Ellington

JUST IN:
PDF of AG Jim Hood's Letter to Mayor Frank Melton
PDF of AG Jim Hood's Letter to D.A. Faye Peterson

May 31, 2005—Following is a transcript of most of the press conference today by Attorney General Jim Hood to announce the results of his investigation of Mayor Frank Melton.

(Jim Hood) Our senior prosecutors have reviewed these allegations, and we have found no felony violations or misdemeanor violations committed by Mayor Melton and I have had a meeting with him and advised him that in the future if he violates any of these statutes we intend to prosecute him if we have to, but I think that he has already agreed—he has already gotten a permit to carry a firearm. You know there were some extenuating circumstances based upon our review of the information that sort of answers some of the questions as to why certain things happened and I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have about our review.

(Reporter) He said you made some recommendations to him?

Like carrying a firearm. There are about 19 places where you can't carry a firearm if you have a permit. I wanted to make sure that he realized that permit had restrictions on it. There were some allegations that he may have blue lights on his vehicle or a silencer at one time. I advised him on the violations on that and boarding a school bus. I spoke with him and told him he didn't need to be stopping school buses, and he already told me that he agreed not to do those things. He understands what the law is and ... I'll continue to work with him and the D.A.'s office and law enforcement and we'll all be able to reach our goal of making Jackson a safe place.

(Reporter) He's obviously been walking around with a police badge and a police flak jacket. Have you found any record that he's a police officer?

(Hood) No. He had a letter from a former commissioner of public safety that allowed him to carry a firearm, although it doesn't legally give you a permit unless you go through the application process. If you got into a criminal prosecution for carrying a firearm that would certainly be a defense as would the threats. That's the first exception to that rule. As far as any impersonation of an officer…if I'm the chief of police, and I want my mayor to go out there with me, I'm going to put a protective vest on him. That's not impersonating a law enforcement officer. That particular statute is not very clear. It wasn't very well written because it doesn't contemplate someone who is an official—it talks about an official impersonating an official. It didn't contemplate an official portraying someone in another branch of government.

Secondly, that statute requires that you be trying to commit some fraud on someone…I advised him that it was the police department's job to enforce the law. I think there was a misconception that we have a state criminal statute that prohibits the violation of peoples' civil rights—in other words, the searches. We don't have that. There's a federal charge but it would most likely require some threat of violence. As far as him acting like a police officer I encourage him to get out and go with law enforcement officers because it raises the awareness of people in the community that law enforcement is out there doing its job…but it also subjects the mayor to a civil action. Just because there may be no criminal remedy for the allegations doesn't mean there's not a remedy. There may be perhaps some civil action that individuals choose to bring.

(Reporter) Is there anything wrong with wearing clothing that says 'Police'?

(Hood) No. You have to have some mal-intent, some fraudulent intent in portraying yourself as such. People wear FBI hats and things like that from time to time. I understand why you perceive that to be a violation of the statute, but once you get into the technical proof of what a prosecutor has to prove before a jury, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury will give any defendant…they will resolve a doubt in favor of the defense and under these circumstances I don't think a jury would convict anyone of this unless they had some intent to defraud.

(Reporter) Even to gain access to a private residence or vehicle?

(Hood) Now there, again, there could be some civil remedy for that but there's no violations that we saw.

(Reporter) What all have you guys looked into?

We looked into him stepping outside his authority as mayor. Is there a violation for that? No. We have opinions that say the chief of police is supposed to run the police department, but those were written for chiefs who were objecting to the mayor interfering with the duties of the police officer. But there has been no objection. In fact, the police chief has encouraged the mayor to participate. There is no statutory violation. …There's a statute that expressly states that the mayor has a duty to see that the laws are enforced. He has a right to go out there and make a citizen's arrest. We all do. You have those rights, but you don't have qualified immunity that a cop has.

So we looked into his authority. We looked into the issue of him carrying a firearm. The first exception on the firearm statute is that if you've been threatened you can carry a firearm. So if you charge him, he's got a valid defense for carrying a firearm, making the likelihood of conviction very slim. …

The impersonation of an official. I've already explained that. There were allegations of the silencer and blue lights on his vehicle. He's already assured me that we won't have any further problem with that.

The issue of boarding a school bus. He's given us the assurance that he won't be doing any of that.

(Reporter) Does he admit to having blue lights and a silencer?

(Hood) No.

(Reporter) Even his mayor's car driven by police officers—he's not allowed to have blue lights on that vehicle?

If a policeman is driving that vehicle that vehicle could have blue lights, but as the mayor driving the car himself, that would be prohibited by statute.

(Reporter) What if it was on the mayor's personal car but the chief was driving it?

It pertains to the person operating the vehicle. The statute says "the display," and then the question is "is that activation or just having them on?" That's when you get into ambiguities. When you take a case to a jury you've got to be crystal clear. It's got to be beyond a reason of a doubt.

(Reporter) Did you look into the arrest warrant for Albert Donelson?

(Hood) That wasn't specifically addressed by us, but what I recall of our investigation is that there was no false affidavit filed. In other words, that would be the potential charge in filing a false affidavit, and I don't think that one was found to be a criminal charge.

(Reporter) What about Vidal Sullivan and Christopher Walker—the other people he claimed he had warrants for?

(Hood) I think we interviewed one of them under protective custody and they said 'no, I wasn't kidnapped.'

(Reporter) Is it a violation to come out and say "I've got a warrant" when you don't?

(Hood) Only if it proved not to be true and that person sued, but that would not be a violation of a criminal law. Kidnapping would be the underlying offense, and a person would have to come out and say he was taken against his will.

(Reporter) Are you going to forward any of your findings to a federal authority?

(Hood) I see no reason to do that. …

(Reporter) What about him getting onto a plane with a firearm?

(Hood) I don't have any authority to prosecute a federal felony violation. That would be up to the United States government.

(Reporter) You say the law has never encountered a Melton-type mayor. Does the law need to be changed to clarify some of these ambiguities?

When I was D.A., some guy had a collection agency, and he was getting my letterhead and sending my letterhead like it was from the D.A. to say 'you better pay this or we'll prosecute you.' He was committing some type fraud, butt we didn't prosecute. We just got it stopped. This statute probably does need to be clarified. It's vague. And we probably will try to draft some legislation for the Legislature to look at next year because there are some holes in it.

(Reporter) Do you think he got (that you were) warning that if he continues to violate statutes he will be prosecuted?

(Hood) I hope so. I hope the mayor will look back on some things that happened and contemplate some issues….

(Reporter) Well, he said 'I'm going to continue being Fran, and I will carry my gun.'

(Hood) He can carry his gun, with the permit, and hopefully that's what he was talking about. I encourage him to go out with the cops but not to be as hands on as he has been in the past…

(Reporter) If there were holes in the wall, do you think he slipped through some?

(Hood) There are defenses to most criminal cases. Some of these he would have valid defenses to. He got a letter in 1999 from Jim Ingram saying he could carry a gun because he's been threatened while he was at WLBT. The statute demands you file a permit to carry a gun but in you get into court and they bring out something like that the jury is going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that's where he was coming from when he told ya'll that..

(Reporter) But he's not certified as a law enforcement officer.

(Hood) That's what I had to keep explaining to him. The law says that in order for you to be a sworn law enforcement officer you have to go through an academy and have the training and you have to continue to do that. You have to continue your legal education. ... The mayor hasn't been through that training. …I think the mayor will step back and listen to some of his advisers and learn this is why you can't do this or that. …One thing we've always told the cops that got off on a technicality is that we will see them again…

(Reporter) Does him not having that certification have any bearing on this. Did you ever ask for it?

(Hood) He gave me this letter. I think he has a badge and a certification from a Texas jurisdiction, but not a law enforcement certification. Sometimes you can be sworn in as a reserve officer, but that doesn't make you a sworn officer. I think that's some of the confusion where he may have felt like he was covered, but he was not. …I'm not sure he had any training at all in Texas. We were unable to find that. He has a badge from Texas, but that's the difference between a layman and a law enforcement officer that's been trained and a lawyer or prosecutor that knows that you've got to be certified through standards and training. It's just that simple.

(Reporter) When you say badge, do you mean a police badge or an I.D. Badge?

(Hood) Both.

(Reporter) From what county?

(Hood) Lufkin? Maybe?

(Reporter) So Melton's out there searching cars and whatever and it's okay.

(Hood) Yes. The law allows him to go with the chief of police. To go out on raids, to work roadblocks. It's not advisable for him to personally hands on do it, but does it violate a criminal statute? No, however it subjects him to civil liability if he does something that steps over the line.

(Reporter) What assurances can you give the public that if something does happen that you are going to hold him accountable?

(Hood) I've set here and advised him on what the law is and he made it very clear that he followed our direction…and if he does not then I've made it very clear that I will have to prosecute him.

(Reporter) But he doesn't have to change much.

(Hood) Well he got a permit. That was one of the problems and he's been advised of these other potential criminal violations that he allegedly may have committed.

(Reporter) He has said he's the ultimate authority. Is he the ultimate authority on anything?

(Hood) No. He doesn't have the authority to direct the chief of police to do anything. Now she can take his advice under consideration, but it doesn't violate the law to say he has that authority when he doesn't…

(Reporter) Regarding boarding aircraft while armed. Is that a federal violation?

(Hood) That would have to be an issue to take to the federal authorities. There's no state statute that prohibits you from carrying a firearm into an airport…

(Reporter) People have been arrested for that?

(Hood) Sure.

(Reporter) Will there be an investigation on the federal level for this?

(Hood) If there is I can't comment.

(Reporter) How many weapons does the permit allow him to carry?

(Hood) It doesn't limit him to the number of guns. He just can't carry an automatic weapon or an uzi.

(Reporter) What types of evidence did you look at regarding this investigation?

(Hood) …We talked to some witnesses, the bus driver, the two people in protective custody.

(Reporter) Did you look into the deal about him (and the safety of his adoptive kids?)

(Hood) That one, as I understand, if you voluntarily place a child, in other words, they're not in DHS custody, just some parent decision that they'd love for their child to go live somewhere else then the DHS statutes would not apply, but I don't know the answer to that.

(Reporter) Have you talked to Faye Peterson yet?

(Hood) Yeah, I've talked to Faye. I wanted to make a fair decision. Faye came in and sat down and we talked through these issues. Faye is willing to go forward and the mayor told me he is willing to work with her and go forward and I think we will see in a few weeks that things are going to be better.

Previous Comments

ID

122157

Comment

OMG - Please! I have never heard such double-dribble answer's in my life! But I wonder.........what if everyone in the city (residents) went to the 'police shop' on Terry Road and all purchased 'POLICE' shirts and wore them, would we all be given the same 'get out of jail card' too? I mean, according to what our illustrious AG said, we would all have to have intent to do wrong, so to speak, by wearing them! If our only purpose is to follow our 'city leader' then everyone in Jackson can wear the same! Oh...Oh....oh......we ALL have to get the darling black baseball hat with white lettering to say 'POLICE' and wear them backwards too! A girl just can't go out in public without the right accessories!

Author

Katie D

Date

2006-06-01T06:38:31-06:00

ID

122158

Comment

Katie, don't forget we can all now carry a shotgun (incorrectly) without a permit, thanks to the A.G.'s decision.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-06-01T06:44:38-06:00

ID

122159

Comment

In spite of the AG slap on Frank's hand treatment, I'm quite confident that Meletn will eventually disregard the advice given to him and keep breaking the law as he sees it. Then we will see if the A.G.'s warnings carry any weight.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2006-06-01T07:07:52-06:00

ID

122160

Comment

We've got a long way to go. (Jim Hood) Our senior prosecutors have reviewed these allegations, and we have found no felony violations or misdemeanor violations committed by Mayor Melton and I have had a meeting with him and advised him that in the future if he violates any of these statutes we intend to prosecute him if we have to, but I think that he has already agreed—he has already gotten a permit to carry a firearm. What a contradictory statement! So basically, Melton has committed some crimes us regular folk would probably get jailed for, but once again since he is the mayor, he gets off with a slap on the wrist. Why are they hand feeding this grown a$$ man who is more than capable of realizing right from wrong when it comes to other peoples mistakes, but not his own. This is ludacris. I totally agree with you ejeff, it's only a matter of time.

Author

jan2006

Date

2006-06-01T09:09:00-06:00

ID

122161

Comment

I think Frank is being a bit more clever than people give him credit for. He knows the limits of his authority, and stops just short of getting in trouble. Unless someone calls his bluff when he stops them next time. :D

Author

Ironghost

Date

2006-06-01T09:14:18-06:00

ID

122162

Comment

(Jim Hood) Our senior prosecutors have reviewed these allegations, and we have found no felony violations or misdemeanor violations committed by Mayor Melton and I have had a meeting with him and advised him that in the future if he violates any of these statutes we intend to prosecute him if we have to, but I think that he has already agreed—he has already gotten a permit to carry a firearm. What a contradictory statement! I agree, jan2006, this statement is double speak & indicates that he DID violate statutes. Politics, politics, politics

Author

Izzy

Date

2006-06-01T09:36:41-06:00

ID

122163

Comment

jan2006--What a contradictory statement! So basically, Melton has committed some crimes us regular folk would probably get jailed for, but once again since he is the mayor, he gets off with a slap on the wrist. Why are they hand feeding this grown a$$ man who is more than capable of realizing right from wrong when it comes to other peoples mistakes, but not his own. The 2007 AG campaign started yesterday. Hood has shown that he is more interested in gaining/keeping Melton supporters' good will (and contributions?) than in enforcing the law. Hie thee to a voting booth!

Author

Rex

Date

2006-06-01T10:11:43-06:00

ID

122164

Comment

Interesting to note the differences between media reports and actual transcripts. Here's Clarion-Ledger story today. Note Ledger factual statement at very end about Batman's arrest warrant: No false affidavit was filed against Donelson, Hood said. OK, now read what Hood says in the transcript above about it: (Reporter) Did you look into the arrest warrant for Albert Donelson? (Hood) That wasn’t specifically addressed by us, but what I recall of our investigation is that there was no false affidavit filed. In other words, that would be the potential charge in filing a false affidavit, and I don’t think that one was found to be a criminal charge. (Reporter) What about Vidal Sullivan and Christopher Walker—the other people he claimed he had warrants for? (Hood) I think we interviewed one of them under protective custody and they said ‘no, I wasn’t kidnapped.’ Huh? Did they investigate this thing or not? These are rather vital points not to have been "specifically addressed." Why weren't they? These were the potential felonies; did they soft-pedal this on purpose because of what they might found out? This. makes. no. sense.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-01T10:30:35-06:00

ID

122165

Comment

This is Unreal. Basically the A.G. said that Melton MAY have broken some laws, but it wasn't worth prosecuting. What a great message to send to the criminals of Jackson. Faye Peterson got duped. Poor Girl. Here is what she told WLBT. "Sure, I can wear a police hat, and that is not a big deal. But when I wear that hat, and I go to your home, and I search your home, and I try to detain you, or arrest you, or [read Miranda Rights] to you, then I am acting as a law enforcement officer," said Peterson. "I was willing to agree, at this point, if we are not going to charge him, that he fully understand that these are chargeable offenses. Don't sit there and tell me that these are not chargeable offenses when they are," said Peterson. I think Hood was caught in a tight spot....a loose or loose more situtaion. Go after Melton and experience the wrath of the Media Maestro, which would be devastating to Hood's political career. Or take the path that would do less damage and only have to deal with the wrath of Faye. In Hood's press conference, he never succesfully demonstarted that some actions of the mayor were wrong. Like a typical lawyer/politician, he is full of B.S. and contradictions.

Author

inside story

Date

2006-06-01T12:24:16-06:00

ID

122166

Comment

Looking at this again ... check this out. First, Hood opens by saying: Our senior prosecutors have reviewed these allegations, and we have found no felony violations or misdemeanor violations committed by Mayor Melton and I have had a meeting with him and advised him that in the future if he violates any of these statutes we intend to prosecute him if we have to, but I think that he has already agreed—he has already gotten a permit to carry a firearm. OK, then, he says as I quoted just above: (Reporter) Did you look into the arrest warrant for Albert Donelson? (Hood) That wasn’t specifically addressed by us, but what I recall of our investigation is that there was no false affidavit filed. In other words, that would be the potential charge in filing a false affidavit, and I don’t think that one was found to be a criminal charge. Here's the problem. As I understand it, the only alleged felony possibility on the table was the false arrest warrant against Donelson (and maybe Vidal and/or Walker). He just said that he did not "specificaly address" the issue of Batman's false arrest warrant. So how does he know for sure that he committed no felonies? This is weird, and hard to follow. And he only said that he interview "one of them" (Sullivan or Walker). Why only one? This doesn't sound like a very serious investigation, based on the AG's own words. The public deserves a better explanation than this.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-01T15:30:59-06:00

ID

122167

Comment

Also, I'm curious about what witnesses they interviewed who observed Mr. Melton's behavior.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-01T15:32:26-06:00

ID

122168

Comment

This whole scenario is absolutely absurd. No, it's simply a$$-kissing bull$hit! The Attorney General--the chief law enforcement officer in Mississippi--ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself. How in God's name can he say, on the one hand, that there were no felony or misdemeanor violations committed and, in the very next breath, say that the Mayor was informed that "in the future if he violates any of *these* statutes, we intend to prosecute him...if we have to". The AG's mere use of the word *these* surely suggests he's referring to the very same statutes he said the Mayor didn't violate!!! I am simply blown away by this whole thing. One thing rings certain: the law enforcement officials are hell bent on letting the Mayor have it his way. Holy $hit, Frank must have owed Burger King franchises too!!! Y'all go figure. I am wholly disgusted and disheartened.

Author

Kacy

Date

2006-06-01T15:38:25-06:00

ID

122169

Comment

Agreed. The transcript contains lots of unanswered questions. And it seems that Jim Hood told Faye Peterson something different before the press conference. Maybe Mr. Melton wooed him in their meeting, with Danks, Recio and Wright present. (Wonder if they were armed?)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-01T15:40:48-06:00

ID

122170

Comment

And, BTW, what the hell does the AG mean when he says if the Mayor violates any of *these* statutes in the future, we intend to prosecute IF WE HAVE TO???? Sounds to me like if Frank violates something, they'll let it slide unless and until somebody forces the AG to do his sworn duty. He's full or more $hit than a Christmas goose!!!!

Author

Kacy

Date

2006-06-01T15:41:58-06:00

ID

122171

Comment

Hood might feel like this has helped him by taking the high road with Melton. What he fails to realize is that Melton's support is dwindling very very fast. If these two think that by scratching each other's backs that this will help them later on down the road, then I have some land that I would like to sell them on the moon. Hood knows that he is full of sh%# and so does Melton. It really rubs me the wrong way to think that these two have no better opinion of us (the public) than this. Melton is on a fast track to hell and he is seeing how many he can take with him.

Author

lance

Date

2006-06-01T15:50:40-06:00

ID

122172

Comment

***Hood knows that he is full of sh%# and so does Melton. It really rubs me the wrong way to think that these two have no better opinion of us (the public) than this. Melton is on a fast track to hell and he is seeing how many he can take with him.*** <--lance You're right on target, lance. But I'll be damned if I'm going with 'em!

Author

Kacy

Date

2006-06-01T16:05:23-06:00

ID

122173

Comment

I think Hood was caught in a tight spot Yes, and its called political pandering.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T16:16:22-06:00

ID

122174

Comment

Ali...agree completely... He took the path that would cause less politcal damage. Going after Frank would have been a circus. I heard Hood was considering running for governor...he just lost my vote. At least Haley would have used more blunt language. I truly hope some organization (ACLU, NAACP, etc..) pushes this further. If lying were a crime, Frank would be sentenced to life!!

Author

inside story

Date

2006-06-01T16:41:37-06:00

ID

122175

Comment

Back when Melton was first elected, I came to this website, and commented that something was fishy with Melton. With only the scattered reports and rumor of him, and my honed instincts to discern the character of human beings, I felt that there was something amiss. Nothing that could be put down in words, just the vague feeling that Frank Melton was deceptive... and dangerous. I was ridiculed, almost immediately. I was branded with the hot iron of scorn as being just a nay-sayer, someone who only wanted Jackson to fail by bad-mouthing a leader that these people had put all their trust and faith in. I could see then that there was no talking of the issue, that my opponents were entrenched into a way of thinking that precluded the possibility that they were wrong and that Melton just might be a villain in disguise. But sadly, I was all too right to suspect something wasn't right. Melton has oppressed the people, heaped injustice upon injustice, and violently opposes the spirit of democracy in all ways. He has told lies and half-truths enough to anger those with any morality or ethics. His name is a byword for tyranny and villainy committed in the name of security and the greater good. For him, truly, the outcome justifies the deed. Yet there is no real outrage. No protests, no activism to stand against one man's destruction of the public trust in the social contract of law. I wonder if perhaps this is all that will come of it: news reports, angry rhetoric, and then... nothing. It has nothing to do with where we all live, in any place in Jax-Metro, or anywhere else for that matter. It is a matter of moral outrage at this travesty of public service. Because what can happen in Jackson could spread to other towns as wicked men with the means and the will move into positions of power, and then abuse that power for personal pursuits. This is not merely the antics of a single man; it is the erosion of liberty, an infection that could spread quickly if given a chance. I hope that something good can turn the tables on this situation. But it is obvious that I cannot help it. I was maligned for no reason other than exercising caution, for using every faculty to determine the quality of a man seeking leadership. So all I can do is what I've been doing since I was rudely insulted and sent away: I watch, I wait, and sometimes, I pray. "No government power can be abused long. Mankind will not bear it.... There is a remedy in human nature against tyranny, that will keep us safe under every form of government." --Samuel Johnson

Author

Eindrachen

Date

2006-06-01T23:55:33-06:00

ID

122176

Comment

Endrachen, I offer my empathy for you and you situation. There were many good hearted people that followed Melton by listening to the surface of his conversation and not weighing the substance. It has been very costly, but sometimes bad things have to run their course. Melton has run completely out. The people that can make a difference are now being alienated as is with the case of the DA vs the AG. Hood is either still walking around in a fog or his true colors are coming out just as Melton. The wheels of justice are sometimes very slow to turn, but once the wheels have been began to roll look for it to flatten out the pretenders who have grossly misled the public.

Author

lance

Date

2006-06-02T05:49:26-06:00

ID

122177

Comment

Unfortunantly for Ms. Peterson, it appears that despite her good & fair intentions in servitude for the county of Hinds to ensure that ALL people uphold the law, that she will either have to step over the pile of sh#t at the AG's office and request the Grand Jury hear the case, or leave it alone UNTIL Melton has another day of 'need' and either pulls over another school bus, etc. Politic's obviously run very deep within this viperous nest, unfortunantly for Ms. Peterson, when your AG who is seeking political re-election, and a crazy mayor are in bed together, metaphorically speaking, it essentially puts her in a place that not many people would wish to be! I personally hope that Ms. Peterson WILL take on the challenge and continue in her pursuit of justice!

Author

Katie D

Date

2006-06-02T06:02:54-06:00

ID

122178

Comment

your AG who is seeking political re-election, and a crazy mayor are in bed together, metaphorically speaking --Katie D At least we are on the same page Katie. I said that these two reminded me of a recent movie about two cowboys and their unrelentless devotion to each other.

Author

rufus

Date

2006-06-02T06:06:38-06:00

ID

122179

Comment

Eindrachen, I appreciate your comments, but you might be confusing sites if you're saying that the JFP wasn't allowing criticism of Melton from the getgo. We were the only media outlet in town who was criticizing the mayor at that point -- based on facts. I'll have to look back at your comments to see, but I might have reined you in if you were repeated rumors or such. But we have long had a discussion about Melton's weaknesses here. In fact, it was the only place you could find one until very recently.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-02T08:35:37-06:00

ID

122180

Comment

was maligned for no reason other than exercising caution, for using every faculty to determine the quality of a man seeking leadership. So all I can do is what I've been doing since I was rudely insulted and sent away: I watch, I wait, and sometimes, I pray. Ein, are you sure you're not playing the martyr on the wrong site here? Looking back at your blog history, I see few comments you made about Melton, although you did criticize him once, I believe. But no one attacked you for criticizing him. You did have a weird Jackson-bashing run on a different thread and bumped up against the User Agreement in the style you used to communicate your ideas. You were warned about that. But you were never "sent away" from this site. You are an "Active Member, Level 1" in good standing. Thus, your ability to post. So the martymdom stuff makes no sense. Just communicate your views about issues without that whiny stuff, and you're welcome here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-02T08:49:20-06:00

ID

122181

Comment

Frank Melton is self-distructing daily: The members and the City Council are caught in the aftershock!

Author

justjess

Date

2006-06-02T15:31:24-06:00

ID

122182

Comment

I just got via U. S. mail a flyer inviting me to a reception honoring Jim Hood on Thursday, June, 15, 2006. Does this mean he's running for re-election and may have played politic with the Melton issue? I can't mean that?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-02T17:03:20-06:00

ID

122183

Comment

The PDF's lead me to believe that Hood's actions are showing him to take the political high road to keep anyone from giving him a hard time during the next election. Newsflash Jim!!! The job of the AG's office is to take a hard stand to protect the interest of the people. This limp dish rag approach only shows me that the AG will run away and tuck his tail rather than pull out the sharp sword of justice. He does not have to be a hard a$$, but there should be no question of his authority. Melton knows that if he plays his cards right, he can continue to be a Charles Bronson wannabe as long as he can TELL the AG something to justify his actions. I'd be willing to bet that this action/inaction by Hood has the criminals thinking of what they can do and get away with now. If they do the same thing that Melton has done, then they also deserve a get-out-of-jail-free card. If they are prosecuted, they could possibly have a lawsuit showing partiality.

Author

lance

Date

2006-06-02T19:35:33-06:00

ID

122184

Comment

Actually, after reading Hood's letters I feel better - better than after seeing a brief snippet on TV. At least Hood is clearly telling the Mayor NOT to do certain things, as well as noting his federal civil offenses in writing. So Mr. Hood, can we trust you to hold Melton to this warning? I hope so. Also I appreciate Hood's comments about the difficulty of Faye Peterson's job, urging the mayor to avoid tarnishing the chain of evidence, urging the mayor to not be "active" in investigations so that he won't make these mistakes. This is great to read the letters themselves. I wish more media would let us know the actual facts, not their watered down versions for the "dumb public" Thanks

Author

Izzy

Date

2006-06-02T21:16:45-06:00

ID

122185

Comment

I also felt a wee bit better after I read the PDF, but it still bothers me that this whole issue reeks of you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours. The AG left me thinking that there is a gray area here and he is giving the mayor the benefit of the doubt. That would be okay except that Melton has such an in-your-face approach to everything until he should be willing to accept the same that he gives.

Author

lance

Date

2006-06-02T21:44:35-06:00

ID

122186

Comment

I noticed that our friends of WAPT had "obtained" the letters for their broadcast last night. They could have just asked us for the documents, or grabbed them off our site, if they desired. They didn't have to be obtaining and all. ;-) It is intriguing to read the actual transcripts and documents and compare them to the sound bites we get on the regular media, eh? They should all take the time to "obtain" the back-up materials before they rush these stories out with misleading headlines like "Mayor Broke No Laws." How hard is it? As I tell reporters, your stories are only as good as the documents you have. That's why Brian's Public Eye Blog is so great; it's chock full of documents. And I do note that The Clarion-Ledger is trying to copy us, now posting the occasional PDF. I don't believe I've seen them post any transcripts of press conferences, yet. Might make them look bad—when you note what was actually said compared to what got in the paper and the sensational headlines.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-03T08:22:03-06:00

ID

122187

Comment

friends AT WAPT ....

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-06-03T08:22:55-06:00