Below, you'll find a copy of the Temporary Restraining Order filed in the alienation of affection suit filed by Leisha Pickering against former Rep. Chip Pickering's alleged paramour, Elizabeth Creekmore Byrd.
Here are my observations:
1. The order commands Leisha Pickering's former attorney, Bettie Ruth Johnson, to make a copy of the "journals and/or other documents" at issue, place them under seal, and file them personally with the Court. This would seemingly be in conflict with the order of the Madison County Chancery Court, which commanded Ms. Johnson not to give the documents to anyone.
2. Judge Coleman takes care to note that a final order has not been entered in the Pickering v. Pickering matter with respect to the documents. Could it be that Judge Coleman is giving Judge Brewer an opportunity to refine, expound upon, or constrain her bench ruling?
3. In Paragraph 2 of the TRO, Judge Coleman says the Hinds County Circuit Court "will abide by the (Madison County Chancery) order as it applies to (the Hinds County) case; however, after the final disposition of the order is entered (the Hinds County Circuit Court) will have a hearing with all parties herein for a final determination." This is a touch complicated. I read it to mean that this TRO is in place until Judge Brewer enters her written order on the documents up in Madison County. Once that's done, Judge Coleman will have a hearing at which he will decide whether or not Leisha Pickering can use the documents in the alienation of affection suit. And, by the wording of this TRO and by virtue of Chip Pickering not being a party to the alienation of affection suit, it is entirely possible that Chip Pickering won't be there to be heard. And if he's not there, who can claim any sort of interest in the documents with respect to the alienation suit?
4. We may very well wind up in a situation where Leisha Pickering can't use the documents in her divorce proceeding, but can use them in the alienation proceeding.
Thoughts? Here's the promised order:
Pickering v Byrd TRO
Rivers, not Reservoirs
1 hour ago
Posts
19 comments:
Chip could try to intervene in the alienation suit to protect his interests in the documents. Though I'm not sure intervention for such a narrow purpose would be permitted.
I think the reference to "final Order" in the TRO means that the documents will be held under seal until the divorce case is finished, not just until Judge Brewer reduces her order to writing and enters it. Or at least until there is an appealable order of some kind in the divorce case.
I'm thinking TWO former MSC Judges has it all figured out, and the soon to be former Ms. P is in very capable hands.
Anon @ 1:25 - I thought that was a possibility too, at first. But reading the TRO in its entirety, Judge Coleman appears to be referencing Judge Brewer's order on this specific issue.
And, Leisha Pickering could file a petition for interlocutory appeal on the "documents" order.
Anonymous @12:50: If Mr. Pickering's lawyer moves to make him a party in the alienation of affection case, he or she should be shot.
Matt: I'm not sure the Miss S Ct would accept an interlocutory appeal from a TRO. They clearly have the authority to do so under Miss Rule of Appellate Procedure 5, but most courts don't accept appeals from TROs because they can only last for 20 days. After that Judge Coleman will have to decide whether to enter a preliminary injunction.
Jim, I'm talking about interloc from Judge Brewer's order regarding Leisha Pickering's ability to retain the documents and/or discuss their contents with counsel.
It is amazing how Lange rips off other local bloggers. He's just robbed you of hits by posting the TRO you efforted.
Anon @ 5:23 - Lange's fine. He gave proper credit.
He robbed you of hits. You might want to do a bit of research on fair use. Lange abuses bloggers y'all the time. If you don't mind getting bent over so be it. Lange will gladly do you ... from behind.
Reading between the lines, it's pretty obvious the aggrieved Mrs. Pickering purloined the documents in question in some highly unethical (and perhaps illegal) fashion, possibly including but not limited to taping telephone conversations between her husband and his attorneys. The Madison Chancery Order clearly indicates the documents in question are covered by either the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine. Seems like smart lawyers wouldn't throw such important doctrines overboard just because one of the parties is a big-time former Repub congressman.
Anon @ 6:26...that's the magic question. I am still waiting to hear how a journal (if that's what it is) is protected by the attorney/client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine.
When you post public records, that is the risk you take. See my Irby motion and you will see how I dealt with it. ;-)
Anon @ 6:16 - I said it once, and I'll say it again: Lange's fine. If you go to his site, you'll see that he gave us credit. I have plenty of areas where I disagree with him. This is not one of them. He does an impeccable job of giving credit to his sources.
Anon @ 6:26 - As I've said before, I saw Leisha on the stand. Her testimony was, as I recall it, that she found the journal the same night she found the cell phone. I've been wrong before, and I may be wrong here. That may not have been her testimony; I could have misunderstood her. Even if it was, it's only one side of the story. But her allegations in her testimony make me wonder where the attorney-client privilege creeps in. That's all I'm saying. I'm certain that Judge Brewer knows more about this, and that we'll learn what she knows in the fullness of time.
Who said Lange wasn't giving you credit? He robs y'all local bloggers of hits by abusing fair use. I'll conclude you are clueless about the difference.
Anon@7:26: We just don't see things the way you do. Our goal is full and fair discussion of the issues raised on IB. If that discussion takes place on YP, more power to them.
I for one, am not obscessed with the number of hits we get here. It's gratifying to know people are reading the blog. But I don't much care whether we "lose" hits because someone else has posted a public document, so long as they acknowledge IB had it first.
Matt and I win or lose in the courtroom, where the lives, freedom, families, and finances of real people are at stake. There, the score matters very much to us. Here, it matters very little.
I am the editor for Mississippi BlogNetNews. I just added your blog RSS feed to the site, which will probably direct more traffic your way. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
BTW, I discovered your blog through Y'all Politics, so the anonymous person crying about fair use and hits should recognize that Lange also delivers traffic to other sites.
first, this is a different anonymous than the previous anonymous postser.
i don't think you can have a fair use issue with a public document.
that said, as a general matter of fairness, I think NMC at nmisscommentor.com did it right by linking folks to this page as opposed to yallpolitics who did a copy and paste job with reference to your site. NMC makes people come to this site, whereby more people can check out what this place is all about, while yallpolitics keeps the traffic in their place only.
that said, as a general matter of fairness, I think NMC at nmisscommentor.com did it right by linking folks to this page as opposed to yallpolitics who did a copy and paste job with reference to your site. NMC makes people come to this site, whereby more people can check out what this place is all about, while yallpolitics keeps the traffic in their place only.
Lange rips off other bloggers y'all the time. He abuses fair use and hinders far more hits than he stimulates. He is a hit thief and it is by design.
Learned a new term on this site today (first time here)...."hit thief".....and I got here via Alan you old hit thief, you!
Post a Comment