Yep, made it around to Sailor’s emails, and they’re certainly worth sharing. First, we have this from TradeSecretsBlog:
The clarionledger.com is reporting the Iams Company’s records from seven years of pet food research at Mississippi State University are not public documents, the state Supreme Court has ruled.
In 2006, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued Mississippi State University. It alleged the school violated the Mississippi Public Records Act by denying PETA access to records of dental experiments and other tests on animals conducted since 1999 for Iams. Iams had argued that the experiments were the company’s intellectual property. Iams said it had made a substantial investment at Mississippi State to develop and protect that property.
PETA said it didn’t want trade secrets. PETA said it only wanted to know what happened to the animals at Mississippi State.
PETA claimed Mississippi State wanted an advance fee of $40,497 for the documents it requested. When it reduced the number of pages asked for, PETA claims MSU told them that only 19 of the requested pages would be sent and the cost would be $1,000. …
Here‘s how that went with the MS Supremes, and note especially Diaz’s dissent.
Meanwhile, this priceless tale from a JFP reporter at the Neshoba County Fair:
Conversations come easy at Mississippi’s biggest house party. A JFP reporter caught an esteemed Mississippi Supreme Court Justice and asked him to address one attorney’s accusation that the Supreme Court has been completely bought by corporations–only to have our question slapped down by some of the most eloquent discourse this side of the Mississippi River.
Ladies and gentlemen, we give you Supreme Court Justice Jim Smith, incumbent candidate for Supreme Court District 1.
Reporter: Mr. Smith, local attorney Alex Alston said during the past 4 1/2 years, ‘an astonishing 88 percent of all jury verdicts in favor of the wronged victims have been reversed by the state Supreme Court.’ He alleges the courts are owned by insurance companies and corporations. What’s your reply?
Smith: His statistics are totally inaccurate, number one. Number two: his statement regarding arbitration, which he says 91 percent of court requires mandatory arbitration. That is absolutely false. Those figures are not from the court. The arbitration figures, the four year period he’s talking about.
Reporter: I don’t think I asked about arbitra–
Smith: Now let me talk. We did our own research on that, and we decided that 33 cases on arbitration during that four-year period. Nineteen of them we said no arbitration–could not arbitrate. That’s equates to 42 percent of the opposite direction to what Alston says.
Reporter: Okay. Is that report available to the public then?
Smith: No, it’s not available to the public.
Reporter: Private research, eh?
Smith: Yes. That’s private research, but that’s accurate figures. Anybody who checks those four years, that’s the only number of cases you could possibly come up with.
Reporter: Could I speak with one of the researchers then?
Smith: You’re looking at one.
Reporter: I see. Alston also said, ‘Over the same 4 1/2-year-period, a plaintiff’s success rate in reversing a jury verdict for the defendant is zero.’ Why is that?
Smith: That’s also inaccurate.
Reporter: Really? Name one.
Smith: I’ve got a whole list of them. (Smith gestures to a small folder beside him.)
Reporter: Would you name one of them in there, please?
Smith: I’m not going to do that.
Reporter, cocking an eye: Mmm hmm. Do they really exist?
Smith: They do exist.
Reporter: Well, then can I see one?
Smith: No sir.
Reporter: What are your reasons for not showing me?
Smith: Let me just simply say this. Y’all go do your own research and double check this independently and you’ll discover that everything is accurate.
Reporter: What do you say to my accusation that there isn’t one case in that file that you can point to?
Smith: I say that’s wrong. It’s inaccurate.
Reporter: What did you bring the list for then, if you’re not going to show it to anybody?
Smith: I keep my list. That’s my personal data. That’s my personal information.
Inny cute? I think he’s cute.
Only on folo can we have a day where there are two separate posts, one dealing w/ open gov’t. and one dealing w/ animal cruelty and lo’ and behold, the subjects meet one another! Or collide, or something…ha!
Just read his dissent on Berry v. Aetna. His stance will surprise you.
the chief is, uhh, not the sharpest tack on the board. he was a county level official and not clued in on the bigger functions of the judiciary.
but i bet he is a great guy…..
Smith’s penchant for secrecy — he’s the only justice who won’t even allow his bio to be on the court’s website — doesn’t always serve him well.
In the face of a claim like Alston’s, it should be no trouble for Smith to rattle off some Southern Reporter citations.
didn’t know where to put this…but WTF? Malcolm Harrison, Hinds County Prosecutor and one of his assistants Sorie Tarawally are appealing an order, from Judge Bill Skinner. Judge Skinner banned Mr. Tarawally from his court for being late. Don’t we have something more important to do with Hinds County Money?
Supreme Court of Mississippi
Court of Appeals of the State of Mississippi
Clerk’s Docket
2008-M-01237-SCT
Sorie S. Tarawally v. State of Mississippi
Petitioner Parties
Represented By:
S. Malcolm O. Harrison
Sorie S. Tarawally Pro Se
Respondent Parties
State of Mississippi Pro Se
General Docket
7/18/2008 Motion # 2008 – 2058 Petition for Permission to File an Appeal and Stay July 8, 2008 Order of Removal
7/21/2008 Notice of Retention by the Supreme Court
Forget it, Jake. It’s Mississippi.
There should be no arguable counts as to numbers of reversals or affirmances or cases referred to arbitration or anything else pertaining to judicial statistical reports. The state court administrator’s office should gather, analyze, and report annual caseflow and caseload statistics. It should be a matter of irrebuttable public record detailing everything that enters the state’s courts. The axiom is as old as dirt: if you can’t count it you can’t manage it. Our state court “system” is in fact a nonsystem. But then, I’ve always heard that people get the government they deserve.
is he counting non damage cases such as will contests or eminent domain?
Well if Iams doesn’t want the info released it must be REALLY BAD. The only reason to keep any data prepared by a public entity secret is that the data is REALLY awful. So boycott Iams at least until they disclose it. Keeping info secret reminds me of the tobacco company execs.
Yeah, I would like to see this secret list he has. Anybody want to bet they going to affirm a big verdict in the next few months. It is obvious we need a new Chief Justice.
People, people, people, we have the BEST Supreme Court that the insurance companies can buy!
And as far as the IAMS thing is concerned, a lot of corporations retain Mississippi university professors and personnel to conduct research. Part of the agreement is confidentiality. If confidential commitments cannot be kept, then the flow of research money into the universities will dry up. No outside group should ever be allowed to get its hands on information which was created purely for research.
What else do you expect from Jim Smith? Rumor here in Jackson is that he’s seen meeting with the Governor more than once a week. What about separation of powers?
But let’s not forget that Alston had a very personal ax to grind when he wrote that letter, so why is his information any more reliable than Smith’s numbers kept in his secret, but visible, folder? Having a multi-million dollar verdict taken away from you can slant your counting and that little nugget should have been disclosed. Wait, you don’t suppose Smith’s folder was like Dickie’s empty envelopes delivered to the Bloomington airport, do you?
You want the truth? Do you want the truth? Smith can’t handle the truth!
It is obvious we need a new Chief Justice.
Who would be William Waller.
It is *not* obvious, however, that we need a Justice James Kitchens.