Supreme Court Candidate Jim Kitchens lights it up in Neshoba!

From a campaign release:

If you were not at the Neshoba County Fair on Thursday, then you missed a great speech by our man Kitch.

In short, he laid out exactly why a change is needed on the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Kitch told a crowd of hundreds of people that he believes the Mississippi Supreme Court under Justice Jim Smith’s leadership is “out of whack”.

“The more I see what our highest court is doing, and the more I hear about the incumbent’s plans for the future, the more I’m convinced a change should be made,” Kitchens said.

Kitchens called into question Smith’s repeated plans to push for an appointed judiciary, saying it would not end corruption but instead would inject even more politics into the system.

“According to his logic, we can stop corruption in the courts by stripping the people of their constitutional right to vote and giving that power to a politician,” Kitchens said. “I say, if we can trust the people to elect our governor, and we can trust the people to elect our Legislature, then we can trust the people to elect our judges.”

Of course, Smith stood up right after Kitch and said he may believe we should have appointed judges, but he won't do anything about it.

Perhaps the promises he made when he became chief justice four years ago and the promises he made back in February were just lies.

Kitchens also pointed out that Smith has gone back on his word to voters about imposing term limits on himself.

After taking away a person’s right to vote for judges, Smith would recommend that judges serve no more than two terms of six years. However, Smith is currently seeking his third term of 8 years – even after saying in two different elections that he would not seek an additional term if elected.

While praising Smith’s personal character, Kitchens questioned whether or not the chief justice’s professional actions were leading the court down the wrong path.

Kitchens gave several examples of how Smith has sat on cases and ruled on behalf of his largest financial backers, despite calls of recusal from attorneys.

Kitchens also pointed to the activist nature of Smith and the court, which has overturned nearly 90 percent of jury verdicts against large corporations where an individual was harmed due to negligence or wrongdoing.

“Now, I’m not talking about frivolous lawsuits,” Kitchens said. “I’m talking about a woman who went into a hospital with a mild case of pneumonia and came out a brain-damaged paraplegic.”

Kitchens regaled the crowd with stories about his childhood when he worked for his father at the family’s grocery business and how he ended up in law school because his dad was fearful of allowing his little brother to go all the way to Ole Miss for college by himself.

Kitchens also talked about some of the more trying times in his life, such as when his 3-year-old son, Dan, battled cancer.

“Cancer is just about the worst word a mother and father can ever hear ... You learn a lot you didn’t know about prayer. And you learn that it works,” Kitchens said. “Dan was 3 then. He’s 34 now, and he practices law with his dad. That makes me mighty proud, and mighty thankful.”

Kitchens also told the story of when he was appointed to defend Byron De La Beckwith in the Medgar Evers case.

“Beckwith was for everything I was against, and against everything I was for,” Kitchens said. “During that trial, my family and I were harassed and threatened by Beckwith’s friends,” Kitchens said his heart sank when the judge told him the news.

“It would have been easier for my family and better for my career if I had come up with an excuse -- come up with a lie -- to tell the judge so that he would have appointed somebody else,” Kitchens said. “But to me, it was more important to do my duty than to take the easy way out.”

To view the entire speech, visit:

http://www.kitchensforjustice.com/2008/07/speech-to-the-neshoba-county-fair/

To download a pdf version of the file, visit:

http://www.kitchensforjustice.com/uploads/neshoba-speech.pdf

Scruggs pleads

Dickie Scruggs pleaded guilty this morning of conspiracy to bribe a judge. Sid Backstrom has also pleaded guilty.

Click here to read the Sun Herald's coverage.

Dissenting Opinions On The Pro-Republican / Pro-Wicker Decision

Supreme Court Justice Graves:

GRAVES, JUSTICE, DISSENTING: ¶32. Much of what has been written by the majority in the instant case would be dismissed as mere gobbledygook but for the fact that it is being promulgated by a venerable institution in our democracy, the Mississippi Supreme Court. This majority decision erodes that veneration.

brownsox @ Daily Kos:

The majority has ruled, essentially, that a year can be intepreted as meaning 365 days, rather than a calendar year, and that the meaning of the word "shall" is ambiguous in this context and does not necessarily mean something that will occur in the future.

I agree with Justice Graves that that is a rather ridiculous intepretation, but it is what it is.

Statement by Musgrove Campaign Manager Amanda Crumley:

While it is disappointing that Governor Barbour seeks to anoint the next United States Senator from Mississippi instead of letting the people of this great state vote as quickly as possible in a currently scheduled March election and in accordance with state law, the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision today does not change the direction of Ronnie Musgrove’s campaign for the United States Senate.

The bad news today is not that we now have a longer campaign to run, but that Mississippi will be stuck for another nine months with the same type of Washington nonsense from Roger Wicker.

Mississippi Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Dowdy:

“I respectfully disagree with the court’s decision,” Dowdy said. “We had hoped that the people would be permitted to vote as soon as possible and elect a senator rather than have a politician appoint someone to serve for a long period of time.

Legal Schnauzer On Judge Henry Wingate

Legal Schnauzer:

I certainly don't claim to have perfect knowledge when it comes to news coverage of justice matters. But I don't ever recall reading a story where a judge has so clearly been shown to be corrupt in his actions on the bench.

Oh sure, there have been cases where judges have been shown to be "on the take" in behind-the-scenes ways. The Operation Greylord case in Chicago comes to mind.

But I don't recall another case where a judge was so clearly, and almost certainly so intentionally, committing fraud right there in the broad daylight of open court. And in a high-profile case, no less.

How did Wingate do it? By making unlawful rulings that essentially prevented defendants Minor, Teel, and John Whitfield from putting on a defense. And by giving jury instructions on bribery and honest-services mail fraud that did not even come close to reflecting what the law actually is. The end result? Paul Minor, Wes Teel, and John Whitfield are political prisoners--in the good ole US of A.

Check It Out.

Money can buy you judges - if you're big business

Miss. Chief Justice Jim Smith held a press conference yesterday about elected v. appointed judges. Smith, who is up for re-election this year, wants Mississippi to revive a panel from 1993, study the current system, and then have attorneys and businesses nominate and appoint appellate judges.

While there are still too many issues to decide whether we need to reform the current system, there are two immediate problems here.

1. Judges could still be enticed to submit favorable verdicts with the reward being appointments.
2. Businesses have no business being in the courtroom as the judge.

Why is it okay that if you have a whole lot of money, you are suddenly qualified to assess a attorney's abilities and knowledge in regard to law?

Answer: When big business financed your campaign! Smith's campaign finance report from 2000 is filled with contributions from businesses and business PAC's. And when the U.S. Chamber has vowed to launch independent expenditure campaigns wherever they are needed this year- up to $60M- it is no wonder business has such an influence on who our judges are.

Mixed News For Former Judge Wes Teel

From The Gulf Coast Realist

The Gulf Coast Sur-Realist is happy to report that Wes is well enough to have been discharged from the hospital and is now back at the prison. A mixed blessing, that. Wes is making a recovery but, strangely, the prison has yet to notify the family of his heart attack or surgery.

I wish him luck and hope that Congress will work to follow the possible cases of selective prosecution.

Information on how to assist him is available at The Gulf Coast Realist.

Excellent Analysis On The DeLaughter Opinion and Why It May Hold Up At The Supreme Court

WIll Bardwell offers his analysis HERE
Will Bardwell:

"[I]t bears mention that [the principles upon which the court relies] are widely recognized. Eight of the nine current justices of the Mississippi Supreme Court authored opinions upon which this Court relies," Judge DeLaughter wrote. "Also cited herein are two opinions of the Mississippi Court of Appeals, written by Judge Leslie Southwick, who now serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit."

Judge DeLaughter also acknowledged the partisan "political implications" of the conflict before him. "[T]his Court is well aware that its interpretation of the subject statute will not be afforded any deference on appeal," the judge wrote. "To be sure ... this is not a decision that any sane circuit judge would wish to make."

Bardwell also dissects the opinion to reveal that instead of a simple win/lose this decision includes three seperate opinions. One agrees with Governor Haley Barbour. On the other two DeLaughter sides with Attorney General Jim Hood.

Judge DeLaughter split his decision, essentially handing one win to Gov. Haley Barbour and two to Attorney General Jim Hood. He agreed with Barbour's argument that the judicial branch could not issue a writ of mandamus against the chief executive -- "Even if Mississippi case authorities did not bar writs of mandamus and other injunctive relief against the Governor, this Court would nevertheless be disinclined to issue such a writ under the circumstances of this case," he wrote -- but refused to accept the governor's suggestion that the court lacked any authority to act. Citing a 1906 case in which the state Supreme Court noted that judicial interference in any election is proper only to prevent a constitutional or statutory violation, DeLaughter concluded that "[t]he declaratory relief subsequently addressed and awarded herein is sufficient, in the Court's opinion, in affording an adequate remedy for the subject wrong..."

But with regard to interpreting Miss. Code Ann. 23-15-855, Judge DeLaugher sided emphatically with the attorney general. "The term 'the general election day,' 'as the time for electing a senator,' may not logically be be construed to refer to any general election day other than the one that will be held in the same calendar year as the vacancy," Judge DeLaughter wrote. "If the Legislature had intended any other general election day, it could easily have written 'the next general election day' without affixing it to the calendar year of the vacancy..."

Check out the entire opinion at Will Bardwell's site.

Judicial Corruption in Mississippi

Here are some poignant excerpts from a recent post at Legal Schnauzer.com.

Click here for the full piece. All references to Horton are Scott Horton from Harpers, who has been investigating the trial of Paul Minor.

What is shocking, or "breathtaking" to use Horton's term, is just how blatant Wingate was about it. He made little, if any, effort to cover up what he was doing.

I suspect that's because he knows that his actions will spark little, if any, outrage in the legal community. Lawyers, even the smartest and most honest among them, have a natural inclination to protect fellow members of the clan, at least a little. When Horton interviewed lawyers in Mississippi about the Minor case, many of them--even those who disagreed vehemently with the judges handling of the case--seemed to pull their punches. They were reluctant to call Wingate what he is: a crook.

Horton adds some important information to the Minor saga:
* He points out that federal prosecutors easily can time the return of an indictment to coincide with the availability of a certain, desired judge. This is a quaint form of judge shopping, which prosecutors almost certainly practiced to ensure that Wingate would handle the Minor case.
* He points out a key fact that we have addressed here at Legal Schnauzer: Wingate's jury instrution on bribery did not require a quid pro quo, even though Fifth Circuit precedent clearly requires such a "something-for-something" arrangement. This jury instruction, Horton says, was "unconscionable." I've got a better word for it: corrupt.
* He points out another key fact that we have noted: Wingate wrongfully did not allow the defense to present expert witnesses, showing that judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield made rulings that were correct under the law at the time. "Wingate was rather dramatically remapping Mississippi law as he went along," Horton writes. Bingo!
* He notes that Wingate allowed the jury to keep copies of the government indictment from day one, with no corresponding documents from the defense. And yet when it came to the complex jury instructions, Wingate did not allow jurors to have a copy of those. And the judge actually conducted voir dire examination of defense witnesses outside hearing of the jury, reviewing in advance what would be asked and how it would be answered. Wingate took a "blue pencil" to the testimony, "essentially doing the prosecution's work for them," Horton writes.

Henry Wingate's handling of the Minor case is a pox on American justice. Let's hope Rep. Cohen can lead the effort in the new year to expose scoundrels like Wingate, who have taught us the true perverted meaning of "justice" in the Age of Rove.

A couple of points I would add to Horton's account:
* This bears repeating: Not only did Wingate not get the law right in the Minor case, he did not even get the right kind of law right. He unlawfully used Mississippi state bribery law in crafting jury instructions for a federal case. That's a bit like getting convicted in South Dakota based on South Carolina law.
* Horton says he does not like the defendants' chances of winning on appeal in the Minor case, citing the GOP-controlled and notoriously partisan nature of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. If Horton is right about that, we might as well shut down our courts, blow up the law schools, tear up all bar cards, and start over from scratch. (Actually, I think that's a pretty good idea anyway.) This case, by law, has to be overturned on too many grounds to mention here. Democrats and others who are concerned about justice should watch this appeal with the utmost concern. Let me state again: By law, this case must be overturned on multiple grounds. If it is not, I would suggest that Congressional action must be taken.
* Here is an even more important point: Wingate was leading a trial that accused Mississippi state judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield of honest-services mail fraud. At the heart of that offense is using the U.S. mails in furtherance of an unlawful and dishonest scheme. We have shown that Teel and Whitfield did not even come close to committing that offense. But guess who almost certainly did? Wingate himself. Many of Wingate's unlawful rulings came in open court, in front of God and everybody. But if the U.S. mails were used at any point in his scheme to rob citizens of their intangible right to honest services--and Wingate had reason to foresee that the mails would be used--Wingate committed a federal crime. And the same would apply to any judges on the Fifth Circuit who vote to uphold the unlawful trial verdict in the Minor case. The mails certainly will be used in the appeals process.
* What about impeachment of a federal judge? That is a rarity in our country, and my research indicates it would be unlikely in Wingate's case. But the issue already is on the table in Wingate's neck of the woods. And naturally, the judge in the cross hairs is a Democratic appointee, by Bill Clinton. But compare the alleged wrongdoing of this federal judge to what we know Wingate has done. Whose behavior was worse. Given that Wingate is responsible for three human beings being wrongfully imprisoned, I don't think it's even a close call.

Another View of the Scruggs Indictment

When Dickie Scruggs was indicted recently, it made many people happy. Of course, bloggers and traditional journalists are thrilled to have something so dramatic to write about. Democrats and left wing blogs are excited because Scruggs gave a quarter of a million dollars to the Bush campaign - plus he was Republican Senator Trent Lott's brother in law. Republicans and right wing blogs thought the indictment was great because Scruggs was a trial attorney (ie, devil incarnate), he gave quite a bit of money to Democrats, and he was about to have a fundraiser for Hillary at his house.

All in all, this guy looks guilty as hell and seems not to have any friends at all. NOT SO FAST.

No friends? According to the Wall Street Journal, Scruggs and his wife just had a party at his house in Oxford, MS with over 200 friends. One of those friends, Robert Khayat, the chancellor of Ole Miss, said, "The town really did turn out for them." Another friend was the most famous lawyer from Mississippi, John Grisham. Oxford's Mayor was there and said, "People appreciate him for his support of the community, and we're all willing to stand by and support him." Another friend was Richard Howorth, the owner of Square Books, the famous bookstore and literary center of Oxford and maybe Mississippi.

So why are all these people so supportive of someone who looks so guilty? First, we should heed the words of John Grisham. "In a situation like this I’m always reminded how quickly we abandon the presumption of innocence. There’s always such a rush to judgment. " Grisham read the indictment against Scruggs and said, "As a former criminal defense lawyer, I started thinking about how I would defend it and started looking for gaps and holes."

After all the initial buzz of the indictment, those gaps and holes are becoming more prevalent. As Grisham said, "It’s only one side of what happened. There’s a whole lot more to the story. One thing is that there are a lot of recorded statements in the indictment but none from Dickie. There are no allegations that he delivered cash or was part of it."

The biggest argument against Scruggs' guilt is something along the lines that he was too smart to do something so stupid. Or why would a big time trial attorney bribe a judge over a small potatoes fee dispute. Since there doesn't appear to be any concrete evidence against Scruggs, the prosecution will have to answer that to the satisfaction of a jury. And there are no obvious answers.

The lawyer who sued Scruggs, John Jones, has one theory, which is outlined in an article in Fortune Magazine. Jones said he filed the suit in Oxford hoping to shame Scruggs. “I wanted a jury to hear it in Dickie’s backyard," he said. He thinks Scruggs wanted the judge to send the case to arbitration, which is a closed proceeding. But that theory doesn't seem to hold up, because most lawyers think the case would have gone to arbitration anyway. And even Jones admits to being shocked when he learned about the indictment.

The person caught on tape is Timothy Balducci. Those in attendance at the party in Oxford were contemptuous of him. Remember that Oxford is a small town, and everyone knows everyone. One comment kind of sums up their attitude: "This is a clear case of a young man wanting to endear himself to Dickie Scruggs in hopes that he might one day have a chair at his table."

I do feel fairly certain that this is not a political prosecution like the one of Paul Minor, Oliver Diaz, and the two judges. The prosecuting US Attorney in the latter case (in the Southern District of Mississippi) was Dunn Lampton, a political appointee with a serious lack of ethical standards. In the Scruggs case (in the Northern District of Mississippi), the US Attorney is Jim Greenlee, who by all appearances is an ethical and professional attorney.

Crossposted on The Natchez Blog.

A Minor Disagreement

In early October I asked Matthew Krell to read over some writings at the Legal Schnauzer website and give a response. I asked him to do so because I have no legal background and the Minor case is very complicated and almost entirely related to law. Here is what he had to say:
The Virtue of Virtue in a Venal World

Krell takes issue with the writings because he doesn't believe we should lightly throw around charges of partisanship in non-partisan positions.

This is the single, overarching issue; it's a simple return back to the culture of corruption. How can we trust any officeholder that was complicit in the development of this system, where we can believe that our judges aren't impartial and nautral? And that's the most frightening thing:

That we can believe that this is no longer a nation of laws, but of men.

Legal Schnauzer recently gave a response in two parts to Krell's criticism.

The first part suggests that Krell is too idealistic saying:

Our differences, I think, are attributable to age and experiences. I gather that Mr. Krell is a law student, so I'm guessing he's in the 22-25 age range. That would make him about half my age. And by virtue of my age, I'm guessing I've developed a more hardened perspective on life than has Mr. Krell.

Ultimately, I'm not sure that Mr. Krell and I disagree all that much. He's embarking on a career in the law, and it's probably healthy for him to think that he's heading into a noble profession. Meanwhile, I've seen the darker side of the legal world.

My Common Critic Part I
I'm not a big fan of the tone here as it could be interpreted (whether it is or not) as disrespectful, but the author attempts to be civil in the piece.



The second part addresses specific points raised by Krell and appears to reflect significant research:
My Common Critic II

Here's where Mr. Krell and I certainly agree. He writes: "What has happened when officeholders on trial for corruption can claim that their opponents are attempting to bring them down, and have it actually be plausible?"

Then he says it all goes back to the "culture of corruption."

"How can we trust any officeholder that was complicit in the development of this system, where we can believe that our judges aren't impartial and neutral? And that's the most frightening thing: That we can believe that this is no longer a nation of laws, but of men."

I hear you, brother. I hear you.

It will be interesting to see how the Congressional investigation concludes concerning possible selective prosecution of Democrats and heavy Democratic funders for actions also done by Republicans, but not prosecuted for.

Read This, Read It All / Adam Lynch On Our Courts

Adam Lynch has this very, very good article in the Jackson Free Press:

The Reality of Tort Reform

Big Surpise: Barbour Rewards Loyal Republican With Judgeship

The Sun Herald reports that:

Gov. Haley Barbour on Monday appointed James "Jimmy" McClure III to the District 17 Circuit Court in northwest Mississippi.

McClure, 51, of Sardis, will serve through January 2009 in the seat vacated by Ann Hannaford Lamar, who was appointed to the state Supreme Court.

What they don't tell you is that he is a partisan Republican with a history of making thousand dollar donations to Republican candidates.

A quick search of federal campaign finance information showed me a $1,000 donation to both Republican Senators Lott and Cochran with an additional $500 to Senator Lott. This comes to an early total of $2,500. State campaign finance data is far harder to navigate.

The Sun Herald Story

Update 7/11/2007:
Steve writing in the comments over at MississippiPolitics/Y'allPolitics? shares this info:

I had wondered what ever happened to Jimmy McClure. He was chairman of the Hinds County Young Republicans and was very active in Haley’s 1982 campaign against Sen. John Stennis.

Jimmy ran for the state House in ‘83. He led the Republican primary but lost the runoff to Jack Wertz, a State Farm Insurance agent.