Jackson Free Press

The intrigue increases as the city watches to see if our mayor will be arrested for violating his probation. Attorneys for Mayor Frank Melton have filed an "emergency application for extraordinary relief," saying that Judge Tomie Green filed a decision with the circuit clerk yesterday that, in effect, would have given the Mississippi Supreme Court the jurisdiction to remove her from Melton's case. But, they say, she took back the motion at the end of the day.

Read Green's decision here.

More details soon ...

Previous Commentsshow

How long can Frank stay at St. D's without getting charged a hotel rate? I love the hypothetical of charging the administration of St. D's with harboring a known fugative and possibly aiding and abetting.... This is SO much better than TV, if only it wasn't such a PATHETIC reflection of my home city AGamma627

AGamm627

Mar 6 2007

Note that Merrida Coxwell has signed on as an attorney for Melton–isn't that a new development. Sounds like he's spending some big moolah on this case.

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

Buddy (Merrida) Coxwell has signed on as one of Melton's attorneys? Intersting development indeed. Buddy is a fine attorney, but not cheap. No wonder I haven't seen Buddy in awhile. Regards, Larry

Larry

Mar 6 2007

Wasn't he Delay Beckwith's attorney?

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

Yes, I was at a meeting where he talked about defending Beckwith.

malt

Mar 6 2007

Interesting that Danks is saying the Judge Green committed larceny by withdrawing her order.... This is ridiculous.

LawClerk

Mar 6 2007

I don't know lawclerk? I think Judge Green may have messed up? But, that doesn't mean Melton should be able to skate free. He has blatantly violated his parole and bond regardless of the judge. But, how in the world can Melton's handlers (that aren't white) support his decision to hire Beckwith's attorney?

pikersam

Mar 6 2007

We, the people, of the city of Jackson need Extraordinary Relief from the madness of this mayor and all his minions, legal and illegal.

jasp

Mar 6 2007

I am a bit confused here. I read the documentation in the pdfs, so can someone explain why Judge Green withdrew that document? What is the major error? And what "would have given the Mississippi Supreme Court the jurisdiction to remove her from Melton's case." I am a bit slow, so just give it to me in little words, OK?

bobnoxious

Mar 6 2007

I believe the court appointed Coxwell as Beckwith's attorney.

jasp

Mar 6 2007

wait a second. Everyone is entitled to legal representation including beckwith. I'm not going to hold it against an lawyer for who is client is. Coxwell is a very good criminal defense lawyer. Melton is entitled to hire any bar certified lawyer he wants to and any can defend him if they choose to do so. I don't like the idea of criticizing lawyers for who they defend for the most part.

Kingfish

Mar 6 2007

I agree, bobnoxious. Wonder if the "would have given the Mississippi Supreme Court the jurisdiction to remove her from Melton's case" was merely the fact that the Judge issued an order - no matter what it said. I still believe precedent was set by the Supreme Court earlier when they ruled on the whole crack house deal - at first say yes, then saying no. Are we possibly being given some inside notice that the Supreme Court would have ruled in favor of Melton yesterday had they just had "any" order from Green?

JenniferGriffin

Mar 6 2007

I understand McMillian's hesitation in carrying out the arrest. But, as a citizen of Hinds County, I say go ahead and arrest the clown and get it over with. It's time for the circus to leave town. Texas sounds good. They have lots of rodeos. They could use a clown.

Lady Havoc

Mar 6 2007

Right you all are. Buddy was the lead attorney for Beckwith and he was appointed. Isn't that what is suppose to make our system "better" than most...............everyone having the right to proper representation? Even a known hater like Beckwith. Buddy was just doing his job. Regards, Larry.

Larry

Mar 6 2007

Right, LC. I'm no legal expert, but when I read the statute he provided, that struck me as weak. She's the judge; it's her order. Now, I can understand if judicial guidelines might keep her from doing that (or might not), but wouldn't have have includeed such a thing if it existed??? Thinking this through (and without presuming bias on her part as Danks would like everyone to do), it strikes me that it made sense to pull the motion once the SC ruled that they didn't have jurisdiction to overturn her. That meant her original warrant would stand, and the follow-up wasn't needed. I mean, if they didn't have jurisdiction the first time, it strikes me that her follow-up motion would be irrelevant anyway. Re Coxwell–everyone deserves a defense. I know and like the woman defending James Ford Seale. I just mentioned it because I think it's kinda quirky. This state is just filled with bizarro stories. The bigger question is why they feel like they NEED Coxwell. They must really think Melton is up shit-creek.

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

I agree with you it is "kind of quirky."

Larry

Mar 6 2007

"Texas sounds good. They have lots of rodeos. They could use a clown." Speaking of clowns: what happened at the city council meeting today? The usual circus?

Cliff Cargill

Mar 6 2007

Completely agreed, Larry. It does make a for a good Southern gothic story, though! Also, I should also add that I'm not saying Green was elegant in her handling of this. I kinda doubt most judges down there are. She's under the spotlight because she's up against the Melton Machine, so every little thing she does is put under Danks' magnifying glass. But calling this "tampering" under that statute seems quite the stretch. Certainly, if one could interpret that statute to mean that the judge can't pull back a motion to correct an error, one should be able to look at that other one that says that a mayor should be removed for "misdemeanors" and interpret it quite literally! I'm waiting to see what more applicable rule/law she might have violated here. Anyone?

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

If Melton actually cared about this community, he would cut a deal with prosecutors to step down to avoid time. This is a regular defense tactic he is playing out in order to postpone any action by filing these frivolous motions. The end result is, this is all a stretch. My question is, who is running the city right now? He has been in the hospital for a few days now, once he is out he is going to jail, so effectively we won't have a mayor. Jackson is fast becoming the laughing stock of this state.

Ole Miss Alum

Mar 6 2007

As for arresting him in the hospital, I do agree that this asylum should only go so far. He will make a mockery out of the justice system, and the sheriff, if they let him hide out for too long. Last week was one thing, but I'm assuming they are asking for his medical records now to make sure he's not just trying to avoid jail time by staying in the hospital. Can one imagine what Melton would be doing if, say, Batman was hiding in the hospital rather than going to jail. He'd be busting in there with a posse armed with machine guns!

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

Is it public record who the doctor is that is documenting that it is necessary for him to remain in hospital? What kind of ethics issues does it raise if this stay is not warranted? Will we ever know because of doctor/patient priveledge?

bobnoxious

Mar 6 2007

I mean, if they didn't have jurisdiction the first time, it strikes me that her follow-up motion would be irrelevant anyway. - Ladd Well...maybe we will find out today. I know Brian said previously that the JPF didn't do the story on the crack house ruling because there was no comment given. But I still scratch my head about all of that - if the first order from Green was okay with a three judge panel, how did the full court rule later that Green's order was not okay...and it be unanimous from all of the judges, including the original three? I guess there's politics in everything and majority (liberal versus conservative) rules, not necessarily law. With no written comments on the matter, we'l never know I guess. Will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on the second filing from Melton and attorneys.

JenniferGriffin

Mar 6 2007

you're right agamm627, this is soooo much better than TV and would be quite funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Many have seen the little guy and his body guards going and coming from the hotel, i mean hospital. understand he came in with loads of goodies from Olive Garden, even heard his doctor was looking for him Sunday, but the little guy was out. (doc was at the hospital looking for him) He strolls around the facility in a blue Jogging suit. Are the Sisters indeed aiding and abetting? Oh my!!!!

notme

Mar 6 2007

I hate to go on record as saying this, but... the MS Supreme Court is pro-Melton. Period.

LawClerk

Mar 6 2007

I think while Melton is enjoying his stay at Chateau Dominic's, he should be tested and evaluated for mental stability.

Ole Miss Alum

Mar 6 2007

Thanks, LawClerk. Guess we could see them provide relief to Melton and attorneys....

JenniferGriffin

Mar 6 2007

Here is the statute for those interested: § 97-9-3. Tampering with records of courts of justice or public office The stealing and carrying away, or fraudulently withdrawing, concealing, or destroying or taking away any record, paper, or proceeding of a court of justice, or any paper or proceeding filed or deposited with any officer or in any public office, shall be larceny without reference to the value of the record, paper, or proceeding so stolen, taken away, or destroyed, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not more than five years, or in the county jail not more than one year, and by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or both. In order for this to even be considered, it would have to be a *fraudulent* (as in, she is acting unlawfully) withdrawal. I'm not sure how one would even decide if it's fraudulent. Danks need to tread lightly here. He is accusing a sitting judge of a serious offense, and I hope for his sake, that he has the proof to back it up. So I guess to take a court document is more serious than carrying a gun into a school, eh?

LawClerk

Mar 6 2007

I'm not knocking the attorney or proper representation. I just think it should raise eyebrows in the Stokes, Tisdale, SORE & Evans crowd. That is all. Quirky indeed! I bet it is a regular party up in Melton's room. He's probably got everyone there, except his real family! No, we will never know if St. D's provided shelter over care as the doctors will sign off as Melton being in observation during this time. They ain't stupid...

pikersam

Mar 6 2007

I don't have time to read it right now, but someone just e-mailed the link to the Rules of Judicial Conduct. Y'all do the lifting on it for me, so I can get the paper out. Ciao. http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/rules/AllRulesText.asp?IDNum=11

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

Many have seen the little guy and his body guards going and coming from the hotel, i mean hospital. understand he came in with loads of goodies from Olive Garden, even heard his doctor was looking for him Sunday, but the little guy was out. OK, if that's true, somebody ought to be taking cell-phone photos and e-mailing them over. Why is the Mississippi Supreme Court "pro-Melton"? And isn't that an odd thing to be–does that mean "pro-Melton" no matter what laws he breaks? Surely, our court is not that whacked.

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

Not sure if anyone has posted it here yet, but the Ledger's story that has been updated today says "...Green said what she did was not unusual and was simply a procedural matter. She said she withdrew the order after realizing her assistants forgot to file corresponding exhibits. This afternoon, Green refiled the motion with the exhibits attached." So that at least explains why she pulled the document yesterday...the major error...

bobnoxious

Mar 6 2007

CANON 2 A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Commentary Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether, based on the conduct, the judge's impartiality might be questioned by a reasonable person knowing all the circumstances. I would say this is pretty relevant to Green's actions. However, more appropriate would be to contact the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance to get their thoughts on what would be the most relevant section. http://www.judperf.state.ms.us/

Ole Miss Alum

Mar 6 2007

Wow...in looking at CL new web lead, seems Judge Green suggests filing complaint with Bar against Melton attorney.

JenniferGriffin

Mar 6 2007

Well, that makes sense. Forgetting your exhibits is a major error that you could need to correct. It feels like Danks' dramatic motion might be crumbling here. I don't know–I'm feeling like the Supreme Court will stay clear of this one. I've been wrong before, though.

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

One does wonder if Melton's attorneys called Green and asked her if she was going to resubmit the motion with the mistake corrected before fililng "emergency" motions. Let's hope so; if not, they seem to be pretty loose-lips with the accusations of the judge handling the client's probation. Here's what the Ledger is quoting Green saying: Green said the accusation reflects poorly on the defense attorneys' integrity. "No lawyer would make that type of claim against a judge and not think that is basis for a bar complaint," she said. "If that's what they believe, they need to file criminal charges." Sounds like a good response. Legal-heads? (Just how many attorneys read this site when you're supposed to working, huh? Smile.)

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

I think you scared them off, Donna...

bobnoxious

Mar 6 2007

Folks, we just got Green's exhibits -- which includes the unsealed "negotiation" for the plea bargain. This thing is a hoot to read, and isn't making Green sound biased at all. She brought them in to clarify what the deal was on the table and whether Melton understood what he was getting into. I can't imagine they preferred that this be unsealed, but Danks jumped up and down about it. So here it is. It's a lot of pages, and we don't have time to PDF right now. Trying to get to the printer, so y'all hang tight. We have tons of docs here, containing all kinds of stuff y'all would eat up. So take my word on it for the moment. I'm just not seeing Danks' smoking gun in this transcript. I'm no attorney, as y'all know. Just a lowly newspaper editor. So we'll see.

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

Here's the latest... C-L Update: Court gives Green deadline to respond to Melton accusation

Cliff Cargill

Mar 6 2007

Judge Green has until tomorrow to respond...

Cliff Cargill

Mar 6 2007

You have to love that Ledger headline. Of course, she has until tomorrow to respond to an emergency freak-out order accusing her of criminal activity. But their presentation makes it look like she's on the hot seat for wrong-doing, which the Ledger has done throughout this. I really hate that paper. BTW, the motion she refiled today with the exhibits looks identical to the one she pulled back yesterday. I suspect Melton's attorneys overreacted. Aren't there rules against an attorney accusing a judge of criminal activity until you know for sure?

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

Ladd, Tis' why I said he better have real PROOF to back up his claim...

LawClerk

Mar 6 2007

People on the iTodd's $@%! list for not formatting his links after I just changed the comment message to show you how to format links: Cliff Cargill Don't make me add to this list, people. :-)

Todd Stauffer

Mar 6 2007

Ooooooo.................... if I take KingFish Thinks He's Funny what I would do is Clever Link Tex

Kingfish

Mar 6 2007

Yeah Fish. Knock that sh!t off. You tell em' todd.

Cliff Cargill

Mar 6 2007

shaddup, that was the first time I've done that successfully. Was a serious question.

Kingfish

Mar 6 2007

lol.....

Cliff Cargill

Mar 6 2007

lol.....:-)

Cliff Cargill

Mar 6 2007

lol..... :-)

Cliff Cargill

Mar 6 2007

ooops.

Cliff Cargill

Mar 6 2007

Me shooting a match Whoo-hooo... Thanks todd.

Cliff Cargill

Mar 6 2007

Judge Green has already responded to the MSSC saying she wouldn't recuse herself. She also said the attorneys should be sactioned for accusing the court of criminal conduct that could her her in jail for up to five years. I saw it on WJTV @6:00.

Cliff Cargill

Mar 6 2007

Oooh... I just thought of something. Remember when Chokwe made criminal accusations against a judge??? About paying for justice? I think this, although not in open court like Chokwe, is along those same lines. It is going to be interesting to see what happens next, and if I were Danks, I would be praying that I could find some proof.

LawClerk

Mar 6 2007

I'm glad she's not recusing. *Someone* has courage enough to stand up to the Melton snowball machine. Snow's flying fast & thick but it ain't gonna stick. Someone has to say enough is enough. Looks like the C-L isn't going to.

Izzy

Mar 6 2007

Hmmmm ... it does seem like they could have jumped the guns on those motions. I mean, the sealed transcript doesn't seem to support the statement's in yesterday's motion. Anything but. And the fact that she drew back her motion yesterday and resubmitted it with the exhibits today sounds really innocent. Meantime, they rush out that motion this morning accusing her of committing a crime. I tell you, I haven't been around Green ever–as y'all recall, I was banned from the Melton courtroom due to my subpoena during the pretrial stuff–but her language in the transcript of the sealed thing was kinda impressive. After reading Danks' motions, I was getting a bit concerned, but reading that transcript made me think that they searching desperately for a way to keep him out of jail. I'll be very surprised, based on what I've seen, if the Supreme Court goes for it. It does seem that Danks will go to great lengths to protect Melton.

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

Ladd, are you going to post the transcript? I am interested in reading it.

LawClerk

Mar 6 2007

Hopefully tomorrow. We're still putting the paper out tonight (Internat problems delayed us). So no one has had time to PDF it. Sorry. I'm going to take it home tonight and read it with a glass of wine, though.

DonnaLadd

Mar 6 2007

is it available online anywhere? hmm.....

LawClerk

Mar 6 2007

I have not seen the order or what was the Judge took back, but it is common for Judges to issue orders and then remove them, due to clerical errors, or other issues (i.e. arrest warrants dated on dates that it comes to light cannot be executed etc). Here is the short and sweet. before accusing a any judge of misconduct, you better have enough proof to convince the most doubting thomas. Especially when that judge is heavily tied into a certain representative's political machine. Blood will flow, and my self will be now where near any of it, just watching the carnage from the sidelines. AGamma627

AGamm627

Mar 6 2007