Bubba Pierce’s New Out of State Friends Remain Defiant

You would think after being exposed for frauds and liars, Bubba Pierce would have his out of state friends crawl back under the rocks from which they live. Claiming they have a first amendment right to slander Oliver Diaz, Pierce’s friends at the LEAA have redoubled their efforts and WLOX is a willing accomplice continuing to air these misleading commercials. As Jesse Livermore¬†noted a century ago money¬†clouds decision making and the lure of advertising dollars evidently overrode fairness in advertising at WLOX. Jerry Mitchell at the Clarion Ledger has this continuing story:

An out-of-state group stands by its advertisement lambasting state Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr. – despite a judicial committee condemnation of that ad.

The advertisement airing on television stations from Jackson to the Coast accused Diaz of being “the only one … voting for” two baby killers and another killer in three cases. Diaz, running for re-election against Chancery Judge Bubba Pierce, has called the accusations “lies.”

The Special Committee on Judicial Election Campaign Intervention has concluded the ad violates the Code of Judicial Conduct.

In an interview Friday, Ted Deeds, chief operating officer of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America in Springfield, Va., said no one, not even a judicial committee, can rob people of their First Amendment rights. “The panel has never contacted LEAA to inform us of any complaint, much less allowed us to provide the evidence demonstrating the factual basis for our ads,” he said.

WLOX-TV and some other television stations pulled the ad after criticisms by the committee, which “condemns these ads as they urge a biased rather than an impartial court system.”

“These ads … urge a course of action which is not in keeping with the duty of a justice of the Supreme Court to decide the legal issues on an impartial basis. A judge is sworn to uphold the law and adjudicate cases in accordance with law, and not ignore the law based upon the popularity or infamy of those who appear before the court or the heinousness of the crime of which they are accused.”

After LEAA officials objected Friday, the ad was returned to the air.

Such advertisements are unfortunately becoming more common in judicial contests, said Carl Tobias, professor at University of Richmond School of Law. “The races are getting increasingly nasty.”

After examining both the advertisement and the legal conclusions in these cases, Tobias called the ad “troubling.”

“The reality looks very different from the ad,” he said.

The ad says: “We need judges to protect our families in Mississippi, but when a 6-month-old child was raped and murdered, Supreme Court Justice Diaz was the only one voting for the child’s killer.”

In 2006, the high court upheld the capital murder conviction of Jeffrey Keith Havard for killing 6-month-old Chloe Britt. Diaz didn’t take part in that decision.

Two years later, the court rejected Havard’s request for a hearing on whether he was entitled to DNA testing. Diaz voted in favor of such a hearing.

Diaz said it’s “ludicrous to say an appellate judge’s vote is voting for or against an individual. What we do is apply the law to the facts of each particular case, keeping in mind the ramification the decision will have for future cases. We don’t vote on individual people.”

The ad then says: “An elderly woman kidnapped, beaten and raped – Diaz, the only one voting for the rapist.”

Actually, Diaz voted to uphold the conviction and death sentence of Earl Wesley Berry, who was executed May 21 for kidnapping Mary Bounds from a church parking lot in 1987 and beating her to death. He had voted for a delay while the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of lethal injection.

“I was joined by the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices in that position,” Diaz said. “That’s not an extreme position.”

The ad finishes with this: “A 20-month-old baby dead from blows to her head – Justice Diaz votes to overturn the baby’s killer.”

Diaz wasn’t on the high court when justices voted in 1997 to reverse the conviction of Bryan Kohlberg, who killed 22-month-old Madison Watson. On retrial, Kohlberg was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

In 2002, then-Chief Justice Ed Pittman and Diaz voted to grant Kohlberg a new trial based on errors that the entire court recognized.

Asked if voters might be confused into thinking that Diaz voted in each of these cases to free criminals or reverse criminal convictions, Deeds responded that the LEAA only has a limited time to expose Diaz’s record.

He said Diaz is someone who often votes alone or with only a few other justices. “We have a God-given right to stand in the public square and scream about his (Diaz’s) record,” Deeds said. “He may not want that record talked about.”

Deeds said LEAA “believes – and most crime victims and law enforcement officers would concur – when a convicted criminal makes a motion to delay the criminal justice process, to delay application of a penalty or to otherwise obtain a favorable ruling and a judge rules that way, it is fairly said that the judge ruled ‘for’ the criminal.”

Diaz called this description “a gross misinterpretation of the job of an appellate court judge. At worst, it’s a blatant lie.”

So there you have it folks. Bubba Pierce can’t win talking issues so he and his buddies resort to lies and slander. As our good friend Steve pointed out this organization has roots to discredited GOP crook Tom Delay and his band of far right wing Texas based neo nazi henchmen. Bubba Pierce has made some very interesting friends in this campaign for the State Supreme Court.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *