Jackson Free Press

Jennifer Sutton, the owner of a duplex allegedly destroyed by Mayor Frank Melton and his cohorts, has filed for a temporary restraining (PDF, 900 K) order against Melton and other city officials. The restraining order and preliminary injunction calls for city officials to stop referring to Sutton's property as a "drug house."

The complaint, filed by Sutton attorney Dennis Sweet, claims that Sutton first heard her rental property referred to as a "drug house" in media reports. Since then, Melton and other city officials have repeatedly referred to the property as a "drug house." However, "no one has ever informed (Sutton) personally, or through her attorneys, that the property located at 1305 Ridgeway Street was an alleged 'drug house,' or in any way connected or associated with illegal activity(ies)," the complaint states. Sutton has never received any official notice of illegal activities occurring on her property.

The complaint states that Sutton does not believe her rental property was a drug house. More to the point, "there has been not a scintilla of evidence to support these allegations, and without such, fundamental justice and fairness requires that these Defendants be enjoined from publicly referring to the Plaintiff's property as a 'drug house,'" the complaint continues.

Sutton has experienced "humiliation, embarrassment, frustration and anxiety" at these charges, according to the complaint. Also, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the allegations serve "to intimidate (Sutton) as a potential witness in the criminal trial of this matter."

Warren Martin, an associate attorney working with Sweet, could not comment on whether Sutton has suffered direct intimidation at the hands of any city officials.

Judge Tomie Green issued the temporary restraining order and set a hearing for Oct. 6 to determine whether to grant the injuntion.

Watch for updates as they are available.

-- by Brian Johnson and Adam Lynch

Previous Comments

ID

123992

Comment

Good for her! She deserves protection from the smear merchants in the street, on the radio, in the press, and on the internet.

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-09-27T17:58:37-06:00

ID

123993

Comment

Nice to see this happen. If you don't fight for yourself, people tend to walk all over you.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-09-27T18:21:46-06:00

ID

123994

Comment

Rockin-A! Good for her. My only worry is, they won't listen. And all they'll get for not listening is a slap on the wrist. But then again, the rest of the council can't hear diddly over the big traps of Melton, Stokes and Bluntson.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2006-09-27T18:32:31-06:00

ID

123995

Comment

I'm gonna bet the under and say that Frank or someone else in city government will refer to it as a drug house by this weekend.

Author

golden eagle '97

Date

2006-09-27T20:43:10-06:00

ID

123996

Comment

I'm betting Stokes will call it one first. :)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-09-27T20:48:13-06:00

ID

123997

Comment

This one will be hard for Melton, Bluntson and Stokes. They certainly can't win this in the court of public opinion—and nullify a jury—if they can't convince folks that it was a "crackhouse" or a "drug house." And it is disgusting for elected officials to go around saying that if there is no evidence they can back it up with. Of course, they shouldn't win this one even if it WAS a drug house. That still doesn't justify anything that allegedly happened that night—which will have a prominent place in jury instructions, I'd guess. It was bad enough that this was done to her property. But to have all this scorched-earth crap piled on her is pretty unbelievable. And to have black people do it to her, while playing the whole race deck to try to make Melton into a civil-rights martyr, is breathtakingly cynical. As I say in my editor's note, Dr. King would not be thrilled.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-27T20:50:48-06:00

ID

123998

Comment

Also, TRO applies to all city employees. That means that Stephanie Parker-Weaver cannot refer to it as a drug house or a crackhouse. I wonder what it means for, uh, Public Works staffers who are paid through a temp agency, like Bob Hickingbottom. Will the temp agency act as a loophole for him to get around the restraining order?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-27T21:10:06-06:00

ID

123999

Comment

And to have black people do it to her, while playing the whole race deck to try to make Melton into a civil-rights martyr, is breathtakingly cynical. As I say in my editor's note, Dr. King would not be thrilled. From personal experience, I recall when the African American community would bicker among themselves but would keep a united front in public if an action of an individual or entity threatened the liberties of their ethnic group. However, greed, selfishness and a self-centered attitude is having an effect on how blacks are treating each other in public and private. A copy of the Willie Lynch letter (not sure of its authenticity) has been circulating for years about how the divisions in the black community started in slavery. Even if the slaveholders actually did start stirring up trouble in this way (I think just being pro-slavery did enough damage), if we as blacks realize that we have a problem with this, we need to work on solving it. Blacks have categorized themselves for many years: light-skinned vs. dark-skinned, loose curls vs. tight curls, etc. However, this materialism thing has taken over, and in my opinion, dividing ourselves by class is getting pretty nasty. Looking down on your "brotha" or "sistah" because they don't drive what you drive or live where you live is an oxymoron to me. What gets me the most is for a well-to-do black person to look down on another black person on government assistance when he or she came from the same environment. How soon we forget! Will it take another major infringement on our rights to get us to snap out of it and come together once again? It shouldn't. We should have learned something from prior generations and not let money and power divide us. Enough is enough. It's time to wake up.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-09-27T21:32:24-06:00

ID

124000

Comment

normally i am loathe to prior restraints on speech,but this tro was needed.we have nearly the whole municipal government disparaging the reputation and property of a private citizen for the selfish motive of giving melton some jury appeal.sweet ought to subpeona the whole crew for the october 6 hearing,call them to the stand and listen as the story changes once folks are placed under oath.

Author

chimneyville

Date

2006-09-27T21:50:11-06:00

ID

124001

Comment

I hear you, chimneyville. I pretty much feel the same way, considering the outright lies that are being told out there right now. Also, great post, L.W. The Melton machine's tactics are downright horrifying.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-27T21:55:29-06:00

ID

124002

Comment

On WLBT just now: motion filed to dismiss on technicality, request to try each suspect separately, and request for speedy public trial.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-09-27T22:04:04-06:00

ID

124003

Comment

Also, TRO applies to all city employees. That means that Stephanie Parker-Weaver cannot refer to it as a drug house or a crackhouse. I wonder what it means for, uh, Public Works staffers who are paid through a temp agency, like Bob Hickingbottom. Will the temp agency act as a loophole for him to get around the restraining order? It'll be interesting to hear WMPR Friday night and WOAD-AM on Sunday afternoon to see if and how SP-W and Frank Bluntson refer to the Ridgeway Street house on their respective shows. Interesting question about the temp agency, though. But could the temp agency be bound to the TRO, too? After all, temp agencies work on behalf of the companies that pay them to handle staffing requirements and employees who work for the agencies have to follow the same rules and regulations that apply to regular employees.

Author

golden eagle '97

Date

2006-09-27T23:22:29-06:00

ID

124004

Comment

I don't see what the BFD is on this. They won't call it a "drug house" any more. Instead, they can call it "a house where five drug-related arrests were made between 2005 and 2006." It drives the point even better than "drug house". I don't know of any reason for enjoining anyone from telling the truth. [ Source: MSNBC ] I was particularly interested in the announcement by the AG that he was "correcting" the erroneously filed felony gun charges to misdemeanors. I was at the MCSOL event where Melton was supposedly armed. I sat right next to him the entire time he was there. I saw no firearm, nor any indicia of one.

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T09:31:12-06:00

ID

124005

Comment

You're mighty well-informed for someone who seems to believe that Harvey Johnson is still mayor! Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-09-28T09:34:56-06:00

ID

124006

Comment

Well thanks, Tom. We all know who I am, but I didn't want to create a new account after the last election. No sense cluttering up Donna's server with old, unused accounts.

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T09:37:08-06:00

ID

124007

Comment

Harvey, all you have to do is sign into your account and change your screen name. No need for a new account. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T10:57:00-06:00

ID

124008

Comment

There are no big surprises there. Hood and the others have always said the church and park charges were misdemeanors, and I don't even think it's been reported differently by an media that I know of. Agreed, though, that the word "feloniously" needed to come out of the actual legal document. Obviously, they weren't going to be able to actually bring felony charges for two of the gun charges—nor did they ever intend to. It is a silly typo, though.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T11:02:01-06:00

ID

124009

Comment

The BFD is that you have city officials, and people in authority, calling it a "drug house" and a "crack house," while they have presented no evidence of such. It's a rather nefarious, and dishonest, way to try to sway public opinion—and hopefully taint the jury pool in advance. BFD, indeed.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T11:03:50-06:00

ID

124010

Comment

Harvey, The AG did NOT say that he was reducing the felony gun charge to a misdemeanor charge. The charges themselves are the same as they were originally: one felony and two misdemeanors. The changes, according to WLBT, are to the statute cited and a small change to the language used in the misdemeanor charges. Nothing substantial changed.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-09-28T11:05:03-06:00

ID

124011

Comment

Brian is right, Harvey. Be careful about mischaracterizing this. The charges remain the same as they've been. They're correcting a typo. It's no BFD, as you'd put it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T11:10:53-06:00

ID

124012

Comment

Furthermore, the MSNBC story you cite has two substantial errors. It says that Welch was arrested on possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. This charge does not appear in his record. The other charges are possession of marijuana and possession of cocaine from 2005, the only possession charges Welch has ever had. MSNBC reports that Welch has two possession of marijuana. The fifth charge mentioned in the MSNBC story was the arrest of another man for possession of marijuana. Now, maybe the court documents we have are incomplete. If they are, we certainly want to be corrected. I think, however, that it is FAR likelier that MSNBC just screwed the pooch on the charges. All sorts of media have reported that Welch was arrested the night of the Melton incident on charges including possession of marijuana, but that's simply incorrect. He was arrested that night on the old charge of possession of marijuana. He did not have any drugs on him at the time--only a pipe. Maybe it makes no difference to you that it should read "a house where THREE drug arrests were made in the last two years." So what's the BFD? THE BFD is that callign the house a "drug house" or a "crack house" strongly suggests that the house was a dealers' den, a distribution point for illegal drugs. There is no evidence that this was the case. I am not saying that Welch never delt drugs out of that house--I am saying there is no police record of him doing so. Most of his drug-related arrests are for paraphernalia--this does not seem to be a man who had a lot of drugs on hand to sell to other folks. So my question is this, Harvey: If the mayor broke in your door and found a pipe but no drugs, would that justify you smashing up the house without any hearing or due process of any kind? Furthermore, would it justify the mayor's hatchet men and women calling your house a drug house? Where is the evidence?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-09-28T11:18:00-06:00

ID

124013

Comment

Hmm. As I read the WLBT story, they are removing the language "unlawfully and feloniously" form each of the three charges, and changing them all from 97-13-17, possession of weapons by students, to 97-13-1, carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Of course, the code sections cited are wrong. 97-13-17 is "Limitations on corporate contributions to political party or candidate; penalty" and 97-13-1 is "Bribery; influencing electors or election officers" The correct code sections are 97-37-17 and 97-37-1. So, assuming they were wrong on the "what section" but right on the "they're changing them all to concealed carry", all the charges are becoming misdemeanors. If that is the case, take a look at 97-37-9. It provides defenses against 97-37-1. A particularly appropriate one is "that he was threatened, and had good and sufficient reason to apprehend a serious attack from any enemy, and that he did so apprehend".

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T11:28:49-06:00

ID

124014

Comment

And let us never forget what Mayor Melton said to WLBT on Sept. 1: "We have got cocaine, marijuana, paraphernalia and children out of that house." Assuming he was talking about Aug. 26, that was just a bold-faced lie.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-09-28T11:30:14-06:00

ID

124015

Comment

Mark/Harvey, Are we reading the same story!?! Read the beginning of it: The first set of indictments contained some errors. On the original indictments.. All three of the gun charges against melton use the words "unlawfully and feloniously." The only felony charge is that which concerns possession of a handgun at the Mississippi School of Law. What part of that sounds like they're downgrading the one felony charge that's been there all along to a misdemeanor? We'll call the AG's office and get back to you before all this chatter confuses the matter any further.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T11:32:21-06:00

ID

124016

Comment

Please do. I want to see the actual document they file. Heck, I may go to the courthouse and see if they've filed it myself. The article also says that "each of the three counts refer to statute number 97-13-17, which is an offense titled 'possession of weapons by students.' That will be changed to statute number 97-13-1 - 'carrying a concealed deadly weapon.'". Taking into account the numbering error in the story, read 97-37-1. It doesn't become a felony until the third conviction under that statute. Melton has some pretty good defenses to 97-37-1. I'm not certain that he has a carry permit, but if he does, it's an absolute defense under 45-9-101. If he has a permit (or had one at that time) then 97-37-1 does not apply, only 45-9-101. Some of the charges, if accurate, violate 45-9-101(13). That section doesn't have a penalty but it defaults back to carrying without a permit (97-37-1). As I mentioned above, 97-37-9(a) provides a defense for anyone who has been threatened.

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T11:55:57-06:00

ID

124017

Comment

Actually, even with a carry permit, he cannot legally carry weapons in a long list of places—and he has been warned by the attorney general about those places, and still thumbed his nose at state law and the AG's letter. Also, his "life in danger" defense isn't as strong as you'd think. He explained the threats to me he has gotten—and told me that there haven't been many, and most were by one guy years back, who was disturbed in some way. I have all this in transcripts somewhere.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T12:00:36-06:00

ID

124018

Comment

Also, we're definitely going straight to the source to straighten it out. It's not like one can rely on a short TV report for any kind of solid explanation.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T12:01:22-06:00

ID

124019

Comment

Also, remember he just got the carry permit this summer; any gun charges from before that would come against him during a time when he had no permit to carry weapons. For instance, on the raids I went on with him in April, he had no permit.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T12:02:22-06:00

ID

124020

Comment

Donna raises an important point. Melton did not even bother with a concealed weapons permit until long after he had begun his raids. During that time, the clerk's office stonewalled on requests about Melton's weapons training / permits, thus giving him enough time to get the permit.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-09-28T12:08:36-06:00

ID

124021

Comment

Yes, and he kept saying publicly that he had some sort of special training back in Texas or such, and that was certified to carry weapons. I'm really glad no one got killed on those raids. Talking about playing with dynamite.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T13:21:45-06:00

ID

124022

Comment

And please don't forget that he also did not even bother to become a registered voter until he was a candidate for election. How soon we forget!

Author

justjess

Date

2006-09-28T14:42:36-06:00

ID

124023

Comment

Has a trunk fallen on Charles Evers' head to wake him from this nightmare he went through a couple of weeks ago when he held his banner out as an advisor to Melton? On his show last night, he only mentioned once while talking about crime that "This is what I was trying to talk to the Mayor about." He also went on record saying that he would not have done things the way that the "Mayor" did them." Is Charles out of the loop? I really hated to see him get involved with an issue that he knows is wrong. Maybe he has awakened.

Author

justjess

Date

2006-09-28T15:00:45-06:00

ID

124024

Comment

I didn't think he would stay on that ship long. There isn't room for both him and Tisdale, no to mention Danks.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T15:02:10-06:00

ID

124025

Comment

We just got confirmation from the attorney general's office that the charges are essentially unchanged: one felony and two misdemeanors, just as originally described (PDF, 150 K). I'm going out on a limb here, Lyon, but my guess is that the AG has a more sophisticated understanding of the applicable codes than the couple you cited above, clerical errors aside. Is it your position that the AG is making up the basis for a felony charge? If so, I guess Melton will have an easy time beating that charge. I wouldn't count on it if I were him.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-09-28T15:09:27-06:00

ID

124026

Comment

I was at the MCSOL event where Melton was supposedly armed. I sat right next to him the entire time he was there. I saw no firearm, nor any indicia of one. ML Hey Mark, what about the gun he keeps in his boot? Bang, bang!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-09-28T15:18:29-06:00

ID

124027

Comment

Your link doesn't work. I'm assuming he's calling the felony charge the MCSOL incident. As I said, I was there. I saw no gun. I saw not indicia of a gun. Nobody I have talked to saw a gun. Nobody I have talked to saw indicia of it. It wasn't a big meeting; and I know that someone called your buddy Kim's show sand said he saw a "characteristic lump" of a concealed weapon. I haven't identified who that person is, yet, though. The person I thought it might have been says it wasn't him. I think the AG is going to have a really hard time proving that charge. I'm aware of at least five people (six, if I count myself) who would be able to testify that they were there, that they observed Melton, and that he did not have a gun.

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T15:24:53-06:00

ID

124028

Comment

Ah, much ado about nothing, it seems, Mark/Harvey. It's always been one felony gun charge, two misdemeanor gun charges, and that's still the case as suspected. It also seems flimsy to say that someone sitting near Melton did not see his concealed weapon even though someone else did. Obviously, it is possible for some people to get certain views as he moves around that others don't. That's common sense. Not to mention the fact that these charges are the least of his worries. They're serious charges, but it's the burglary charge for bringing into the Ridgeway duplex that can bring 25 years and the getting-a-minor-to-commit-a-felony charge that can bring 20 years.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T15:26:23-06:00

ID

124029

Comment

The MC one has always been the felony charge, since the day of the indictments, Mark/Harvey. Do you really not get that just because you didn't see the gun doesn't mean that your testimony that "he did not have one" would be meaningful? And it's not like you haven't had a politcal agenda about the mayoral races, Harveymustgo.com. I kinda doubt you'd have much to offer, but that's just a guess.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T15:28:13-06:00

ID

124030

Comment

Pardon me if this sounds stupid, but you're saying Melton wasn't carrying a concealed weapon because you didn't see it--isn't that why it's called a concealed weapon? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-09-28T15:29:30-06:00

ID

124031

Comment

The other problem is that everybody in town knows that Mr. Melton used to carry/wear his weapons everywhere he went. I interviwed him in City Hall with him wearing a shoulder holster with his jacket off—and that was before he had a permit.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T15:29:40-06:00

ID

124032

Comment

Touche, Tom. ;-) Face it, Mark/Harvey, just because you claim not to have seen the "concealed" weapon, it doesn't mean you'll convince anyone he wasn't wearing it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T15:30:24-06:00

ID

124033

Comment

Here's that link Brian posted; I'll get him to fix it above: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/foi_pdfs/Melton_Indictment.pdf

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T15:31:05-06:00

ID

124034

Comment

Speaking of typos, notice how "Melton" is spelled on there. Prosecutors certainly are not editors. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T15:32:20-06:00

ID

124035

Comment

No, I'm certainly aware that I have been involved in a campaign against Harvey, who instituted polices that made it impossible for my customers and myself to do business with the City of Jackson. Harvey also pushed the Redevelopment Authority to not sell me the block of houses that I wanted to purchase and renovate to rent or sell to law students. I was fairly confident that either Melton or Whitlow would do a much better job not just for me and my interests here in the city but for the city as a whole. I still think that Frank has done a better job than Harvey, and while I am concerned about the Mayor's actions, am in no place to offer my input to him (in fact, the MCSOL event was the only time I've personally seen him since the debate at Murrah). His administration has gotten several of the long-delayed projects I wanted to be involved with going again, however, which has been encouraging. I've had no luck with the Redevelopment Authority.

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T15:38:32-06:00

ID

124036

Comment

The only point, Mark, is that when you offer yourself up as someone who didn't see the concealed weapon that someone else did (which is the best you could argue; not that he didn't have it), then the prosecutors are probably going to point out that you're that guy from Clinton that put up Harveymustgo.com and then plastered handmade signs all around Jackson about it. Thus, your credibility isn't exactly going to wow folks—especially when all you're doing is volunteering to say emphatically that he didn't have the gun because you didn't see it. See the problem?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T15:43:05-06:00

ID

124037

Comment

Also, which projects are you referring to?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T15:43:51-06:00

ID

124038

Comment

Yes, I understand that I am not the best of witnesses. It's better to have someone completely disinterested (though, I derive no benefit regardless of whether I saw a firearm or indicia of one) and there were plenty of those people there. I've talked to a number of them, none of whom have any recollection of Melton carrying a firearm.

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T15:45:56-06:00

ID

124039

Comment

King Edward, JTRAN Facility, Greyhound Station, and several more. The houses are over near the Sun & Sand.

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T15:47:16-06:00

ID

124040

Comment

Mark, you're a little out of touch with what's been happening over here in Jackson. For instance, do you really believe that Melton got the King Edward project going again?!?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T15:51:58-06:00

ID

124041

Comment

Fixed the link. Stupid case-sensitive links. Grrr. ....

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-09-28T15:53:37-06:00

ID

124042

Comment

I know that the paperwork necessary for the City's portion of the grant sat unsubmitted throughout Harvey's administration. Melton didn't do much more to get it going (and at times he was a stumbling block to progress) but his administration has actually gotten the paperwork processed that needed to be processed, and they have corrected the issues with the bid to make it fair and open to anyone who is able to perform the initial, city/state-funded work. I know the King Edward would not have happened without Watkins (and a hell of a lot of other people) but I do think that Melton's admin has been better for the project than Harvey's.

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T16:29:51-06:00

ID

124043

Comment

Mark, Melton tried numerous times to block the King Edward project, and almost succeeded. A coalition of people made it happen anyway. Click here to read Adam's numerous stories about the King Edward saga. But, trust me, Melton gets no credit on this one. The Jackson Advocate crowd does not want it to happen, and he did everything he could to oblige them.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T16:35:20-06:00

ID

124044

Comment

Ladd: you're corrupt and are in cahoots with shady people.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-09-28T16:43:14-06:00

ID

124045

Comment

Teehee. I love you, too, Kingfish. Smack!

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T16:56:35-06:00

ID

124046

Comment

Donna: Perhaps, if Melton deserves no credit, then you can explain why I just got off of the call with a city official - who called me actually in response to an inquiry I made about a problem with the bidding process on the KE (something that never happened with other bidding problems on city projects when Harvey was around) - who has not only assessed my complain, but deteremined that there is a problem, has worked with the appropriate people to create a solution, and was calling to let me know how the matter would be resolved? I was amazed. If you didn't qualify for help from the "E"BO office, Harvey's admin didn't care.

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T17:02:40-06:00

ID

124047

Comment

Mark, I can't address your dealings with the city—which seems to be your obsession—but I do know about the mess that happened with the King Edward. Even at the very end, Melton tried to bring in Gene Phillips to take it over. He only gave up on all that when he had to because a number of people got together, locally and with the state, and made it happen despite him. Please go read the stories.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T17:08:18-06:00

ID

124048

Comment

and they have corrected the issues with the bid to make it fair and open to anyone who is able to perform the initial, city/state-funded work. ML What issues are you speaking of? I can't imagine what restrictions Watkins and Deuce would have as to who they hire to work on the building. Maybe the initial state dollars; but, that only covers the clean-up and assessment. But, once the money comes from the pockets of Watkins and Deuce they should be able to hire whomever they please. God I hope they've already hired someone! But hey, you sound like the man with all the knowledge. Tell us what's up!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-09-28T17:09:40-06:00

ID

124049

Comment

You seem to have issues with minorities Mark. I can't imagine why? Why don't you head over to Melton's for some hugs!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-09-28T17:15:23-06:00

ID

124050

Comment

Actually, it sounds like he would fit in perfectly with the Advocate folks. ;-) This part of your piece is, well, something, Mark: Mississippi’s flag is a reflection of the honor and pride of her citizens. Changing the flag at this time would be detrimental to the states’ development and the state’s image as a whole. No longer will Mississippi be seen as a state sanding on its own, but as one that will exchange its beliefs and legacy for a tiny team of outside parties with little plausible indication for change. The decision to make such a drastic alteration with the state symbol is not to be taken lightly, and should be representative of the people in the state.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T17:21:58-06:00

ID

124051

Comment

In the interest of racial harmony I offer this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRLKnTFXWEY

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-09-28T17:29:35-06:00

ID

124052

Comment

Read the bid. It's conveniently printed in this week's JFP (and last week's). Compare and contrast with other state and/or city bids, MS Code 31-7-13, and the City's own bid ordinances. It doesn't comply in several areas. But, I have been informed that the problems are going to be corrected. It will push the bid opening date back a little over a week, but it will make the bidding process much more fair. Fairness has been a big problem with city contracts since I've been in Jackson. In case you haven't had the time, take a few minutes and read the Equal Business Opportunity ordinance. It's anything but. It's been used to deny contracts to lowest bidders in order to funnel excessive payments for things like maintenance and operation of the City's Radio Towers (a project I was not even allowed to bid on) and in many city demolition contracts. Donna - I have read the stories. And, you're right, I'm obsessed with the dealings that have impacted me. I'm also concerned about the dealings that have impacted others. I remember the hookers who used to hang out at Farish and Griffith each night as I left school. I actually had one of them jump in front of my car to force me to stop. I called the cops and they did nothing. I left a message for Harvey, and they were still there. I told Frank's office about it once he was elected, and what do you know, they're gone and haven't returned. I know quite a bit about the mess that has occurred at the King Edward. I've been trying to do everything possible to help see it get going, heck, I'm even trying to find out how I can get my money for one of the units into the developer's hands (no response). I've also been trying to make contact with the absent landlords and the Redevelopment Authority about some of the properties near the King Edward so that, concurrent with the King Edward development, I might be able to get a little more development going. The neighborhood is going to need some more service-based businesses in order to make it feel like a neighborhood. Frank's not perfect. I don't think he, I, nor anyone else ever claimed he would be. I do think he's done more in his tenure than Harvey did during his. I wish he was more accessible, and that he listened to the input of others. I wish he had someone he respected who would tell him when he screws up. All he has, though, are people like you, Donna, who find ti easier to attack him than help. It's good for selling advertising space (and for getting some folks reelected) but it is bad for the city.

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T17:29:57-06:00

ID

124053

Comment

Dude, you are still peddling the wore-out old story about the hookers on Farish. Get over it. Crime can happen anywhere. Your fortunate enough to go to law school, enjoy life a little!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-09-28T17:34:37-06:00

ID

124054

Comment

Pike, I went to MC law to. It was pretty damn bad back in the mid 90's in that area. That wasn't just racist propoganda. Security guard there was a Ranger in Vietnam. We used to play "guess the caliber" from the gun shots we heard going off on a too frequent basis a few blocks away.

Author

Kingfish

Date

2006-09-28T17:38:37-06:00

ID

124055

Comment

To the person who keeps calling my phone - stop. Read the damn thing before you call me over and over again. I am happy to have rational conversations with people, but I will not tolerate the statements and threats that you are making. Since you obviously found my info here, but hang up as soon as I try and speak to you or ask who you are, I'm going to post my warning here. If you do not immediately stop, I will take whatever action is necessary to cause you to stop.

Author

hmg

Date

2006-09-28T17:42:08-06:00

ID

124056

Comment

Frank's not perfect. I don't think he, I, nor anyone else ever claimed he would be. I do think he's done more in his tenure than Harvey did during his. I wish he was more accessible, and that he listened to the input of others. I wish he had someone he respected who would tell him when he screws up. All he has, though, are people like you, Donna, who find ti easier to attack him than help. It's good for selling advertising space (and for getting some folks reelected) but it is bad for the city. Ooo, you told me, Mark. Mark-Harvey, have you noticed that you have peppered this thread with false proclamations about the AG downgrading charges (without actually factchecking any of it), and then volunteered yourself to testify that one of your classmates is lying about seeing a weapon on Mr. Melton—all supposedly in the name of making the city a less crime-free place? You are showing no concern that Mr. Melton could easily get someone, including himself, killed if someone doesn't force him to comply with the law. With due respect, Mark, I think my approach of wanting him to comply with the law or step down is going to "help" him a lot more than people who go around egging him on. *I* don't want to see the mayor lying on a sidewalk covered with blood. You and your ilk would just try to turn it into a political poster to bash the city, no matter how it came about. And you don't know me very well to accuse me of trying to sell advertising by doing real journalism (even though it tends to work out that way because good journalism begets readers begets advertising). Darlin', we tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. I wouldn't be in the business in any other way. Also, you're making a real a$$ out of yourself, as are so many, in trying to proclaim that the only reason intelligent people might want Melton out of office is to get Harvey back into office. Don't be so stupid and small-minded, dear Clintonian. Even though I believe he got a raw deal from people like you who don't care much about facts, I'm not supporting Johnson, nor do I expect that I would should be re-run in the near future. Give people credit for thinking bigger than you are, Mark. Not everyone is driven by petty political obsessions. With due respect, Mark, you have about as much credibility as you did last year when you littered the city with your handmade signs to promote your Web site against a mayor in a city you don't live in. That's fine: make a fool out of yourself all you want. But one thing you are not to do is come no my Web site and tell me what my frickin' beliefs and motives are. Don't be such a public fool. I assure you, it will bite you in the a$$ as it is everyone else who are engaging in the same silly little game. Y'all just end up looking very foolish when your proclamations prove false.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T17:44:39-06:00

ID

124057

Comment

Oh, and I see: You are now being threatened for your views. Pardon me if I don't believe you. It's times like this when credibility comes in handy.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T17:46:02-06:00

ID

124058

Comment

Also, Mark, if you are getting threatening phone calls, be sure to call the police.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-28T17:53:57-06:00

ID

124059

Comment

I wonder how anyone could have "found [your] info" here when you're posting anonymously. Personally, I have no idea who the hell you are. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-09-28T18:23:57-06:00

ID

124060

Comment

Yes, do call the police, and nobody has any business calling a person's home number, if in fact the harrassing calls originate with someone who reads this Web site. I find that hard to believe, as we've had people much more obnoxious than Mark post here ;), and they've never been harrassed. Here was one of my favorites from Mark's freshman comp paper: For quite some time, professional agitators have attempted to ban the design from being displayed in public, as well as from state flags. I believe the phrase is "outside agitators." You know: Jews, commies, homos, etc. Your argument that the stars and bars never flew over a slave-holding state seems beside the point when you acknowledge that it was one of the Confederate battle flags. I've heard a number of totally erroneous arguments from people regarding the flag. That it was always Mississippi's flag. That a majority of black people voted to keep the flag. At least you cite the fact that only 20 percent of blacks wanted to keep the flag. Another favorite line, and then I'll get back on topic. "The flag should fly to honor all Southerners who fought rape and pillage," said Mrs. Charles Marsalis of Jackson. I get her point, but it should be amended as follows: "The flag should fly to honor all white Southerners who fought Union rape and pillage. WE raped and pillaged our black folks, and we fought hard to keep it that way. We lost that fight. Let's not lose our flag too." Dude, I would seriously consider taking down that paper.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-09-28T18:24:12-06:00

ID

124061

Comment

*69 works pretty well if you don't have caller ID. Then google the caller. Personally, I'm cellular. Keeps the telemarketers at bay. BTW: Do you have a problem that the State mandated that the sub-contractors for the services the TelCom Center provides to be minority owned? Catering, janitoral services, etc...

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-09-28T18:44:58-06:00

ID

124062

Comment

Brian, why do you have Mark's freshman comp paper? Maybe it's available on the web - I have no idea. It just seems a bit odd. For all I know he passed it out or put it on his website at one time, but without knowing more, whew. That said, I'm sure there is a good explanation for it.

Author

MAllen

Date

2006-09-28T20:12:12-06:00

ID

124063

Comment

good journalism doesnt beget readers. evidence - the number of people that watch fox news and cnn as compared to the pbs news. sensationalism sells in today's society. lets be honest- the jfp caters to a particular audience nd is probably ust as "fair and balanced" as fox news. i happen to be ore of that audienca-i enjoy reading a different spin on the news-so dont take this as criticism.

Author

djames

Date

2006-09-28T20:23:58-06:00

ID

124064

Comment

sorry for the typos. small keyboard on the pda

Author

djames

Date

2006-09-28T20:27:28-06:00

ID

124065

Comment

Nevermind, Brian. When I saw the end of your post my question was answered. I missed it when I was, admittedly, skimming.

Author

MAllen

Date

2006-09-28T20:40:01-06:00

ID

124066

Comment

Pike, I went to MC law to. It was pretty damn bad back in the mid 90's in that area. That wasn't just racist propoganda. Ha! I lived over on North Congress back then. Got good at telling all the guns apart. Even heard the guy with the machine gun once or twice. :)

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-09-28T21:01:27-06:00

ID

124067

Comment

Judge Tomie Green has now granted the restraining order restricting city officials from referring to the Ridgeway duplex as a drug house. That bit of news is actually near the end of this story, as there is quite a brouhaha underway over the gag order. Note that the alleged DEA raid produced absolutely no prosecutions; moreover, it never event went to trial. Curiouser and curiouser. Anyway, there's a lot to discuss in here, so let's have it.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-09-29T10:20:12-06:00

ID

124068

Comment

This is shaping up to be a very unusual case. You seem to have the one side who wants to fight it all in the court of public opinion—and willing to throw anything out there, whether they can prove it or not. Then you've got the other side that can be crippled by that information before it ever gets to trial. Then you've got the public's right to know what's going on (lies and truth). Then you've got the the judge in the middle trying to keep it all fair and level. This case may end up one for the textbooks. It is certainly curious that Robert Smith is trying to introduce the story of a supposed 2005 DEA raid of the house—but without, it seems, any kind of evidence to back it up. Why would he do that at his stage? It is simply to influence public opinion? Of course, the bigger question is why it would ultimately matter—it's not going to legally excuse Melton's alleged actions without a warrant, proof, etc. So, it would seem that the only logical reason to try to get it out there is to influence a potential jury. And that seems dirty. Tell me if I'm missing something, Ray.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-29T11:50:15-06:00

ID

124069

Comment

Are you going on Wade's show this afternoon Donna?

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-09-29T11:54:56-06:00

ID

124070

Comment

I dunno. Haven't had a chance to talk to Kim. Could if he doesn't have anyone else scheduled. Tell him to shout at me about it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-29T11:55:48-06:00

ID

124071

Comment

10-4

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-09-29T11:56:29-06:00

ID

124072

Comment

The DA's response (Clarion-Ledger PDF, 392K) makes for interesting reading. Note that the original motion from Smith was sealed by the court, so we can't get at the salacious details in it. However, here are some highlights from the DA's reponse: Despite the allegations plead in the motion, Det. Marcus Wright failed to present any case from the alleged drug bust he claims occurred more than one (1) year ago for prosecution. The alleged case from June 1, 2005, has never been sent for presentation to a Grand Jury. The response then points out that Wright is not a DEA agent and that the "evidence" in the motion is "extrinsic" and inadmissable. Defendants' pleadings are an attempt to distribute false information and conduct a smear campaign through court proceedings. Defendandts are attempting to convince the potential jury venire, via the media, that Evans Welch, a mentally disabled schitzophrenic, is a significant threat to the community controlling some alleged major drug distribution warehouse. My first question is this: Is there any other evidence whatsoever of a DEA raid on the Ridgeway duplex other than Wright's recollection? If they found all of these drugs, why did not even refer the matter to the DA? Then there is the larger point Donna makes: How is it relevant even if it is true? It makes perfect sense that the judge would seal the defense motion, because it can only serve to taint potential jurors. Even if the DEA hauled 72 metric tons of crack out of the house in 2005, that still has no legal bearing on whether Melton et al. are guilty of smashing up the house. It is, in fact, an attempt to undermine the law, because it has been clear for some time now that the defense strategy in this case is jury nullification. So their hope is that jurors will say: Yeah, Melton et al. did it, but they had good reason. So we're going to set aside the law and find Melton et al. innocent even though they committed the crimes.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-09-29T11:58:02-06:00

ID

124073

Comment

It's funny. The defense's whole strategy seems to be to discredit *the house*. But, I ask again, what is the relevance of a 2005 drug raid—with these charges against Melton, Recio and Wright. It's not like it's a case against Welch where his criminal history is actually relevant. Think about it this way; what part of previous drug activity is legally relevant to: 1. Whether Melton et al broke into the house without a warrant? 2. Whether Melton took a big stick and broke windows and walls and furniture? 3. Whether Melton el al instructed minors to destroy the house with a sledgehammer? 4. Whether Melton et al destroyed more than $500 worth of property during their "burglary"? See the problem here? It sounds like Smith is trying to introduce irrelevant evidence in order to influence the potential jury pool. And if there is no relevance of the evidence to the actual case before the judge—and it has the potential to damage the cases—you can see why she is trying to rule to keep it out. There is also a certain logic to allowing the district attorney's response to be public IF the defense attorney's talk about the 2005 raid was made public. In essence, if the defense is going to try to play dirty on this, I suspect they'd better watch out for the judge cutting them off at the knees. That's her job.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-29T12:01:25-06:00

ID

124074

Comment

Just saw Brian's post. Agreed all around. The problem here is that it sounds like the defense is trying to play politics in Judge Green's courtroom. They can go around all they want saying the B.S. about people trashing their clients for several weeks—but they are missing the distinction if the "trashing" is actually based on witness accounts of what they are accused of doing. What some folks call "reporting" and "discussing," they call trashing. Why? Because it makes their clients look bad—and whose fault is that? Shoulda thought about that before joyriding the RV over to Ridgeway Street. On the other hand, introducing completely irrelevant (and possibly false) accusations into the arena to try to give an emotional (if not legal) excuse and to possibly nullify a jury is really onerous stuff. Frankly, I don't even understand how they would be allowed to introduce irrelevant evidence that might taint a jury pool. Maybe Ray can enlighten us when he dips in on this? Shouldn't their evidence be about how their clients didn't do what they are actually accused of? That's where their rights lie on this—for information that will actually show they didn't do what they're charged with. Trying to appeal to potential jurors' emotions with information that is legally irrelevant seems ... well, like it would really tick off a judge. And if I were them, I'm not sure I would do that in this case. A lot is at stake.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-29T12:07:24-06:00

ID

124075

Comment

And it is imperative to remember that they cannot even argue that Mr. Melton was doing his job, due to house's past drug history, blah, blah. The attorney general had already told him in no uncertain terms that leading police raids and bearing weapons is not his job. If he was actually a certified police (or narcotics) officer, what he is accused of doing would still be illegal. I can't quite imagine jury instructions that are going to say: "You must find defendants not guilty of ordering minors to sledgehammer this house if drug agents had ever been there in the past, or if the tenant had been arrested for drug possession." This is absurd.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-29T12:10:29-06:00

ID

124076

Comment

Let's suppose for a moment that Melton gets out of all the charges, those that he's been indicted on, and those that may be forthcoming... What good does it do for the city? And, if he does get out of this mess, he'll get bolder next time and there will be an accidental shooting, or someone will get shot that shouldn't have. Will his supporters still say stupid things like.."Just let the man do his job..." Or, my personal all-time favorite..."He's operating outside of the box..." Just remember, he was about to get use of a helicopter right before all of this happened. Yeah, that's what he needed. Indeed.

Author

Cliff Cargill

Date

2006-09-29T12:21:57-06:00

ID

124077

Comment

Robert and judge Green are quite well known to each other since Robert was a public defender who was constantly before her. I wish I could read what Robert filed to cause the attached response and the judge's likely wrath. My perception of Robert is that of an honorable man who makes every effort to follow the rules. Like me, he's susceptible to getting mad and treading on or near the forbidden line when he feels the other side has or is doing something wrong. He arguably could be attempting to influence the public or likely jury pool but I can't see him openly or obviously doing that. He knows judge Green too well to run this risk. I don't see how bringing up old, unproven, and unpresented crimes will help Melton, Receio or Wright on their current charges. Unless they saw a crime occurring right then they should have gotten a search and/or arrest warrants and approval to tear down the house. I further don't see how that destruction can be validly argued to be a search even if they claim they were looking for drugs within the walls of the house. I can see an argument that the defendants knew from history that crimes occur within that abode and saw something then that was suspicious of criminal behavior. I'll think about this further and give a better response if something new comes my way.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-09-29T12:36:38-06:00

ID

124078

Comment

Frankly, it sounds like Robert's best argument would be showing that Melton ordered them to do what they did, wouldn't it? Although: I assume the prosecutor would argue back that they knew that Melton could not order them to break the law, that he was the not the police chief. So maybe that wouldn't be a defense. Maybe he thinks that Marcus could argue that he was following up on a previous "call" to the house, but that sure does seem damn flimsy, for the reasons that you state. They would still need warrants, etc. Thinking out loud here. It sure does seem to be hard to defend—short of proving that they didn't do what witnesses said. I mean, how else would you defend it—in an actual courtroom?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-29T12:53:50-06:00

ID

124079

Comment

Update on Ledge site: Attorneys Robert S. Smith and Omar Nelson said they spoke to a WLBT-Channel 3 reporter “with caution and good faith, and not with the intent to circumvent the Court’s instructions.” The filing appears not to have swayed Judge Tomie Green, who issued an order this morning requiring that all parties involved in the charges against Wright, Recio and Jackson Mayor Frank Melton appear Monday at 2 p.m. in her courtroom to face contempt charges for violating the order. That date may change, as Melton has a court date that morning in Meridian in an unrelated civil suit. [...] Danks also noted that one of the most vocal attorneys — Dennis Sweet — has not been asked to appear. Sweet, who is representing duplex owner Jennifer Sutton, has filed notice of his intent to sue the city over the incident, and was granted a temporary restraining order forbidding city employees, Melton or the City Council from referring to the duplex as a “drug house.” “You file a restraining order, that’s talking,” he said. “I didn’t see Dennis Sweet’s name on (the order).”

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-29T12:57:16-06:00

ID

124080

Comment

A few questions based on that posting: 1. Isn't the whole point of a gag order to "gag" the attorneys and the principals in a particular case from talking to the media or publicly? How are distinctions made? Can you talk about nuts-and-bolts of the case? Or say nothing? 2. Why would Dennis Sweet be gagged in this criminal case? The gag order doesn't apply to the civil case, right? Is he someone's attorney in the criminal case? Would be be considered a party in the case as the attorney in the civil case? 3. Anyone have the specific comments Smith made to WLBT? What about any made by other attorneys since the gag order was issued? Maybe we can compare and contrast. Ray, thoughts? Anyone else? Also, it's important to note the media cannot be gagged in these cases for obvious reasons. They can only gag the parties and attorneys to the case it applies to, as I understand it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-29T13:01:20-06:00

ID

124081

Comment

I find it hard to believe that Dale Danks is actually that stupid, which means that he is playing a game with the public. If Sweet has nothing to do with the criminal case, how would the gag order apply to him? I have a feeling Judge Green will have offer some very frank words at the Monday hearing.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-09-29T13:12:37-06:00

ID

124082

Comment

I like the argument of them saying Melton told them to do it. But the argument that Melton has no such authority and they knew it would likey prevail. However, I think the problem is that none of the defendants are planning to turn on the other. All plan to win or lose as a group which ought to stress the hell out of Robert. Maybe not following up to previous calls, but then presently held reasonable suspicious of illegality based on something he was then witnessing coupled with past knowledge or history of crimes occurring within that house. Either way, it seems flimsy and futile. Clearly their big concern is showing they were validly or legally there, then worry later about claims of overreacting by tearing down the house. The tearing down the house part seems to be the thing that is further endearing Melton to so many supporters.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-09-29T13:14:44-06:00

ID

124083

Comment

Danks knows losing the criminal case will probably help Dennis in his civil case. Danks is probably smartly trying to muzzle Dennis too although I don't see how the present gag order can apply to Dennis. If I were Danks I'd throw in the kitchen sink trying to convince judge Green that Dennis needs to be gagged too. Green likely doesn't have authhority to do this since Dennis case is not yet before her.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-09-29T13:26:32-06:00

ID

124084

Comment

The gag order means the lawyers can't talk about the case to anyone except the lawyers, staff, and court. When faced with a gag order it's best that the lawyer says no comments to questions rather than try to talk without violating the order. Dennis has a financial incentive in seeing the defendant lose, but he is too honorable, like all lawyers are, to do anything to facilitate the defendants losing.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-09-29T13:33:12-06:00

ID

124085

Comment

Robert Smith - Tougaloo graduate Tomie Green - Tougaloo graduate Ray Carter - Tougaloo graduate The possibility of seeing them run into each other at an alumni function - PRICELESS! Of course, this Tougaloo graduate would watch from a distance. :-)

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-09-29T13:41:58-06:00

ID

124086

Comment

Dennis Sweet and his sister Judge Denise Owens are also Tougaloo graduates. One moring I was in court with a room full of lawyers and personally noted that every black lawyers there was a Tougaloo graduate. I wanted to take a picture for bragging purposes.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-09-29T13:56:52-06:00

ID

124087

Comment

Speaking of the word honorable and lawyers, I'm compelled to tell my favorite lawyer joke. Lawyers don't like this joke but I do. Here it is: A guy with a gun and only 2 bullets walked into a elevator already containing a bear, alligator, and lawyer. The guy feared for his life and shot the lawyer twice saying he thought he had a chance against the alligator and bear.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-09-29T14:08:29-06:00

ID

124088

Comment

Dennis Sweet and his sister Judge Denise Owens are also Tougaloo graduates. Oh yeah, that's right! It's hard to keep up. One moring I was in court with a room full of lawyers and personally noted that every black lawyers there was a Tougaloo graduate. I wanted to take a picture for bragging purposes. Yep, Tougaloo has been bragging about the doctors and lawyers who graduated from there for years, and I don't blame them. That was one of the reasons I wanted to go there even though I wasn't going to major in pre-med or pre-law.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-09-29T14:10:06-06:00

ID

124089

Comment

Speaking of the word honorable and lawyers, I'm compelled to tell my favorite lawyer joke. Lawyers don't like this joke but I do. Here it is: A guy with a gun and only 2 bullets walked into a elevator already containing a bear, alligator, and lawyer. The guy feared for his life and shot the lawyer twice saying he thought he had a chance against the alligator and bear. ROTFL!!!!!

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-09-29T14:12:07-06:00

ID

124090

Comment

Thanks, Ray, for the updates. It seems that you are confirming Brian and my suspicions. We're doing OK for armchair lawyers, I guess. ;-) Of course, we're actually just guessing about the stuff that doesn't make any damn sense. It seems to me that the judge would get testy if Danks and other attorneys keep saying things to the media that don't make sense — such as why isn't Sweet gagged? Uh, because he's not one of the lawyers in the case. And I'm still struck by how ridiculous it is for the lawyer of the men who allegedly took the law into their own hands to then fuss about the attention that they got doing it. Of course, they only want it to get the kind of attention that will build sympathy. But when false information is put out purposefully by folks close to the defendants, you can see why the judge would get testy. I hear Green is a tough one, though. Monday will be interesting.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-29T17:36:45-06:00

ID

124091

Comment

"Felony Frank" makes World Magazine (Christian magazine): Felony Frank This time Jackson, Miss., mayor Frank Melton could face real problems. In September, prosecutors indicted the erratic mayor on felony charges of malicious mischief and burglary when he led a group of sledge-hammer wielding teens to break into and bust up a drug house on Aug. 26. Critics have long called Melton a vigilante, noting his tendency to impersonate police officers by accompanying SWAT teams on raids and sweeps. Melton has been known to associate with the city's youth, even hosting a number of poor teens at his private house. If convicted, Melton could face up to 50 years behind bars.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-09-29T18:01:43-06:00

ID

124092

Comment

I hear Green is a tough one, though. Monday will be interesting. Yes, she is. I met her a few times when i went to school with one of her children. She was sweet, but she did not play!

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2006-10-01T21:51:54-06:00

ID

124093

Comment

An absolute "must read" by all parties interested in the Ridgeway incident. Compare / Contrast - Enjoy!

Author

pikersam

Date

2006-10-25T23:19:34-06:00

ID

124094

Comment

Last Friday on the Tisdale show Stephanie was all over JPD for mistreating a family. She promised to investigate and report back this Friday. if you did not hear her U missed a great back peddling show from that bunch. Very interested to hear what she has to say this Friday. Listen and let's talk. Is this a mellonhead begining to jump ship??

Author

jada

Date

2006-10-26T00:40:34-06:00