Three motions regarding Judge Tomie Green's renewed call for sanctions against former Mayor Dale Danks, who is Mayor Frank Melton's private attorney, were filed with the Mississippi Supreme Court in the last two days.
In a March 14 motion filed with the high court, Green renewed her call for Danks to be sanctioned (PDF, 116 KB) for his accusations that Green had engaged in larceny, a felony, by removing an order and filing a substitute order the next day regarding Melton's probation violations. The Magnolia Bar Association, among other groups, has since joined Green's call for sanctions.
On March 21, Special Assistant Attorney General Harold E. Pizzetta III filed a response in support of Green (PDF, 118 KB). "As an initial matter," Pizzetta begins, "it is clear that the criminal accusation directed against Judge Green was false. ... It is a well-recognized principle that courts have the discretion to reconsider or withdraw their interlocutory orders at any time and reopen any part of a case before entry of a final judgement. ... The trial court's exercise of its rightful authority cannot be equated to the act of theft or fraud."
This is a point Green made herself, specifically by commenting upon the high court's propensity for doing the same itself. Pizzetta then supports Green's point that it is inaccurate to claim that she removed the order from the clerk's file because the order remained part of the official court minutes but was marked as void.
Pizzetta decries the increasing frequency of uncivil acts among officers of the court, citing Mississippi Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co. v. Parker, in which the high court reminded attorneys that they have "an absolute duty" to "adhere to moral standards of fundamental decency."
Perhaps the most important part of Pizzetta's filing comes when he addresses Green's recusal: "It is relevant to note that this Court's removal of the trial judge does reflect a determination that the trial judge was in error. However, an error by the trial judge does not excuse or invite a violation of the rules of professional conduct by an attorney. In fact, the false criminal accusation compounded the trial court's error in the mind of the public by claiming that the trial court's mistakes was a function of alleged criminality rather than a mistake in judgment."
Pizzetta writes that the high-profile nature of the Melton trials meant that Danks was under an even greater than usual obligation to maintain rules of professional conduct. "Melton's attorneys were well aware that every pleading they filed would be instantaneously posted in such media outlets as the Jackson Free Press and Clarion Ledger. Both electronic and print media ran headlines repeating the false criminal allegation. ... [E]xperienced attorneys who represent elected officials in matters of great importance should refrain from reckless charges against the judiciary as both an example for the bar and as a reassurance to the public," Pizzetta writes.
Pizzetta concludes by deferring to the judgment of the court as to an appropriate response to Danks' violation.
In a response also filed March 21, Danks argues not only that he was justified in accusing Green (PDF, 718 KB) of larceny but that she should be recused from all future matters involving Danks or Melton.
Danks begins by recounting how he learned about Green's withdrawn order and seems to shift some responsibility for his accusation to the clerk, writing that his motion was "based in part on the specific information obtained from the Circuit Clerk's Office." He then writes that "based on the information obtained, counsel had more than 'good ground to support'" his accusations. "Counsel's (motion) was well-supported by the attorney's knowledge, information and good faith belief."
Danks then launches into a series of attacks on Green. In response to Green's argument that there was nothing sinister in her removing the order because it remained listed in the minutes, he writes that "information obtained from the Circuit Clerk shows that Judge Green actually wanted the minute entry completely blacked out." He then describes how hostile relations between Green and attorneys for Melton had become in response to Green's argument that he could have simply called her or her clerk to learn why she had withdrawn the order. He calls Green's criticisms of his failure to call both "unfair" and "wholly irrelevent."
Danks goes so far as to argue that he "continues to have a good faith belief, based on all of the facts, that the actions of the trial court were improper and that there is a legitimate basis for asserting the existence of a statutory violation irrespective of the explanation offered by (Green)."
In other words, Danks still believes that Green violated the law.
He concludes by asking that Green be removed from all future cases involving himself, Melton or Melton's other attorneys in the case. Danks attached two exhibits to bolster his case. One was a letter Judge Green sent the JFP. The other was an affidavit from Dr. Belinda Johnson, who is the pastor at Church of Greater Blair Street AME Zion Church in Jackson. Johnson states that he was at a March 7 meeting where 25 to 30 ministers spoke to Green about their concerns regarding Melton's health. Among other charges, Johnson accuses Green of already having made her mind up regarding Melton's probation violations prior to his probation hearing. He also states that Green "stated that from the very beginning the Mayor was told that if he would just resign all this would go away."
Finally, Green responded (PDF, 72 KB) to Danks' latest motion on March 22. Green writes that Danks' response was, in fact, "nonresponsive to the issues before the court." She complains that the Supreme Court gave her "less than 12 hours to respond" to Danks while permitting Danks "nearly a week to give reasons for being disrespectful and making false allegations against the undersigned trial judge."
Green writes that Danks simply regurgitated many of his earlier arguments in his 11-page response. "There were no apology or true sense of remorse for their action--only more allegations of the trial judge alleged misconduct." (sic)
Green writes that Danks et al. "attempted to viciously and disrespectfully manufacture a crime in their brief in order to secure their client release from jail and make the undersigned judge appear to have a vendetta against the Defendant." She writes that "there was a total disregard for the truth of the allegations" against her.
Green again acknowledges that the high court recused her from the case, making those issues "moot." She explains that she is not asking for sanctions because of Danks' emergency motions before the Supreme Court, which resulted in her removal, but because of his accusations that she committed a crime. "Accordingly, the undersigned trial judge urges this Court to justly disregard all parts of the Defense attorneys' responses that reiterate any issues regarding recusal and disregard all self-serving affidavits (some of which the trial court challenges as to their accuracy and truthfulness)."
Green concludes by renewing her call for Danks' accusation to be stricken from the record and for him to be punished appropriately.
As of Friday evening, the Mississippi Supreme Court had not yet issued a decision.
Previous Commentsshow
What's this?More like this story
More stories by this author
Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.