Jackson Free Press

Jonathan Lee supporters are using a Clarion-Ledger article to defend a controversy he's mired in—but it actually helps build the case that he was dishonest about his position at the company.

My email today is absolutely filled with city politics. I just came out of a meeting and discovered that the Jackson 20/20 PAC that we wrote about in this earlier story has now endorsed candidates other than Jonathan Lee (when we wrote the story, all the money had gone to pay Lee's campaign folks). Attorney Dorsey Carson sent an email out inviting people to meet the candidates today at Hal & Mal's.

In response, attorney and Harvey Johnson supporter Sam Begley replied to Carson, copying me, a local blog and The Clarion-Ledger reporter who made Lee supporters very happy this weekend by reporting that Begley had sent an email to someone linking to judgments against Lee (a story we broke last Wednesday--but based on an envelope of documents, not on that email which we did not receive). In those replies, Begley accuses the 20/20 PAC of "laundering" money to Lee's campaign.

Here is the 1/31/13 Jackson 20/20 campaign finance report.

Begley also included links to other potential judgments against Mississippi Products Inc., Lee's family company. Rather than try to sort it all out immediately, I'm pasting the entire email thread below, as well as the invitation to the PAC's candidate gathering. (I also have some other comments about The Clarion-Ledger story this weekend, but this post is confusing enough, so I will blog it separately.)

We in no way endorse Begley's accusations in the emails. We are posting this for the public to examine yourself.

Here are the emails; the most recent one is on the top:

Dorsey, Being the sage lawyer you are perhaps you can explain why, with the only documents of record with the Mississippi Secretary of State showing Jonathan Lee as the President of Mississippi Products,Inc., the decision makers for your PAC would endorse a man for mayor whose company can't pay its bills, to the tune of $170,000, and lets default judgments be taken, then hides from WJTV and evades questions from the Jackson Free Press., and tells us he never owned the company and hasnt been associated with it for more than a year. Oh, and it looks like MPI has an answer due on a complaint brought by yet one more of its vendors. see link below and documents attached. Please tell us that this is just a business dispute that happens all the time. SAM

Hinds County Civil Case Detail: Diversey Inc. v. Mississippi Products Inc.

On 4/29/2013 4:25 PM, Carson, Dorsey wrote: I'll resist the urge to respond, Sam. If the media wants a comment, then I'll be more than happy to provide one on the record.

Dorsey

From: Sam Begley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:17 PM To: Carson, Dorsey Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: After work "MEET THE CANDIDATES" hosted by Jackson 20/20 from 5:00-6:30 p.m. TODAY: Jonathan Lee, Kevin Lavine, Joseph Kendrick, and De'Keither Stamps

Thanks Dorsey. The "multi candidate endorsement" appears to be a nice way to launder money intended for Jonathan Lee …

I will soon launch our first eBook in a new "Ghosts of Hinds County" series. The first will focus on the juvenile-detention scandal of the 1990s. If you want to hear about it right away, please subscribe (free) to jfpdaily.com. We will announce it to the daily list as soon as it's live.

(An added benefit to subscribing: You get daily breaking news on weekdays and invitations to all our big events, including the Best of Jackson party, so there's that.)

The launch will originally scheduled for early May, but election coverage conspired against me. If you have something you think you could add to a piece about the juvenile detention days of old, please email me at [email protected]. We can talk confidentially if needed.

"We will find out who did this, and we will hold them accountable."

This Associated Press story just illustrates how absurd it was for the Mississippi Legislature, and Gov. Phil Bryant, to push and pass a law that tries to circumvent the First Amendment, which wisely tells government to stay the hell out of (my words, not theirs) people's religious choices. As I wrote in a recent column, the wise men who wrote the Constitution knew from this nation's early experiences that any interference by government on any level into worshiping (or praying) creates the conditions to squelch someone's freedom of religion.

Of course, we all know that the legislators and Bryant did this because they believe the move will appeal to "faith voters," whom they assume do not think and read well enough to understand that there is an "establishment" clause in the First Amendment precisely to protect all of us from, well, folks like them who want to push one flavor of religion on everyone.

In other words, this is exactly the kind of political chicanery the First Amendment was created to prevent. Too bad that the government of the state of Mississippi, once again, makes us look bad and stupid to the rest of the world.

It leaves us asking: Are these so-called anti-government types, or so they claim, really bent on having government create the roadmaps for people's faith and prayer? That is downright terrifying, not to mention hypocritical.

I was thrilled to hear today that the Associated Press, of which the Jackson Free Press is now a member, has rejected the use of "illegal" and "illegals" to describe undocumented immigrants. Media diversity expert Richard Prince blogs about the move:

The battle to eliminate use of the term "illegal" or "illegal alien" to describe human beings has been proceeding at least since 1994, when the four associations that staged the first Unity convention "issued a joint statement on the term 'illegal aliens':

" 'Except in direct quotations, do not use the phrase illegal alien or the word alien, in copy or in headlines, to refer to citizens of a foreign country who have come to the U.S. with no documents to show that they are legally entitled to visit, work or live here. Such terms are considered pejorative not only by those to whom they are applied but by many people of the same ethnic and national backgrounds who are in the U.S. legally,' " as a 2006 statement from the National Association of Black Journalists recalled.

The AP released its statements on its blog today:

The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term “illegal immigrant” or the use of “illegal” to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that “illegal” should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.

Why did we make the change?

The discussions on this topic have been wide-ranging and include many people from many walks of life. (Earlier, they led us to reject descriptions such as “undocumented,” despite ardent support from some quarters, because it is not precise. A person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.)

Prince reported that The New York Times expected to follow suit, as early as this week.

It's about time. The Jackson Free Press has long adhered to the principle that a human being cannot be "illegal" and that the phrasing is not only not precise, but it is dehumanizing. We're glad that the AP and The New York Times have realized that it is no place of journalism to encourage offensive labels for human beings.

Right on.