It appears that the Mississippi Electronic Courts pilot program is taking a secretive approach in hiding dockets, at least in the Pickering divorce case:
A funny thing happened today, though. I went to check the docket, and MEC acted as if Pickering v. Pickering didn’t exist. The case is currently under seal, but in the past the docket had been available. For the non-lawyers out there, a docket sheet is nothing more than a list of court filings related to a case. That means we could read the titles of the filings, but we couldn’t actually read the contents of them.
Digging around, I found that Section 5(A)(2) of the MEC Administrative Procedures states that “Only court personnel will be able to view docket entries and documents in sealed cases.”
I’ve got a problem with this.
(Via Ipse Blogit: Pickering v. Pickering removed from the Mississippi Electronic Courts online system)
Read More
Philip Thomas has lost the first round in his fight to get details on the Ed Peters immunity deal:
According to the DOJ, I am not entitled to the information because Peters did not consent and there was no showing that the public disclosure outweighs Peters’ privacy interests. My request letter to the DOJ did not identify a public interest for the disclosure. My limited research on the topic, however, suggests that this is not the type of private information that the privacy act was designed to protect. In addition, it’s my understanding that the government should produce the information with the private information redacted.
(Via DOJ Refuses to Disclose Ed Peters Immunity Agreement : Mississippi Litigation Review & Commentary)
Read More
Jim Craig at IpseBlogit takes note of MS Attorney General Jim Hood entering into the upcoming2nd Amendment issues before the U.S. Supreme Court:
This coming Monday, October 5, the United States Supreme Court begins its October 2009 Term. As always, the Court will issue its largest set of rulings (called “grants of certiorari”) which decide the cases it will hear in the coming months.
One of the most high-profile sets of cases involves the Second Amendment. The Heller case, in which the Court decided that the Second Amendment did secure an individual right to bear arms, invalidated an ordinance in the District of Columbia. But Heller does not necessarily mean that the State of Mississippi (or California, or New York) cannot pass strict gun control statutes.
The post includes links to several filed documents.
(Via Jim Hood Rides Into The Next Gun Rights Battle . . .)
Read More
