Jackson Free Press

WJNT radio host Kim Wade has filed a petition for removal (PDF, 270 KB) against Mayor Frank Melton with the circuit clerk's office, Wade confirmed to the Jackson Free Press this afternoon.

Wade's petition relies on Article 6, Section 175 of the Mississippi Constitution, which states that "all public officers, who in wilful neglect of duty or misdemeanor in office, shall be liable to presentmnet or indictment by a grand jury; and, upon conviction, shall be remove from office, and otherwise punished as may be prescribed by law."

Wade's petition states: "Melton is a 'public officer' as that term is used in Section 175 and he has been indicted by a grand jury of the Circuit Court of Hinds County and convicted for violating Miss. Code Ann. 97-37-1 and 97-37-1 in case number 06-0-718, 06-0-719 and 06-0-720. Additionally, the aforesaid criminal violations to which Melton pleaded guilty or no contest to are "misdemeanors in office" as that term is used in Section 175 in that Melton appeared at each of the buildings in question in his capacity as mayor, that he was escorted into these buildings by the City of Jackson Police Department officers, and that he was invited to events at each of these locations to represent the City as its mayor."

The petition calls for the court to rule that Melton "is not entitled to the office of Mayor of the City of Jackson," and that his office be declared vacant. The petition also calls for all costs, including attorney's fees, to be charged to Melton.

We will post more details as they are available.

Previous Commentsshow

Okay, law buffs: Any chance this will work? It looks solid to me, but I'm no attorney. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 16 2007

Wow...bet it doesn't happen. The Supreme Court will overturn if lower court agrees with petition filed by Kim Wade.

JenniferGriffin

Feb 16 2007

too bad I don't live in Jackson, or I'd sign a couple of times. It won't happen though, the MS Supremes don't have the guts.

Ironghost

Feb 16 2007

Oh wow. Well, he said he was going to do it.

LawClerk

Feb 16 2007

I doubt if it goes anywhere, too. Has a sitting mayor ever been removed this way in Mississippi?

golden eagle '97

Feb 16 2007

Yeah, a Mayor from some little city was removed from a Quo Warranto action, but not a petition for removal. I'll do some digging and find which mayor it was. lc

LawClerk

Feb 16 2007

Thank you Kim Wade! I hope this works!

Fitz

Feb 17 2007

Give me a break! I like Kim Wade's point of view most of the time, but this is crazy. Kim has a personal vendetta that needs to be resolved out of the public eye. Jackson would be a lot safer if Kim and all the other Frank haters would devote as much time to helping fight crime as they do to bashing Frank. Everybody wants to give lip service, but nobody wants to be the leader. Thank God Frank is trying to solve the problem instead of sitting on his butt like the previous administration.

jamscan

Feb 17 2007

scott writes: Jackson would be a lot safer if Kim and all the other Frank haters would devote as much time to helping fight crime as they do to bashing Frank. Given that Frank has already been convicted on gun charges and has another trial on the way, I think we are fighting crime. The Melton administration seems to have a three-tiered approach to crime: 1. People above the law, such as Frank Melton, are supposed to be allowed to break it with impunity. 2. People beneath the law, such as Evans Welch and Michael Black, are supposed to receive no protection from it. 3. People in the middle are supposed to support folks in category #1 because they "fight crime" by mistreating people in category #2. Sorry, not buying it. If you want to live in a police state, go move to one. In the United States, the law is still supposed to apply to everybody--nobody too important to be punished for breaking it, nobody too unimportant to be protected by it. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 17 2007

Amen, Tom. What an excellent and simple way of stating it. Kim's act is courageous and I cannot predict how the courts may behave with this Petition. I assume it will deserve a fair and timely hearing. But, that assumption is based on my belief that we live under the law........

ChrisCavanaugh

Feb 17 2007

"Give me a break! I like Kim Wade's point of view most of the time, but this is crazy. Kim has a personal vendetta that needs to be resolved out of the public eye". Oh, you'd rather it be done in a back room out of the view of citizens? The public has a right to know. "Jackson would be a lot safer if Kim and all the other Frank haters would devote as much time to helping fight crime as they do to bashing Frank". Frank breaks the law, Frank pays the price, just like the rest of us. Period. Are you a Christian? If so, I find it sad that you are calling people 'haters'. Do you have some gift frim God that lets you see in other people's hearts? 'Haters' indeed. "Everybody wants to give lip service, but nobody wants to be the leader. Thank God Frank is trying to solve the problem instead of sitting on his butt like the previous administration". What has he done to fight crime Scott? The police chief has no plan , and obviously she's in over her head and isn't qualified to do the job. The police force numbers are down from the last administration that you claim did nothing. The SWAT team had 21 members when Frank took office; it now has 13. Morale within the department is at an all time low while violent crimes are on the rise. So, Scott....name some of Frank's crime fighting accomplishments. Go ahead, we'll all wait.

Cliff Cargill

Feb 17 2007

Cliff, Frank pulled over and hugged an entire school bus full of young kids. He's pre-empting their violent tendencies to commit crimes by hugging them. We should be thankful. :) lc

LawClerk

Feb 17 2007

A violation of Jackson Public School policy and state law. I'm glad you brought that up. What a dangerous thing to do on an interstate highway. Thank God Frank is "trying to solve the porblem...."

Cliff Cargill

Feb 17 2007

So far, I've seen no evidence that Frank's crime-fighting solutions (Oh, I forgot, there are none) are working. Burglars are still breaking in to the Miners' business and plain-clothes police officers are being robbed. Even all those state of emergency declarations haven't done a thing. I'm still waiting for the 90-day crime-fighting plan he promised back in 2005.

golden eagle '97

Feb 17 2007

Yeah... What happened to: "It's over!!! I'll stop crime in 90 days."

Cliff Cargill

Feb 17 2007

But, I'm sure the problem is with us "Frank Haters" not lletting him do his job".

Cliff Cargill

Feb 17 2007

you know, could sit up on top of the garage where the gym at baptist is, see the Chevron station, and have a great shot for sniper targets when they try to break into his gas station again.

Kingfish

Feb 17 2007

Since I seemed to have pissed off multiple users, all of you please reply with details of what you (as the pretend mayor) would do to solve the crime problem in Jackson. I don't wanna hear any of this "We can talk the problems out with the opposition" crap that I've been hearing from the national dems about the war. I understand that Frank has a long way to go before he understands how to obey the law and follow the rules, but the crime element he is dealing with is a bit more thuggish than you perceive. Also, who else did we have to choose from for mayor? Anyone... anyone? Did you see any other good candidates stick there hats in the race for mayor? Would you want the job? I sure wouldn't. So, before you go hatin' (yep, I said hating and yes I am a Christian ;), put yourself in mayoral shoes and solve the problem by listing your steps to save the city on this blog. Maybe Frank (more likely his staff) will read your plan to save the city, then he'll follow it word for word. By the way, no off-the-street teenagers are allowed to stay at your house while you devise the above noted plan to save Jackson. Letting teens stay with you is not illegal, but it's just plain creepy.

jamscan

Feb 17 2007

Scott writes: Since I seemed to have pissed off multiple users, all of you please reply with details of what you (as the pretend mayor) would do to solve the crime problem in Jackson. Okay, that's a tangent, but it's a much more productive tangent than the one we were on. Here are six things I'd do right off the bat: 1. Relieve Shirlene Anderson and replace her with someone who has more law enforcement experience. I support women in positions of leadership, but only when they're qualified. Anderson was an MBN agent, and no more qualified to run a police department than I am. She may be a great person, but on paper there is absolutely nothing to suggest that she should be police chief. And in the spirit of #1, I would also raise the police chief's salary to make the position more competitive. 2. In collaboration with this new police chief, preferably someone who has run a police department somewhere before, I would design a real crime plan. I would bring in outside consultants if necessary. 3. I would raise officer salaries. This is one thing that Melton is doing right, though his specific plan for generating revenue--a $15 fee for crime reports, for example--is not acceptable. We need to look at how our luxury and tourism tax rates compare with other major cities. 4. I would bring back ComStat and be completely transparent about the crime rate, and where crimes are taking place. I would either produce evidence that the crime stats were cooked under Johnson, or apologize for having made that claim in the past and admit that I was wrong. I would also make a strong argument that the poverty created by Hurricane Katrina is more responsible for the increase in crime than the change in administrations, an argument that can actually be backed up if you look at the crime rates of other cities that experienced an influx of economically vulnerable residents after Katrina. 5. I would bring back community policing. It works. 6. Most of all, I'd respect citizens' civil rights and stop doing crap that's going to get the city sued. There is no legitimate reason to sledgehammer Evans Welch's house, or let police beat up Michael Black, or harass the Upper Level. None of that is going to reduce the crime rate. Real crimefighting is about actually preventing and punishing crime, not declaring war on some vaguely-defined "criminal element." That never goes well. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 17 2007

Scott. You haven't "pissed" anyone off here. You don't have that much power and never will. You came in here swinging. We challenged your statements and you can't back up one thing that you've said. You still can't name ONE thing Frank has done to curb the rise in crime. If you come in here, you'd best put your big boy britches on, because this crew can do the dozen with the best of them. Again, please name one thing Frank has done to stop crime. Come on. Pick the water bucket up and carry it. We're wating. Otherwise, you've folded like a cheap deck of cards. This site isn't one for rookies who can't back up their statements with facts. Have a nice day.

Cliff Cargill

Feb 17 2007

I'm no expert on the state constitution --more of a federal courts kind of guy-- but here are some offhand guesses as to the merits of Wade's case. A lot may turn on whether the phrase "misdemeanor in office" really means what it says (i.e., any misdemeanor committed while acting in one's official capacity) or alternatively, is a legal term of art (i.e., the courts or legislature have assigned it a particular, more narrow meaning). It looks like it's the latter: section 25-5-1 of the MS Code governs removal of public officials from office, and limits removal to felonies, crimes involving "corruption and peculation", gambling with public money. That section also seems to require that the motion for removal be filed by the AG (or a DA), rather than a private citizen. (Note, however, that the quo warranto statute Wade cites does allow the action to be brought putatively by the state "on relation" from a private citizen. And that is precisely what he has done here. I note, by way of lawyerly nitpicking, that he has neglected to sign the Rule 11 verification at the end, but got a notary to sign off nonetheless. Odd.) Obviously, a literal reading of the constitutional provision Wade cites would trump the statute, but courts would be extremely reluctant to read "misdemeanor" literally, particularly since the legislature seems to have provided its own reasonable means of implementing the general thrust of the constitution's mandate. (And because it could allow for removal, or at least "presentment or indictment", for things like littering during a public appearance.) There is another grounds for removal in the code. Section 25-5-7 allows for removal by "petition" to the Governor. But this provision applies only to county officials, not municipal officials. What's more, the grounds for removal under section 25-5-7 don't include crimes or misdemeanors, but rather knowing failure to perform the duties of the office. It may be that Wade was thinking of this provision if he referred to his complaint as a "petition". It clearly doesn't apply here, however. In sum, because Melton's convictions are not felonies, it looks like the complaint won't hold up. Too bad, although I suppose I would prefer to see Frank roundly rebuked the good old fashioned way -- at the ballot box.

laughter

Feb 17 2007

my .02 The quo warranto action seems pretty weak. The original blogging on this topic way back when quoted 25-5-1 incorrectly(it was quoted incorrectly in the Cumbest case) and made it seem like "misdemeanor in office" was a lot more vauge than it really is under 25-5-1. After digging throught he Cumbest case and the statute, I think your take on it is correct. "Misdemeanor in office" is a term of art explained by 25-5-1. Has to be a felony and I would expect this suit to fail. On the other topic, I think this is an issue for the ballot box, not the courts.

Niles Hooper

Feb 18 2007

Cliff, with all due respect, I think Scott's point is this..and its one Ive been trying to make in other threads. There is NOTHING anyone can point out as an achievement of this administration. You continue to ask that question and point is..there is none. No one can dispute that. There's not ONE recognizable thing he's done to stop crime other than the fact that he's made it a lightning-rod topic for Jacksonians. Everytime someone asks for answers or solutions, however someone says they're on a "tangent" or "skirting the issue" etc. or even "trolling". or when I call for more action, I'm "trying to silence folks" etc. Scott asked a perfectly legitimate question..WHAT ARE SOME SOLUTIONS? WHAT WOULD YOU/I PROPOSE? HOW DO YOU SUGGEST WE FIX THE PROBELM? all good questions and fit squarely within the confines of this discussion. The only person who EVER even has the gumption to answer is Tom. And incidentally he made some GREAT points and ones that can trigger a discussion. Here's a hard truth. The mayor is in office until he's voted out. Chances are good that he will escape this next trial with a misdemeanor and still be in office. He still garners a lot of support in the community and if a more dynamic candidate doesnt run against him next time he will probably win again. As long as he squeeks by with misdemeanors and outlandish tactics, stepping back when things get a little hot, he's gonna be mayor. But that doesnt mean all is lost! Now...what Im suggesting is instead of continuing to press on his obvious shortcomings and talking about what he's doing wrong, let's figure out how we can circumvent that with some action. In the event that he stays in office, how can we win our city back? Because simply calling for his resignation is not enough..partially because he'll kill hisself before he resigns..hard truth. It may all come down to a showdown between the mayor's detractors and the mayors supporters facing off in front of city hall. Perhaps the sight of hundreds of people who want you to leave office right in your face is kind of a reality check. Trust me, the mayor thinks your numbers are waaaaay smaller than they may actually be..maybe he needs to be proven wrong...just a suggestion...think about it.

Kamikaze

Feb 18 2007

I've had a lot of disagreements with Kaze over Melton and I'm sure I'll have many more, but sir, you did hit the nail on the head here: Here's a hard truth. The mayor is in office until he's voted out. Chances are good that he will escape this next trial with a misdemeanor and still be in office. He still garners a lot of support in the community and if a more dynamic candidate doesnt run against him next time he will probably win again. As long as he squeeks by with misdemeanors and outlandish tactics, stepping back when things get a little hot, he's gonna be mayor. But that doesnt mean all is lost! Folks, it can't mean all is lost. We can't go at this from the angle of "Gee, let's wait and see and if Melton stays in office, let's all move to Madison." We have a responsibility, as citizens of this city, to talk to our councilpersons at the very least, to write letters to every media outlet, to spread the word. I think Chokwe Lumumba's press conference was an excellent first step. I think Kim Wade's petition is a good step; it's constructive. I think Donna's reporting is an excellent part of this, too, and I don't want anyone to come out of this thinking that I want people to stop talking--I don't think people talk enough. BUT... I am trying to keep in mind that old question I learned at that counseling psychology class I took at Mississippi College years ago: "What would you like to see happen?" We need to imagine what we are prepared to do if Melton remains mayor until 2009, or 2013, or 2017. Everything can't hinge on getting rid of Melton. We need to look at what we can do as citizens, and what the City Council can do, to rein him in. The suburban theogony folks bashed Jackson for EIGHT YEARS under the pretense of criticizing the city administration. We must not fall for the same trick. We need to be able to love the city even if we don't care for the administration, and we need to be able to figure out how we can constructively work to help the city and reduce the damage the administration is doing to it. If we are not prepared to jump the ship physically, we should not jump it verbally or emotionally. As long as we live here, this is our city and we are obligated to participate in the system--not abandon it--and work constructively for change. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 18 2007

I'll bet either one of you $100 that says if Melton is in office for more than one term, Jackson will have to be rescued by the Federal gov't! That is the bottom line. I hope you guys enjoy your Melton pipe dream...

pikersam

Feb 18 2007

And I hope you enjoy Madison, Pike. My commitment to the city is not contingent on who the mayor happens to be. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 19 2007

No, Pike, I'm not quite finished. Let me put this out there: I have posted criticisms of Melton under my real name. Have you? I have written to my city council member under my real name. Have you? I have volunteered for the ACLU. Have you? I attended the Know Your Rights meeting the ACLU and NAACP put on last year re: racial profiling by Melton. Have you? I have offered my name up to help with whatever Chokwe Lumumba has in mind re: activism. Have you? No? Then who the HELL do you think you are to talk about anybody else's "Melton pipe dream"? Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 19 2007

attention ho.

Kingfish

Feb 19 2007

I'm just tired of watching people who have obviously been looking for an excuse to shit all over Jackson for YEARS jump up and down for joy because we finally have an incompetent mayor. Enough is enough. People who aren't even willing to put their names in the fight shouldn't be sniping at people who are. Period. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 19 2007

"Something got to be did..."

Cliff Cargill

Feb 19 2007

Um, perhaps it needs to be noted that we in Madison have Mayor Mary- the *original* nutcase mayor...

Rico

Feb 19 2007

This is great. The moonbats over at JFP are gnashing their teeth after they realize they are stuck with Melton and their joke of a lawsuit will fail.

Kingfish

Feb 19 2007

Rico, I stand corrected! Fish, I'm not aware of any JFP lawsuit against Melton. Care to explain? I can't really apologize to Pike for my comments, but I do apologize to others reading this for stinking up this forum with them. To be honest, I'm just angry and disgusted. The people who hated Jackson when Johnson headed it up did not suddenly start loving it when Melton was elected mayor. "Crime is up, the wrong people are roaming the streets, the city's going to hell in a handbasket" did not suddenly stop becoming a racially loaded advertisement for suburban life when Melton was elected mayor. We need to be aware of the dynamic we're playing into here. It's easy to do that when we're on the "Johnson team," and much harder when a mayor we don't like is running the city, but it's still Jackson. I am all in favor of activism against Melton's excesses, as Pike well knew when he posted that "Melton pipe dream" foolishness. But what I am against is using this as an excuse to jump in headfirst into the same damn anti-urban agenda that has defined city politics since desegregation. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 19 2007

"This is great. The moonbats over at JFP are gnashing their teeth after they realize they are stuck with Melton and their joke of a lawsuit will fail." Don't you talk about us like that! Show us bat-moons some respect. "Somthing still got to be did".

Cliff Cargill

Feb 19 2007

"But, if they should succeed, none dare call it treason." If FM were to win another term, no amount of citizen involvement will overcome this incompetent crony-ism. No amount of citizen involvement will overcome the rage and impulsive lawlessness that hallmark this administration, not to mention the daily multiple infractions of accepted practices in running a city. I don't believe the City of Jackson could withstand another term. I'm not even sure it can withstand the next two years. And, Tom, we all rejoice in your independence and ability to refrain from anonymity, but some of us need it. Some of us are in positions that would be in danger if it were known who we are. Even posting under pseudonyms is dangerous to an extent. I believe this is one of the reasons 'blogging' is attractive and popular. I applaud all who engage in ongoing dialog regardless of name used.

ChrisCavanaugh

Feb 19 2007

oops, sorry, wrong site.

Kingfish

Feb 19 2007

I'm confused. I assume you're joking, Kingfish, and not quoting anyone? Are you making up the moonbat thing or did some idiot actually say that? For the record, this is NOT a JFP lawsuit, and anyone who says it is is a flat-out liar. Not to mention an idiot of the highest form. So claim your mantle, Kingfish! ;-) Seriously, a world in which Kim Wade and the JFP are considered to be in synch is a bizarre place. I'm not sure I agree with Kim on *anything* other than the fact that Melton is a bad mayor. Because, you know, searing truth can trump ideology, if one dares to face the truth, of course. Even on that topic, though, Kim says things about Melton that the JFP would never say. That's his choice, but it would be wrong to mix up two different messingers. To Chris: I'm also cool with anonymous posting for people who have something important to say and can't publicly for whatever reason. HOWEVER, launching silly, vicious ad hominem attacks under a fake name is simply an act of cowardice. That should be ridiculed.

DonnaLadd

Feb 19 2007

I'm parodying another site who will say something similar to that and refer to local moonbat Kim Wade and his JFP posse etc.

Kingfish

Feb 19 2007

Ah. I doubt that was clear to everyone. And I don't want anyone to take your "parody" seriously and believe that we're part of that lawsuit. That would simply be spreading misinformation in the name of "parody"—which some folks try to do. Don't do it here, though, please.

DonnaLadd

Feb 19 2007

yeah folks don't take it seriously. That was totally made up by me. Notice how Cliff got the joke immediately. If you frequent the site, you'll get it almost immediately. Of course, according to them I kiss azz over here and you're my girlfriend. They are trying to get me beat up by your b/f obviously.

Kingfish

Feb 19 2007

"...We need to imagine what we are prepared to do if Melton remains mayor until 2009, or 2013, or 2017. Everything can't hinge on getting rid of Melton. We need to look at what we can do as citizens, and what the City Council can do, to rein him in."... ...FINALLY someone sees my point! We can succeed IN SPITE of the situation...If some action takes place. "...We need to be able to love the city even if we don't care for the administration, and we need to be able to figure out how we can constructively work to help the city and reduce the damage the administration is doing to it."... Not looking forward to the prospect of 2 more years? or how about 4 more years? Then NOW is the time to get like-minds together and start devising a strategy that starts a movement STRONGER than the passionate supporters of the mayor(because THAT'S what you're up against). Tom, you've got the idea. At least we can agree on that much.

Kamikaze

Feb 19 2007

you got it. Check out this group in BR: http://www.austin6.com/homepage.htm they went to cities like Austin despite the fact that the admin at the time in BR wasn't interested, to see what worked in similar sized cities and is now a group working on improving BR with or without the government's help. http://www.businessreport.com/newsDetail.cfm?aid=485

Kingfish

Feb 19 2007

I have been listening to woad on Sunday afternoons. and have been amazed to see the dichotomy within the african-american community regarding Frank Melton. As one (white) who voted for him, I have come to see that he is irrational in his actions, and is tearing the city apart by his actions. I wanted Frank to govern well - to protect all of the city, both blacks and whites. It is a shame that so many diverse people came together for the good of the city to elect him, then see him flame out as he has!

fsy3

Feb 19 2007

Chris writes: If FM were to win another term, no amount of citizen involvement will overcome this incompetent crony-ism. If Jackson can survive 20 years under Allen Thompson, it can survive 8 under Frank Melton. But I don't plan for it to come to that, and if we do our jobs as citizens between now and 2009, it won't. No amount of citizen involvement will overcome the rage and impulsive lawlessness that hallmark this administration, not to mention the daily multiple infractions of accepted practices in running a city. A sufficient amount of citizen involvement can literally overcome anything. I don't believe the City of Jackson could withstand another term. I'm not even sure it can withstand the next two years. I am absolutely confident that the City of Jackson can withstand another term, another five terms, a nuclear attack, a Nazi occupation, or anything else the world wants to throw at us. The only question is whether we should have to. It's possible Melton may be gone after the spring, but none of that is in our hands. What is in our hands is the opportunity, and the responsibility, to rein Melton in by convincing the City Council that his administration has failed. And because I do not believe in Satan, incarnate or otherwise, I don't believe that even Melton is completely beyond our sphere of influence, should it become clear to him that public opinion has turned dramatically against his behavior. Right now he's surrounded by sycophants. He isn't getting good intel on what the people of Jackson are coming to believe about his administration. Hopefully, Chokwe Lumumba will lead a movement to educate him. And, Tom, we all rejoice in your independence and ability to refrain from anonymity, but some of us need it. Some of us are in positions that would be in danger if it were known who we are. Even posting under pseudonyms is dangerous to an extent. I believe this is one of the reasons 'blogging' is attractive and popular. I applaud all who engage in ongoing dialog regardless of name used. My comment was a little too enthusiastic in that respect, and I apologize if anyone took it as a sweeping condemnation of every anonymous poster. However: Sniping at someone's level of commitment when one is unwilling to reveal one's own level of commitment is cheap and cowardly. It's sort of like making fun of somebody's looks while wearing a paper bag over one's head. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 19 2007

Kingfish, I haven't clicked on the links you posted yet, but it sounds like the Baton Rouge folks are doing EXACTLY what I have in mind--and yes, it is quite possible to improve this city with or without the mayor's help. He is mayor, not God, not emperor, not pope. Mayor. He doesn't even have exclusive power over city government; even in that respect, he is subject to the City Council. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 19 2007

I have been listening to woad on Sunday afternoons. and have been amazed to see the dichotomy within the african-american community regarding Frank Melton. As one (white) who voted for him, I have come to see that he is irrational in his actions, and is tearing the city apart by his actions. I wanted Frank to govern well - to protect all of the city, both blacks and whites. It is a shame that so many diverse people came together for the good of the city to elect him, then see him flame out as he has! I've gotten to the point to where I can't listen to that show now because it's turned into a Frank Melton cheerleading show. I don't think I've heard one dissenting opinion against Frank on that show since he took office.

golden eagle '97

Feb 19 2007

Tom: what they did was a group of businessmen, civic minded individuals and others took trips to Austin to check out what similar cities were doing right and how BR could emulate or surpass their success. The admin blew off their efforts. The mayor had been the mayor of Baker before hand so his vision and imagination was very limited. In his mind BR had no problems, there was nothing wrong and if its not broke, don't fix it. I think millhouse would agree with me in saying that is not the right attitude to have. He and the city council totally blew them off. Didn't matter. They formed their own group and are actively seeking to change things. One big fight they've had is term limits on boards and commissions which is where the same people have been sitting for years or decades. Another is pushing for revival of downtown and other areas. Its a very proactive group and something we could use here.

Kingfish

Feb 19 2007

Tom: one way is for Mr. Allen to post again what boards are in need of members. That is one way things get down. Another is forming a more pro-Jackson group. Or pro metro area. Yes, I know the chamber is supposed to do that but because it is made up of businessmen, they may not always be able to get involved in political fights. There was one formed in N.O. after Katrina and it has resulted in quite a few shakeup's in N.O. and also contributed mightily for levee board reform and the fight to reduce the number of assessors from 7 to 1. Thats the kind of group we need hear.

Kingfish

Feb 19 2007

Fish, excellent, excellent stuff. I actually contacted Ms. Barrett-Simon's office to see if there were any vacancies in Ward 7, but the school and library board positions were filled here. It looks like there's a Ward 4 vacancy on the Library Board, though, and possibly Ward 1 and 2 vacancies as well. I disagree with Ben Allen quite a bit, but he said two things I can absolutely get behind: We should get involved in the city government if we can so we'll have the power to implement needed reforms, and we should actually call our councilpersons instead of just stewing over stuff. The pro-Jackson group sounds fantastic, but I wonder if we might also be able to get more done through the Chamber of Commerce than folks might ordinarily think. That's not a part of the Jackson community I've really connected with yet--so many venues for change, so little time--but it's a great organization and anyone who feels disconnected from what's going on would be well served to check it out. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 19 2007

if Melton is in office for more than one term, Jackson will have to be rescued by the Federal gov't! Me Hmmm.... Look at what is happening in New Orleans.... Even before Katrina, a local study found that in 2003-2004 only 12 percent of those arrested for murder went to prison. The situation is so bad that federal agencies including the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration are helping the local police. The U.S. Attorney's office has stepped into cases previously left to local courts and prosecuting them in the less lenient federal courts. Re-opening the Superdome and French Quarter didn't solve NO's crime problem. I don't think a few Capital Green type projects will help ours. Crime can go down in the areas that pick up foot traffic; but, that doesn't mean crime goes down or gets better overall if we have flawed leadership. Bad leadership is bad leadership. But see, I still think our mayor (and Blunston) are guilty of heinous crimes in the 90's. I don't think our mayor has given many people a "fair shake." Why should I? In 2004, the crime rate was at it's lowest point in 16 years! Now it is sky-rocketing up. But, don't dare make that correlation, and then mention Melton - you'll be Jackson bashing. It's one thing to use crime as a propaganda tools when crime IS going down. (i.e. suburban theogony 8-| ) It is your right to talk about crime when the "crime problem" is a reality born from the poor leadership of our City.

pikersam

Feb 20 2007

Pike writes: Re-opening the Superdome and French Quarter didn't solve NO's crime problem. I don't think a few Capital Green type projects will help ours. Pike, I am getting tired of arguing this point with you because you keep moving back and forth between "the few good things we've got" style rhetoric and arguing against the ludicrous and never-mentioned claim that the Capital Green project will eliminate all crime in Jackson overnight. The truth is that crime is rooted in poverty, and economic development is one of the best long-term strategies in fighting it. But the "crime problem" will never be "solved," any more than the "death problem" will be "solved." A certain amount of crime is inevitable to urban life. Could Melton do better? Yes. Is the Jackson Police Department still functioning reasonably well, in general, despite the fact that Melton is a terrible mayor? Yes; the article on that rodeo-related shooting you posted about a few weeks ago, where you made the initial "the few good things we've got" remark about Jackson, pointed out that suspects had been arrested with respect to the two previous homicides. The competent majority of JPD officers and detectives did not suddenly turn into idiots when Melton took office. Is Hurricane Katrina partly to blame for the increase in crime? I don't see how any intellectually honest person could look at the short-term crime boost in other cities that welcomed a large number of vulnerable refugees, like Houston, and say no. We know that property crime is the result of poverty. We know that thousands of people facing absolute poverty were among the Katrina refugees who came here. We know that other cities experienced the same spike in property crime that we did. We know that non-property crimes, such as rape and homicide, did not experience the same level of exponential spike as property crimes. This is not a defense of Melton. This is a defense of the idea that the economy and crime rate fluctuate, that a dip in one or the other does not represent a slippery slope to hell, that there are many people involved in the administration of a city, and that the fate of the city is not completely dependent on who the mayor happens to be. The truth is that anyone who says "America is going to hell--George Bush got elected to a second term and this is not a country we'll recognize in four years" has gone nuts, and anyone who says "Jackson is going to hell--Frank Melton still has two and a half years left in his term and this is not a city we'll recognize by 2009" has gone equally nuts. It takes a village, Pike, and one village idiot isn't enough to ruin it for everybody. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 20 2007

Pike, I am getting tired of arguing this point with you Tom and Pike, being that I know you both, and I know you both care deeply about Jackson, my suggestion is that you both let this argument go. Time to move on. For the record, I think you both have good arguments, and that they do not cancel each other out. We can indeed survive Melton, but he indeed is screwing a lot of stuff up and making us use energy cleaning up his messes rather than invest our energy in the future. That's hard. But we can make it through -- if we don't get caught up in petty arguments and waste our time. (Smile)

DonnaLadd

Feb 20 2007

Good point, Donna. In all honesty, I've been cranky and depressed lately in general anyway, and I don't know how much of that is playing into what I'm posting here. I really kind of need to step away from political discussions for a few weeks and just chill. It's getting to me. Pike, the "few good things we've got" line was what really set me off, but you've already explained that remark and it's not really useful for me to keep bringing it up. I apologize for that. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Feb 20 2007

My problem with the Katrina evacuees caused the crime rate to jump in Jackson line is that when I read the crime stories in the paper, I've yet to see a large part of them attributed to Katrina evacuees. Most of the homicides I've read have been committed by the same local citizens, not the evacuees from N.O. it seems like.

Kingfish

Feb 20 2007

Guys & Gals, I'm tellin ya'll. If you don't want to be a victim of a crime... Choose not to be a victim. It's your choice. Choose Wisely. LC

LawClerk

Feb 20 2007

The Clarion-Ledger just got around to reporting the Wade petition. Sort of.

DonnaLadd

Feb 20 2007

The murder rate is still not as high as it was in the mid-80's through early 90's is it? I dont think there is much the city can do to reduce the murder rate since most of them are crimes of passion and/or committed by a person the victim knows.

Willezurmacht

Feb 20 2007

... or are a result of the Drug WAR. Good point, though. You prevent murder; you can't really reduce it with "crime-fighting" and more police.

DonnaLadd

Feb 20 2007

Domestic violence against women and children can be prevented with good police work and the courts functioning well, along with DHS doing what they should. Also, many drug crimes could be prevented with good intervention and treatment. And, further, when criminals are locked up its a good bet they will not be preying on citizens while incarcerated! And Law Clerk, why is crime necessarily a 'choice'? The murders related by Capote's "In Cold Blood" happened in very rural Kansas. I suppose Miss Breeland could have chosen to not live alone or to go to the beauty parlor and return home at 11:00 AM. The worst crime in my family occurred when someone secreted themselves in the house after breaking in a second story window while no one was there. Please explain....

ChrisCavanaugh

Feb 20 2007

Hopefully, Kim will succeed in "de-franking" Jackson of Melton and thereby making it unnecessary to us to agonize over these other trials. And then I woke up still dismayed and pained.

Ray Carter

Feb 20 2007

People kill each other because of desparation and/or ignorance. This is the human condition regardless of who is the mayor, governor, or president.

Willezurmacht

Feb 20 2007

The maya isn't stopping any thefts, burglaries, car-jackings, purse-snatchings, or other crimes. Criminals are now purse-jacking police officers under his crime plan. We don't blame just the maya, we blame his whole administration and his remaining supporters, the few still remaining. Irrespective of the foregoing, I'm pulling for the maya to do a good job for whatever time he has left. We wouldn't have expected so much from him were he not in the habit of promising so much and delivering so little. Some of us are still waiting to see him stop something other than progress.

Ray Carter

Feb 20 2007

Chris, I said it's a choice to not be a victim. Crime is everywhere, and most likely you will be affected by it at some point. I'm saying you can choose NOT to be a victim. With the example you gave about Ms. Breland, well, I'm not sure what she could've done... but her neighbors could've looked out for her a little better. As for me, I will not be a victim.

LawClerk

Feb 20 2007

LC, obviously you can *sometimes.* Sometimes, you can't. I agree that people too often do stuff to attract the crime that's out there looking for a place to occur—like by leaving valuables on their car seats, or their cars running with noone in them—but there are many crimes that the victim does not in any way invite. I can understand why people would be offended at your blanket statement, even if you don't mean it to sound that way. Then to Ray's comment: We wouldn't have expected so much from him were he not in the habit of promising so much and delivering so little. Some of us are still waiting to see him stop something other than progress. Wow. Right on, Ray. Now, there is an argument that the intense naivete that swept the city about Melton's empty promises set the city up to be a victim, however. His supporters really should examine their own role in this—and I don't say that to be ugly. I say it because believing in idiotic empty rhetoric needs to stop. We are facing a very large teachable moment, and it's time that people hold rhetoric-spewing demagogues like Melton accountable—as well as the media who create and enable them.

DonnaLadd

Feb 20 2007

Ladd, I"m not accusing people of inviting crime at all! I'm saying that people can take steps to protect themselves. Once you decide to fight back, you choose not to be a victim. Does that make any sense? Or am I doing a really poor job of articulating what I'm trying to say?

LawClerk

Feb 20 2007

Fight crime... Shoot back! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo72JfXiJoo

Cliff Cargill

Feb 20 2007

Hey look! The Clarion picked this story up. http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070220/NEWS/70220035

Cliff Cargill

Feb 20 2007

See, Cliff gets it! :D

LawClerk

Feb 20 2007

The Clarion-Ledger just got around to reporting the Wade petition. Sort of. I couldn't help to shake my head in embarrassment in the fact that C-L waited several days after the fact to report this. Kim filed the petition on Friday. Even the local news stations reported on that very night.

golden eagle '97

Feb 20 2007

Well, you know the Ledger is busy posting press releases throughout the day on their "breaking news" Information Center that has replaced their newspaper. You've got to cut 'em some slack.

DonnaLadd

Feb 20 2007

I was just so happy to see Ole Miss had elections today. JSU's are next week.

LawClerk

Feb 20 2007

I mean, why report that there was a shooting Saturday night at an apartment complex with a pharmacy student that shot his dad and had 6 flowood cops, 1 ambulance and a firetruck... when you can report that some kid was elected to be president of the Student Body?

LawClerk

Feb 20 2007

Gun owners win another round in court: District Court Judge to City Attorney: conduct "wholly unprofessional" Fairfax, VA-The National Rifle Association (NRA) and law abiding gun owners have won yet another victory this morning against New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and former police chief Warren Riley. Judge Carl J. Barbier, presiding over the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, granted NRA's motion for contempt against New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Warren Riley for "failure to provide initial disclosures and to compel answers to discovery" during NRA's injunction against the City for their illegal gun confiscation of law abiding citizens following Hurricane Katrina in 2006. "Once more, Mayor Ray Nagin and former police chief Warren Riley are held accountable for considering themselves above the law," said Chris W. Cox, NRA's chief lobbyist. "These men have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, every step of the way in this process to return the lawfully owned firearms to their own citizens, and Judge Barbier rightly found them in contempt of court for their complete lack of respect for the rule of law." Furthermore, Judge Barbier concluded the delaying tactics by the City's attorney, Joseph Vincent DiRosa, Jr, to be "wholly unprofessional and shall not be condoned". Mr. DiRosa admitted in Court that he had "no good reason" to explain his actions and has been ordered to pay partial legal fees to NRA's attorneys for their wasted time and money. "Ray Nagin, Warren Riley and their attorney refused to provide vital information to the U.S. District Court for their unconstitutional acts in their city's time of great need," concluded Cox. "On behalf of the lawful gun owners of New Orleans, NRA is pleased with this outcome, we thank Judge Barbier for his swift decision and we will continue to press for the full return of all the city's confiscated firearms." -NRA- Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

Cliff Cargill

Feb 20 2007

New forum idea. Fix Jackson!! I read about new orleans, austin or baton rouge people fixing cities.... LOOK AT CHATANOOGA... My wife is from the town and 8 years ago there were places NOBODY went like downtown after dark because it was not safe. Now it is a haven for the young hip crowd to try to buy downtown lofts because that is where the action is. everyone wants to be in th middle of the boom. Because they hired planners, they had a forward thinging mayor(who is now a sentor that I hate due to his conservative ways), they hired a comptent police cheif and encouraged growth. Now the town is BOOMING, the thing that seperates us from them is leadership (even if I hated their opinions), the willingness to add residents into solving problems, and the desire to fix, rather than blame. I I had LOW expectations for Frank because he screwed up the Narcotics b. He has Exceeded my low goals. Can we PLEASE ME ON? We need ;eadership, NOW, or we will fall into desolation That is what Jackson needs.

AGamm627

Feb 21 2007

Fight crime... Shoot back! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo72JfXiJoo Way to go, Cliff!

Jeff Lucas

Feb 21 2007

New forum idea. Fix Jackson!! Agamm627 The biggest (and maybe only) problem in Jackson is Melton and his cronies! Period! From him emits all that is going wrong with Jackson as far as being a fully functional city - especially in governance! That doesn't mean we don't have silver linings all over. Yet, the morons in power would rather cover for Melton, who is clearly out of his league as Mayor, in some bid to save face and protect back-door deals. If you heard Kim Wade yesterday, several people called in to say they have had enough of Melton. They weren't your "Melton-haters" (full disclosure here - I AM!) just ranting, they were former Melton supporters who seem more tired of Melton's antics then they did angry. It was a very subdued show, and showed just how much Melton is wearing on the psyche of many citizens and the City. Once Melton is out of office a good portion of the issues will practically disappear. If you were to travel the offices of the City, besides City Hall, you would see how the damage of Melton's mismanagement has affected the inner-workings of our City. Fix Jackson = Melton out of office!

pikersam

Feb 21 2007

Amen Pike. Thanks Ejeff!

Cliff Cargill

Feb 21 2007

OMG! Hickingbottom is on Wade's show this afternoon! HE IS A TRIP! I CAN'T BELIEVE HE CAN ACTUALLY GET ON THE RADIO AND CARRY THE WATER WITH A STRAIGHT FACE! This is better than a comedy show!

Jeff Lucas

Feb 21 2007

I'm not listening, but someone just e-mailed me and said that he justified Melton being at the Upper Level because someone was *smoking pot* there! I thought one requirement of his bond/probation is that he cannot be around illegal drugs or alcohol. So how would that possibly be a defense!?!

DonnaLadd

Feb 21 2007

Maybe Robert Johnson can tell us!! LOL!!!

pikersam

Feb 21 2007

Sounds like comedy at its best! Frank is going to kick his butt for saying that. Not even a good lie.

Ray Carter

Feb 21 2007

I am sick to my stomach listening to Higginbottom. This man draws a paycheck from the City (or a temp agency LOL) and gets on the radio and runs us down: "6-shooter city; you only slowdown twice, the waterworks curve, etc., etc." Really bad stuff and certainly not good for the City or for those who happen to be driving through. Accusing Rev. Hightower of having killed people by the 'metric ton' with Lt. Kelly in Viet Nahm. I wonder what Council President Ben Allen would say to this negative tirade?

ChrisCavanaugh

Feb 21 2007

Yes Higginbottom is a pretty sorry individual. Jackson is in a crisis, and people like him are adding fuel to the meltdown. I think Wade got a kick out of just letting him run off at the mouth to illustrate the idiocy of the average Melton fanatic.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 21 2007

CL is reporting that Danks called for Wade to pull his complaint "or face legal action!" http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070221/NEWS/70221051 "The attorney for Jackson Mayor Frank Melton warned radio personality Kim Wade to withdraw his complaint against the mayor or face legal action."

LawClerk

Feb 21 2007

So, if he can't take the heat, then threaten to sue anyone that goes against you. I must've fallen asleep and missed the memo of the Gestapo movement coming to Jackson.

golden eagle '97

Feb 21 2007

I'm proud to call Kim Wade my friend. You are a real man sir.

Cliff Cargill

Feb 21 2007

I sure hope Kim's plan works. Hig is just plain pitiful. Where is his helper Stephany? Seems like Frank has shut her up he needs to do the same for Hig. Maybe the council will LOL.

jada

Feb 22 2007

Seems like the petition might not work, but it does force the judiciary to get involved where they seem like they do NOT want to get involved. Even if it gets tossed, which is most likely what will happen, I can't see how Danks, et al, can sue Wade over it. Maybe for court costs/legal fees rule 11 sanctions? Ray? What do you think?

LawClerk

Feb 22 2007

I agree with you LawClerk. If the law allows this petition (it appears to) then I don't see how they can claim it's frivilous and succeed at collecting any damages against Kim.

Ray Carter

Feb 22 2007

I'm sure Kim is quaking in his boots... You know Danks had a good ol' laugh with Ben and Larry yesterday when Larry joked that, "Ben wanted to buy the Ridgeway house."

pikersam

Feb 22 2007

My confusion lies in that it's not really a petition, and the Quo Warranto (which is what he filed) is usually verified by the AG. Now, if Wade would have filed the actual petition, he would need a certain amount of signatures, which I'm sure he can get. I wonder if he had help, or if he did this himself?

LawClerk

Feb 22 2007

Danks, in the CL article, mentions "harrassment" and other stuff... But, he doesn't get to decide what harrassment it. It's the Court. Here is the language of the MS Rule of Civil Procedure... 11.b) Sanctions. If a pleading or motion is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, it may be stricken as sham and false, and the action may proceed as though the pleading or motion had not been served. For wilful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action. Similar action may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted. If any party files a motion or pleading which, in the opinion of the court, is frivolous or is filed for the purpose of harassment or delay, the court may order such a party, or his attorney, or both, to pay to the opposing party or parties the reasonable expenses incurred by such other parties and by their attorneys, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

LawClerk

Feb 22 2007

My confusion lies in that it's not really a petition, LC We ain't all lawyers here.... Tell us what to call it and we'll call it that.

pikersam

Feb 22 2007

Since Wade is not seeking the office, it should have been brought by the AG. Old statutory quo warranto forms were killed in 82 with adoption of the rules, but the SCT still follows the basic requirements of the old action with regard to standing I believe. I would think, off hand, that if Wade were actually seeking the office he could pursue the claim on his behalf, but he is simply challenging the qualifications for office, hence, the AG should bring it and KW is not a "relator" in that sense.

Niles Hooper

Feb 22 2007