokes next day. Man dies weeks later. Prudential says 'doh!' - uh we're not paying for that. Kids say osur (southern for oh yes you are). Prudential says so sue us. Kids say we will. They did. Prudential didn't. Kids win - jury says so. Prudential cries, Supreme Court of Miss give them a hankie, and says ok, you don't have to do it.

Years pass, a couple things happen in lower court involving rules of civil procedure and a couple things happen involving appellate rules of procedure ...

Travel to the future - Bam - Prudential says - 'ok kids' now that we don't have to pay you after all, we're gonna make you pay us - and that'll be $500,000 dollars please. Hand is out, waiting for cash to be placed in it.

Kids say - you gotta be jokin'. Kids' attorney (practicing a scant 45 years now) says - you gotta be jokin'.

Kids' attorney writes a motion. Kids' attorney writes a blistering motion. Kids' attorney writes a motion and calls names (names that are a bunch of things, but none of which are a child of God).

Kids' attorney is flat out pissed. Any normal human being would be so justly pissed.

This is what the kids' attorney wrote.

Now, the Supreme Court of Mississippi is pissed. They don't like what the kids' attorney wrote. Makes 'em look bad. It officially became a pissing match. The Mississippi Supreme Court voted to "strike the language" of kids' attorney's language in his motion (all but one Justice did that):

In Re: The Prudential Life Insurance Company of America, Pruco Life Insurance Company, Patty M. Mace Stewart, Sally Stewart Hester, Giles Stewart and Larry
Stewart; Hinds Circuit Court 1st District; LC Case #: 251-02-1269-CIV; Ruling Judge: Bobby DeLaughter; Disposition: Third motion for rehearing on the merits
filed by counsel for appellees is dismissed as not properly before this Court. Rule 40(a) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure clearly states that “[a]fter a motion for rehearing has been denied, no further motion for rehearing shall be filed by any party.” This Court finds that appellees’ third motion for rehearing is prohibited by the rules and is frivolous.

The Court further finds that this motion for rehearing filed by counsel for the appellees contains language showing disrespect for this Court. Pursuant to Rule 40(c) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court finds that this motion for rehearing should be stricken.

The motion for rehearing filed by counsel for appellees is hereby stricken.

Graves, P.J., does not join the order because he is of the opinion that the motion for rehearing should not be stricken.

Kitchens and Pierce, JJ., not participating. Order entered.

Emphasis with italics was added.

- - -

More thoughts.

I had known nothing about this case until this morning. I had known nothing about kids' attorney. I know not a lot (but slightly more) about Mississippi Supreme Court Justices.

I know much about anger though - and I understand why this attorney wrote what he did. And I'm glad he did it.

There is a place for anger. Temperance yes, and I'd say most of the time it needs to be shown. There is a place though to say what you need to say.

Say what you need to say.

- - -

A regular commentor over at nmisscommentor.com is named "A Friend of the Law". I do not know who that person is - although I've suspected for a while he/she is a judge somewhere, maybe not .. but I usually (probably more toward the always) appreciate his/her comments.

This was A Friend of the Law's comment on this story at the other blog. And I thought it was appropriate. I just have a slightly stronger twist of opinion, although not really alot different.

" . . . I have read the Response and believe that it is way over the top.

While I admire Alston’s passion, and agree with his negative opinion re the Court’s previous decision (written by Easley, someone who I personally know from previous dealings to be an idiot and less than honorable), I don’t think he did his clients or the Bar/state he serves any favors with this type of verbal assault upon the MS Supreme Court in a filed court document.

It is one thing to express one’s opinion on a blog, in public discourse, etc., but yet another to interject the same into a filing with the highest state Court (or any MS Court, for that matter). I am certain that if it were not for the Supreme Court’s respect for Alston’s years of experience and honorable service, he would have been sanctioned by the MS Supreme Court.

Most any other lawyer in MS who did the same thing would have been sanctioned. He should feel fortunate that he wasn’t and that the offending portions of the pleading were stricken from the record. Aside from the inappropriateness of the manner of delivery, I find little to disagree with in Alston’s assessment of the situation.

Had he said this on this blog, I would have provided a big harummpff in agreement.

Like I said above, I truly admire his passion. At a time when government and court actions are eroding our traditional constitutional rights at an alarming pace, many of us are going to have to be more outspoken and passionate in our objections to such actions.

Apathy leads to tyranny.

Personally, I don’t intend to be a silent victim.

Me neether.

Me neether.

Here's to Alex J. Alston, Jr. And here's to A Friend of the Law. May you always say what you need to say, and may you always remain faithful to the rule of law.

Here here.