Sheriff’s Department corruption continues as Sheriff McGee and son-in-law, Investigator Nick Calico, violate Mississippi Constitution and State ethics laws.

September 11, 2017

The Forrest County Sheriff’s Department is no stranger to charges of corruption, and not just by those who have run afoul of the law or found themselves in the Department’s crosshairs. Earlier this year, when sentencing Charles Bolton, U.S. District Court Judge Keith Starrett weighed in by stating on the record that there has been a

“culture of corruption in the Forrest County Jail,”

which is run by the Forrest County Sheriff’s Department and called the “Billy McGee Law Enforcement Complex.” Judge Starrett went on to say,

“There are good people in Forrest County that deserve honest government. They deserve people to be straight up with the resources of the county….”[1]

Meegan McGee Calico, Billy McGee’s daughter, married Forrest County Investigator and Public Information Officer Nick Calico in November 2016.

Now comes the news that the Department’s employment of Nick Calico, Sheriff Billy McGee’s son-in-law, is apparently so improper that it is expressly prohibited by both the Mississippi Constitution and the state’s “conflict of interest” laws. Those laws are designed to instill public confidence in the integrity of government, and to prevent elected officials from using their offices to unlawfully benefit themselves or their relatives. When a public official breaks those laws, he violates the “public trust,” and the punishment for doing so is severe.

The Mississippi Ethics in Government Act.

The Mississippi Ethics in Government Act[2] (commonly called the “conflict of interest laws”) strictly prohibits any “public servant” from “us[ing] his official position to obtain, or attempt to obtain, pecuniary benefit for … any relative or any business with which he is associated.”[3] Under the Act, Nick Calico is a “relative” and his salary is a “pecuniary benefit.”[4] As the Mississippi Ethics Commission has unequivocally stated,

“[W]hen an employee works under the direct supervision of his or her relative, a violation of Section 25-4-105(1) is virtually inevitable.”[5]

Why? Because “[t]he sheriff may be obligated to approve time sheets, pay adjustments or reimbursement for his [relative], in addition to periodically reviewing his job performance. The sheriff may be responsible for approving his [relative’s] work schedules and could possibly show preference to his [relative] in these day-to-day actions required by his position. Any of those actions would result in a violation of Section 25-4-105(1). Typically, a public servant can avoid violating Section 25-4-105(1) by recusing himself or herself from the matter in issue. However, recusal under these facts is impractical if not impossible in light of the sheriff’s daily supervisory responsibilities over his employees.[6]

2. The Mississippi Constitution.

Article IV, Section 109 of the Mississippi Constitution states that

“[n]o public officer … shall be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the state, or any district, county, city, or town thereof authorized by any law passed or order made by any board of which he may be or may have been a member, during the term for which he shall have been chosen, or within one year after the expiration of such term.”

In simplified terms, Sheriff McGee has a personal interest in his daughter’s well being; so her husband’s contract with the county is also a constitutional violation.

To constitute a violation of Section 109, the “contract” doesn’t have to be a formal written agreement, but is defined as “[a]ny agreement to which the government is a party; or [a]ny agreement on behalf of the government which involves the payment of public funds.”[7] The “government” includes Forrest County, and Billy McGee is a “public servant.”[8]

Possible Punishment.

Any “contract” made in violation of the Ethics in Government Act may be declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction,[9] and the offending public servant (such as McGee) is additionally subject to: (a) civil fines up to $10,000; (b) censure or removal from of elected public official from office, and/or for unelected public official (such as Calico), censure, removal from office, suspension, reduction of pay or demotion by a circuit court of competent jurisdiction;[10] and (c) by separate civil action by the Attorney General or any governmental entity, damages, forfeiture of any pecuniary interest received by the violator, and in the discretion of the court, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.[11]

The Mississippi Supreme Court’s opinion in Hinds Community College Dist. v. Muse, 725 So. 2d 207 (Miss. 1998), indicates just how severely violations of the Ethics in Government Act are punished. There, the wife of the president of Hinds County Community College was employed as a teacher for 13 years, during which time she was paid a total of $311,709. The Attorney General charged the president of violating Section 25-4-105, and sought disgorgement of the entire amount his wife had been paid.

The Muses claimed that they had acted in good faith, and that since Mrs. Muse had provided quality services for the salary she had received, the State had suffered no damages. The Supreme Court rejected the Muses’ arguments, and held that good faith, long practice, and value received are not defenses to violations of the Ethics in Government Act. Rather, the State did not have to show monetary damages to prevail under the Act. The injury is the damage that self-dealing does to the public trust, and this injury occurs even where the government has received full value for any money spent.

“The legislative directive focuses on the wrongful gain to the violative public servant as a measure of damages to the public trust. The injury is the loss of public trust; the damages are the benefits wrongfully gained.”[12]

The Muse opinion tells us that it is simply irrelevant in this case whether Forrest County suffered financial loss from the employment of Calico, or whether the services he has provided benefited Forrest County. Neither good faith, long practice, or value received are defenses to violations of the Ethics in Government Act. Sheriff McGee’s son in law, Nick Calico, just like in the Muse case, will have to repay all of his compensation since the day he married Sheriff McGee’s daughter. Furthermore, either he and/or Sheriff McGee will have to resign.

Procedure.

The Ethics in Government Act allows any citizen to file a complaint with the Mississippi Ethics Commission.[13] If probable cause exists “for [the] belief that a violation of law has occurred,” the Commission must refer the complaint and any evidence obtained during its investigation to the Mississippi Attorney General and the district attorney having jurisdiction.[14] The Commission must also submit “a recommendation that [the alleged violation] be considered for presentation to the grand jury, as well as any further recommendations for seeking civil remedies.”[15] The Commission, Attorney General, or any governmental entity that has been harmed may file a complaint in the circuit court of the county in which the violation occurred.[16]

Mississippi’s “Nepotism Statute.”

At first glance, it might appear that Calico’s employment also violates Mississippi’s “nepotism statute,” which makes it unlawful for an elected official in charge of a department to employ close relatives within that department.[17] But unless Calico has received a raise or promotion since November 2016 when he became McGee’s son-in-law, McGee may get a pass there, because the statute contains a “grandfather clause” which arguably exempts Calico.[18] However, the Ethics in Government Act contains no such exception,[19] and the nepotism statute allows some situations that are strictly prohibited by the Act. Therefore, a public official can still be punished under the Act even if he is found not to have violated the nepotism statute.[20]

6. Conclusion

Conflicts of interest by elected officials are so repugnant to our democratic system of government that the legislature has called efforts to “realize personal gain through official conduct” to be a violation of “public trust.”[21] And the Mississippi Supreme Court has called nepotism and self-dealing by public officials “two of the more pernicious threats to our democratic ideals.”[22]

HP-Hinds-Community-College-Dist-v-Muse

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

Footnotes:

[1] Transcript of Sentencing Hearing, March 17, 2017, United States v. Bolton, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division, Criminal Action No. 2:16-cr-0007-KS-MTP.

[2] Miss. Code Ann. §§ 25-4-101, et seq.

[3] Id. § 25-4-105(1).

[4] Id. § 25-4-103 (l), (p), and (q).

[5] Miss. Ethics Op. No. 11-076-E (Jan. 6, 2012) (emphasis added).

[6] Id. (emphasis added).

[7] Miss. Code Ann. § 25-4-103(f).

[8] Id. § 25-4-103(g), (p).

[9] Miss. Code Ann. § 25-4-105(6).

[10] Id. § 25–4–109.

[11] Id. § 25–4–113.

[12] Muse, 725 So. 2d at 211.

[13] Id. § 25–4–19.

[14] Id. § 25–4–21.

[15] Id.

[16] Id. §§ 25-4-107, 25–4–19(g)(ii), & 25–4–113; Bd. of Tr. of State Inst. of Higher Learning v. Ray, 809 So. 2d 627, 634 (Miss. 2002).

[17] Miss. Code Ann. § 25-1-53 (prohibiting employment of person related to department head by blood or marriage “within the third degree”).

[18] Id. § 25-1-53 (“This section shall not apply to any employee who shall have been in said department … prior to the time his or her kinsman … became the head of said department ….”); see Op. Atty. Gen. No. 2002-0580, Keating (Oct. 11, 2002).

[19] Miss. Ethics Op. No. 05-053-E (July 22, 2005).

[20] Miss. Ethics Op. No. 11-076-E (Jan. 6, 2012); Miss. Ethics Op. No. 10-092-E (Sept. 10, 2010).

[21] Miss. Code Ann. § 25-4-101 (emphasis added).

[22] Hinds Community College Dist. v. Muse, 725 So. 2d 207, 211 (Miss. 1998).

[23] City of Jackson v. Greene, 869 So. 2d 1020, 1026 (Miss. 2004).

Hattiesburg Attorney, Mary Lee Holmes, sanctioned $5,000 over her “careless allegations of prejudice and deceit” in Federal Court filing.

HPNM

August 20, 2017

Mary Lee Holmes (pictured) received her license to practice law in late April, 2017.

Hattiesburg Attorney Mary Lee Holmes filed a motion in federal court which sought to have Linda Bolton released on bond pending appeal. The motion accused prosecutors of “defrauding the court” and accused Judge Starrett of “deep seeded prejudice” against Linda Bolton. Holmes withdrew the motion the next day, but it was too late to avoid sanctions.

Holmes was fined $5,000, but in addition to the monetary fine, Judge Starrett strongly admonished Ms. Holmes for her filing. The document that led to Holmes’s sanctions can be viewed below. The full story can be read by clicking here.

In Judge Starrett’s order he ruled,

“Though Holmes is a newly licensed attorney, there is no grace period for new attorneys with respect to the ethical obligations all attorneys must meet–to their clients, to the courts, and to the community at large. While Holmes may have been emotionally invested in this case, that does not relieve her from her duty of competence, which requires a certain level of objectivity to reasonably understand the law and factual background of the case in the representation of her client.”

Judge Starrett goes on to say,

Instead of attempting to reach this understanding, Holmes allowed her emotions to cloud her judgement and willfully filed a pleading that attacked both the integrity of this Court and a seasoned Assistant United States Attorney. Her accusations were not supported by any part of the record, which she readily admits, and were never advanced by any of the more experienced attorneys that were involved in the case for much longer than Holmes.

Judge Starrett then brings the admonishment of Holmes home when he states,

“Holmes’s careless allegations of prejudice and deceit were an apparent attempt to rekindle the baseless allegations of the unfair targeting the African American community and the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a fire. The court cannot let her actions go unsanctioned. The Court appreciated Holmes’s apologies and acknowledgement that her allegations were factually baseless, but she cannot unring a rung bell. Her actions may have been motivated by emotions, but that does not negate their willfulness.

Courts, judges, and attorneys are subject to criticism, and citizens have the right to speak out against them. However, lawyers are held to a higher standard. Their criticisms, when made in court pleadings, must be factually based and not intended to falsely impugn the integrity of the judicial system.”

Judge Starrett rules,

“Here, the integrity of the judicial system mandates a sanction harsh enough to deter attorneys from making baseless allegations of prejudice whenever the Court makes an unfavorable ruling against their clients. As such, the Court hereby sanctions Holmes in the amount of $5,000, to be paid within two weeks of the date of this order.”

Holmes must pay the penalty by September, 1st, 2017.

The below document (Doc.314) is Judge Starrett’s Order sanctioning Mary Lee Holmes.

[adrotate group=”5″]

maryleeholmes

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

The below document (Doc.250) is what was filed by Mary lee Holmes which led to her being threatened with sanctions.

doc250

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

The below document (Doc.251) was filed by Mary lee Holmes to withdraw Document 250 from the record.

doc251

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

The below document (Doc. 252) is the government’s response to document 250, and in it prosecutors ask Judge Starrett to impose sanctions.

doc252

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

The below document (Doc.307) is Judge Starrett’s Order to Show Cause as to why Ms. Holmes should not face sanctions.

doc307

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

The below document (Doc.313) is Mary Lee Holmes’s response to Judge Starrett’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 307)

doc313

Former Hattiesburg City Councilman brandishes knife at flag protest. Police called.

Hattiesburg City Government

HPNM

August 15, 2017

Former Hattiesburg City Councilman brandishes knife at flag protest. Police called.

Former Hattiesburg City Councilman, Scott Farris, talks to a police officer during a flag protest at USM. Farris brandished a knife when a anti flag protester called him a “snowflake.”

Former Hattiesburg City Councilman and flag supporter, Scott Farris, can be seen brandishing a knife after Justin Thrash, an anti state flag demonstrator, called Farris a “snowflake” during a recent protest. The incident occurred at approximately 1:35 on the video as Farris said,

“There’s more where that came from.”

The incident occurred in front of USM this past Sunday, where for the past 90 weeks, pro state flag supporters have been peacefully demonstrating the University’s decision to not fly the state flag. Police were called to the scene, but no arrests were made.

Just two weeks ago another incident occurred which resulted in police arriving on the scene. Anti state flag demonstrator Anna Beth Rowe reportedly sprayed mace in the face of a flag supporter and called two state flag supporters, who are black, “house slaves.” Police were called, but no arrests have been made.

In this video, Farris can been seen in a blue shirt and Khacki pants. Farris is pictured walking in the shoulder of Hardy, blowing an air horn, and later brandishing a knife. Ms. Rowe can be seen in black shorts and a black tank top. Farris told the Hattiesburg Patriot News Media,

“He (Thrash) was closer than 12 or 15 feet and he did call me a “snowflake” and voiced other disrespectful insults–I was in an emotion of Righteous Indignation AND felt imminent potential physical danger when he made deliberate direct eye contact with me.”

Farris went on to say,

” I did not “brandish” my deer knife in a threatening manner–I merely did a simple brief “show and tell” action (knife remained closed at all times) in response to the unprovoked but very threatening and menacing talk, look, and body language of the physically large young man Justin Thrash.”

The video shows Farris approaching Mr. Thrash, who is off camera.

Thrash told Hattiesburg Patriot News Media,

“We are not the bad guys here we are young and want to show that the south will not be held back by old ideals anymore and respect history and feel it’s best served in a museum.”

Catch the video below.

[jwplayer mediaid=”11507″]

Unsealed letter from Bolton’s trial attorney to Bolton reveals how Charles Bolton’s planned defense strategy changed, just ten days before trial, when Bob McDuff became council for Linda Bolton

HPNM

August 12, 2017

Unsealed letter from Bolton’s trial attorney to Bolton reveals how Charles Bolton’s planned defense strategy changed, just ten days before trial, when Bob McDuff became council for Linda Bolton

It’s not clear if Rob McDuff’s decision to advise Linda Bolton not to testify under the long established defense strategy was a wise one. It’s impossible to tell. Linda Bolton was convicted on five of the ten counts of her indictment. Her husband, Charles Bolton was convicted on nine counts. According to the document below, the long-standing defense strategy between Charles Bolton’s attorney, Joe Sam Owen, and Linda’s previous attorneys was to put her and her husband on the stand. Linda was to lay the blame at the feet of Carl Nicholson and his accounting firm. After all, Nicholson signed off on their taxes. Nicholson’s firm, Nicholson and Company is now defunct.

McDuff’s strategy was to explain the events as a misunderstanding between Linda and the accounting firm. According to McDuff’s letter he felt Owen’s previous joint strategy was not a wise one for Mrs. Bolton. In McDuffs letter to this news outlet, McDuff said about the previous strategy for his client, Linda Bolton,

“a bad idea is still a bad idea whether someone works on it for four months or four hours.”

Pictured Rob McDuff. Photo credit Sun Herald.

The below document (Doc.276-20) is a sensational post conviction letter that was sent from Joe Sam Owen, Charles Bolton’s trial attorney, to Mr. Bolton. The letter explains the initial trial strategy and how the introduction of attorney Rob McDuff as Linda Bolton’s defense counsel killed that strategy.

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

276-20

Linda Bolton’s attorney Rob McDuff responded to Joe Sam Owen’s letter. That letter is below.
[adrotate banner=”1359″]
mcduff-letter

Bolton attorney, Mary Lee Holmes, faces sanctions over post conviction court filing, which smeared Judge Starrett and federal prosecutors

USA v. Bolton et al

HPNM

August 11, 2017

Bolton attorney, Mary Lee Holmes, faces sanctions over post conviction court filing, which smeared Judge Starrett and federal prosecutors

hattiesburg attorney mary lee holmes and bud holmes — (click to enlarge) Hattiesburg attorneys Mary Lee Holmes and her father Bud Holmes are very close to the Charles and Linda Bolton.

Local Hattiesburg attorney, Mary Lee Holmes, faces almost certain court sanctions after she made allegations of fraud and prejudice against the prosecution and Judge Starrett. Holmes entered a post conviction appearance in the Bolton’s tax evasion trial in a motion she filed called Limited Supplemental Motion In Support of Reply Motion Supporting Motion For Bond Appeal [Doc.250]. Document 250 is a 14-page emotional rebuke of Judge Starrett’s Court and the U.S. Attorney’s office, which successfully prosecuted the Bolton’s tax case. Holmes’s Supplemental Motion is chock-full of allegations that the government prosecutors and Judge Starrett committed fraud, deceit, prejudice, improper conduct, unconstitutional rulings, and committed error.

Holmes alleged the reason the government brought tax charges against the Boltons was,

“to get egg off of their face”

after they couldn’t get an indictment against the Boltons for food theft, and that

“this whole trial was an attempt to justify a false media driven unsubstantiated food theft.”

Holmes repeatedly alleged that the government prosecutors,

“defrauded the court”; “blatantly lied in open court”; and made “lies and deceit in open court,” “wild accusations” and “fraudulent assertions.”

Mary Lee Holmes also attacked Judge Starrett and accused him of violating Bolton’s Constitutional due process rights at sentencing. Holmes said,

“The court did something the Grand Jury couldn’t find. It found the Boltons guilty of the theft the lawfully empaneled Grand Jury that thoroughly investigated the charges could not find …. Like it or lump it, this court tried, convicted, and sentenced the Boltons although the Grand Jury refused to indict.”

Holmes went on to castigate Judge Starrett and accused him of “deep seeded (sic) prejudice” after he enhanced Charles Bolton’s sentence in connection with Bolton’s purported involvement with the stolen food from the Billy McGee Detention Center. Holmes said,

“in open court, this trial judge says you are guilty of stealing food and you owe taxes for such. In looking back, it is obviously from this court’s statements during the sentencing about the food that it was prejudiced on its part about an unsubstantiated, unproven set of facts [and] prejudiced his thinking throughout the trial …. This deep seeded (sic) prejudice was evidenced and manifested itself at the sentencing.”

The prosecution quickly filed Document 252, which was a motion for sanctions against her. In Doc. # 252, the government accused Ms. Holmes of intentionally violating several rules of civil procedure on what it called her,

“blatantly false and slanderous allegations” that “are totally unsupported by the record.”

Ms. Holmes replied to the Government’s motion for sanctions with Document 253 In that she requested oral arguments before Judge Starrett and doubled down when she stated that she,

“stands by the statements made to the Court ….”

Next, Judge Starrett issued an Order, Document 307, which compelled Ms. Holmes to show cause as to why she should not be sanctioned by the court. In the order, Judge Starrett said,

“Given her outrageous arguments in her Motion [250],1 the Court finds that Holmes should be sanctioned under its inherent powers. Under its inherent power, the Court may impose sanctions for “bad faith or willful abuse of the judicial process.”

Judge Starrett also stated,

“the Court finds that sanctions are appropriate against Holmes and will give her two weeks from the date of this order to show cause why sanctions should not be levied against her. In order to evade sanctions, Holmes must show that each and every allegation made in her Motion [250] is supported by facts contained in the record and must specifically cite to the record for each of her factual contentions. In doing so, Holmes should keep in mind that the Court will be viewing each cited fact in light of the entire record and that it will consider a half-truth as a whole lie.”

Ms. Holmes filed her response on August 8th, 2017. The Response to Order to Show Cause (DOC. 307) is a six page account of her emotional and personal history of friendship with the Boltons. The document is peppered with both excuses and apologies. Ms. Holmes blamed her emotions, youth, inexperience, and failure to recognize terms for her egregious filing. Ms. Holmes stated in her response,

“For my deep, deep emotions getting in the way of my thinking in trying to defend Linda Bolton, I sincerely apologize to the Court and all those concerned who I may have offended”

“In rereading the transcripts and information on the record I have access to, I now see how my emotions heavily clouded my thinking.”

“I realize I misunderstood a number of things, and for that, I owe an apology to Mr. Fred Harper.

“My failure to recognize the terms ‘likely’ and ‘potential’ in the rule and transcript is much of the root in why, again, my interpretation was that the government had misled the court”

[adrotate banner=”1357″] Rules under which Ms. Holmes might be sanctioned.

There are several ways the legal profession punishes a lawyer’s improper conduct that may be grounds for sanctions against Ms. Holmes. According to my discussions with several attorneys, it is very rare for an attorney to be sanctioned. But it looks like that may well happen to Ms. Holmes less than a year after becoming a lawyer. Here are some of the rules that Judge Starrett may find she violated.

Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Rules of Professional Conduct provides standards that attorneys must adhere to. If the Mississippi Bar learns that a lawyer violates one of these “ethical” rules, it can take any number of actions against him, including disbarment, suspension from the practice of law, or public or private reprimand. In Doc. # 252, the government accused Ms. Holmes of intentionally violating several of those rules based on what it called her “blatantly false and slanderous allegations” that “are totally unsupported by the record.”

Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The duties created by Rule 11 boil down to two basic categories. First, the lawyer did not file the pleading or motion for an improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay or expense. Second, the lawyer made a reasonable inquiry (or investigation) into the factual and legal contentions made in the motion or pleading. Here’s the exact langue in Rule 11:

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper–whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it–an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(c) Sanctions.

(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation ….

(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b) …. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred for the motion.

(3) On the Court’s Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).

(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

Did Ms. Holmes file Doc. # 250 for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation? Were her legal contentions warranted by existing law? Did her factual contentions have evidentiary support? Before she made them, did she conduct an adequate investigation to determine whether they did? These are questions Judge Starrett will decide, of course. But in her response to the Order to Show Cause, Ms. Holmes does not seem to address any of those issues. She simply apologizes and basically blames her mistakes on her lack of experience and emotional ties to the Boltons.

28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Judge Starrett might also impose sanctions against Ms. Holmes under a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which prohibits lawyers in federal court from “multiplying the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously,” and authorizes federal courts to order any lawyer who does so to “satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.”

The statute requires the court to find more egregious actions than those warranting sanctions under Rule 11, basically only for “reckless” conduct, and not simply for “negligence.” Maybe that’s the reason Ms. Holmes argues in Doc. # 313 that she simply “misunderstood” so many things and blames her actions on her “lack of accuracy and fact checking,” her “youth and inexperience,” and emotions. But the courts have found lawyers to have acted “unreasonably and vexatiously” when they engaged in serious and studied disregard for the orderly process of justice, made claims that didn’t have a plausible legal or factual basis, or made assertions in court filings that a reasonably careful attorney would have known, after appropriate inquiry, to be unsound.

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

The below document (Doc.250) is what was filed by Mary lee Holmes which led to her being threatened with sanctions.

doc250

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

The below document (Doc.251) was filed by Mary lee Holmes to withdraw Document 250 from the record

doc251

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

The below document (Doc. 252) is the government’s response to document 250, and in it prosecutors ask Judge Starrett to impose sanctions.

doc252

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

The below document (Doc.307) is Judge Starrett’s Order to Show Cause as to why Ms. Holmes should not face sanctions.

doc307

[adrotate banner=”1359″]

The below document (Doc.313) is Mary Lee Holmes’s response to Judge Starrett’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 307)

doc313

Unsealed defense attorney’s documents reveal much about Bolton’s legal woes (Part 1)

USA v. Bolton et al

HPNM

August 9, 2017

Joe Sam Owen fired back at his former client, Charles Bolton’s, accusations that Owen had accepted money from John Lee. in 52 page response, which is now unsealed.

Former Charles Bolton defense Attorney, Joe Sam Owen, filed a whopping 52-page brief which addressed each and every attempt Bolton used to smear Owen’s character and defense strategy. Judge Starrett waived the attorney client privilege between Owen and Bolton, which untied Owen’s hands and allowed him to respond to Bolton’s claims.

The Court recognizes that Charles has repeated (sic) used both this Court and the media in an attempt to publically (sic) vilify both Owen and the Government.

the Court finds that any response or exhibit by Owen containing previously privilegecl information should be filed under seal with the Court and not served on the Government. As a precautionary measure in the event that a new trial is awarded. This seal will be lifted after the conclusion of Charles’s direct appeal.

Honorable Keith Starrett

Judge Starrett has now unsealed the filing and much is coming to light. This is part one in a multi part series.

BOLTON WAS OFFERED DEAL IN FOOD THEFT CONSPIRACY AT BILLY MCGEE DETENTION CENTER

(1) On October 22nd, 2014, Charles Bolton was offered a deal by the United States Attorney’s Office in the Jail Food theft conspiracy investigation. Two days later Charles and his legal team met with the US Attorney to discuss the deal being offered.

On October 22, 2014 Charles informed Owen about a scheduled meeting with the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of Mississippi (the”Mississippi USAO”) and directed him to consult Dukes about the meeting, which Owen did. Owen and an associate with his office, along with Dukes, Holmes, John Collette, and an associate from Dukes’s office, attended this meeting with the Mississippi USAO on October 27th, 2014. (document 295) p. 13-14

The Mississippi USAO contacted all attorneys after this meeting seeking clarification on the representation of Charles, as Dukes could not represent Charles because of conflicts with his representation of the FCSO and Detention Center. On October 19, 2014, the Mississippi USAO transmitted a plea offer to Owen, which was communicated to Charles and ultimately turned down. (document 295) p.14

BOLTON DODGED THE FOOD THEFT CONSPIRACY BULLET

On December 30th, 2015, a key witness and conspirator in the Billy McGee Detention Center food theft conspiracy, Alan Haralson, died. Haralson had just pleaded guilty to conspiring with “others” to steal food from the prison over a twelve year period. Just ten days after Haralson’s death, Bolton rejected the plea deal. Court records reflect,

“Owen transmitted Charles’s denial of the plea offer on January 9, 2015.” (Document 295) p.15

JIM DUKES AND BUD HOLMES WERE POSSIBLE WITNESSES AND COULD NOT REPRESENT LINDA BOLTON

Charles and Linda Bolton were subsequently indicted on tax evasion charges on March 22, 2016 . Owen, once again represented Bolton and Robert McDuff represented Linda Bolton at trial. Jim Dukes and Bud Holmes previously represented Linda, but on July 28th, 2016, both Bud Holmes and Jim Dukes were removed from the case as possible witnesses. Both men had previously written checks to the Boltons that were cashed in the same manner as John Lee’s checks. Starrett wrote,

Because they were potential witnesses in the case, Holmes and Dukes were disqualified from the case in a hearing held on July 28th, 2016, and the court gave Linda ten days to find new representation . (3) Charles Bolton in his filings that John Lee was a “key government witness. Starrett wrote,

CHARLES BOLTON DELAYED HIS SENTENCING AT AN UNPRODUCTIVE PLAY AT COOPERATION

While Bolton was supposed to be cooperating, he was simultaneously plotting an attack on his trial attorney, Joe Sam Owen. Bolton attempted to bolster grounds for appeal with the manufacture of a conflict of interest claim against Owen. This claim would be supported with affidavits from Carl Nicholson, Sheriff Billy McGee, and tax expert Jeff Hull. However the affidavits were obtained at a time when Bolton was supposed to be cooperating with the government.

Sentencing was originally set for December 19th, 2016. On that date, Attorney Owen, council for Charles, and council for the Government requested an in camera meeting with the Court and made a joint request for a continuance, citing Charles’s willingness to cooperate with the government in connection with ongoing investigations. (Document 295) p.5

On January 20th, 2017, during the time Charles was supposedly actively cooperating with the Government and being represented by Owen, an affidavit was signed by Carl Nicholson (“Nicholson”) with a heading bearing the style of this case, detailing John Lee’s purported involvement with Owen. (see Nicholson Affidavit [177-3].) [(Document 295) p. 6

On March 17th, 2017, prior to the sentencing hearing, the Court heard in camera arguments as the Motion to Deem Attorney Client Privilege Waived. During these arguments the Government represented to the Court that Charles, despite his promises to cooperate, had given its agents no useful information despite the continuances of sentencing granted by the Court and that, as a result, it was ready to move forward with the sentencing with no further delay.

BOLTON COULD HAVE ADMITTED TO A CRIME WHILE UNDER OATH AT SENTENCING

The Court does not understand the insistence of Defendants in continually advancing this defense as, under their arguments, they contend that the John Lee checks were not income to them but rather part of a scheme in which they aided John Lee in evading taxes by cashing checks made out to their businesses and returning the money to him. Such a scheme, however, would also be criminal in nature, meaning Defendants are attempting to defend one crime by arguing that they committed a different crime.

BOLTON MISREPRESENTED OWEN’S RELATIONSHIP WITH LEE TO MANUFACTURE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DEFENSE ON APPEAL

However, Owen never took any payments that were not directly from his client, Charles Bolton.

“On November 5, 2014, Charles, accompanied by no other person, met with Owen at his law office and presented him with three checks totaling $60,000. One of these checks was from Nicholson in the amount of $25,000 and dated November 3, 2014, one was from John Lee in the amount of $25,000 and dated November 5th, 2014, and one was from Southern Neurologic & Spinal Institute for $10,000 and dated October 31, 2104. Charles told Owen ‘that he obtained loans from friends and had the checks made payable to Owen’ and that ‘he would make arrangements to obtain the additional $15,000 payment in due course. At no point before or after November 5th 2014, did Owen or any member of his firm ‘meet with, converse with, or have any contact with John Lee concerning the money Charles Bolton borrowed from John Lee or about the food theft case.’ Charles has not alleged any specific contract between John Lee and Owen. Rather he relies on statements that ‘John Lee made payments to Attorney Owen for attorney fees with funds controlled by Lee’ without mentioning that these payments were made through Charles himself, who personally delivered the checks to Owen’s law office and who represented that they were ” (document 295) p.14-15

“Charles has not alleged any specific contact between John Lee and Owen. Rather he relies on statements that ‘John Lee made payments to Attorney Owen for attorney fees with funds controlled by Lee’ without mentioning that these payments were made through Charles himself. who personally delivered the checks to Owen’s law office and who represented that they were ‘loans from friends.’ ” (document 295) p. 15

“the Court can find with certainty that Owen had no conflict of interest in this case based on any payment made by John Lee for Charles’s legal fees” (document 295) p.16

OWEN NEGOTIATED A PLEA DEAL IN THE TAX CASE BUT BOLTON TURNED IT DOWN

Charles argues that, because Owen had a conflict of interest due to John Lee’s payment of his legal fees, he provided ineffective assistance of council. This argument unravels with the Court’s determination that Owen had no such conflict of interest. The Court would also be remiss if it did not comment on the irony of this claim, as Owen’s representation was so effective that he was able to negotiate a plea bargain with the Government on Charles’s behalf, which would have significantly reduced his sentencing guideline range and put probation potentially within his reach.” (document 295) p. 17

JOHN LEE FUNNELED MONEY THROUGH CARL NICHOLSON TO HELP FUND BOLTON’S DEFENSE

Nicholson states in his Affidavit [177-3] that this money was given to him by John Lee because “he did not want his office manager to know all of his personal activities.” (footnote p.14 #32)

BOLTON AND HIS ATTORNEYS LIED ON THE INITIAL APPEAL WHEN THEY CALLED JOHN LEE “a key government witness.”

“Before the Court addresses this alleged conflict, it must first point out this first lie by Defendants that is featured prominently throughout all the motions currently pending before the Court. Not only was John Lee not a ‘key government witness,” John Lee was never even a witness at trial and no subpoena to testify was ever enforced against him, as all parties were aware that he would only invoke the Fifth Amendment if called to the witness stand.

JUDGE STARRETT IS EXPECTED TO SANCTION AT LEAST ONE OF BOLTON’S ATTORNEYS

“Some of the allegations in defendant’s motions even cross the thin line between flagrant misrepresentation and blatant lie. The court is even considering sanctions against one or more of Bolton’s attorneys.”

Starrett also states,

“The Court has not ruled out sanctions under its inherent powers for these falsehoods against the attorneys involved.”

THE BOLTON’S PULLED THE PLUG ON THEIR DEFENSE JUST DAYS BEFORE TRIAL

“Furthermore, ‘ the initial defense strategy of Owen, Galloway, and OGM was to aggressively challenge Nicholson and Co., particularly Carl Nicholson’ and to ‘lay the blame for the indictment at the feet of Nicholson,’ a strategy to which Charles objected”

Video on Municipal Judge Jerry Evan’s computer another big signal that Jerry Rigged justice system is bad for Barker

Hattiesburg City Government

HPNM

July 12, 2017

Back in 2012 Hattiesburg was upended when an internal affairs investigative report was leaked to the media. The report detailed the results of an investigation into possible corruption within Hattiesburg’s Municpal Court. The report was leaked to WDAM which first reported the following.

During the nearly two-month investigation, police found the following violations: Truthfulness, assisting criminals, conduct unbecoming, improper association, withholding information, incompetence, rewards, and debt incurring payments.

According to the investigation findings: Several employees of municipal court were receiving rewards for dismissing tickets, fines, and warrants for defendants. The investigation also confirmed there was inappropriate conduct between judges and court clerks.

The examination also uncovered that judges were signing blank court documents for court clerks to fill out at their discretion. Plus, judges dispositions were being changed by court clerks in order to allow defendants out of jail or for reduced fine amounts. It was also determined that warrants and other court documents were being destroyed

Municipal Court Judge George Schmidt was not implicated in any wrongdoing, however, he submitted his letter of resignation to the city. Schmidt said,

“There has been undue influence and interference with the operation of the court by the Hattiesburg Police Department…intentional, malicious, and slanderous statements made about judges by HPD employees, and perpetuated by other police employees.”

Schmidt went on to point out,

“the court clerk and the deputy court clerks are employed by the Hattiesburg Police Department and as such are responsible to the chief of police, not the municipal court judges.”

“there are employees with criminal records who are employed and allowed to serve as deputy court clerks.” He goes on to say, “This creates an environment in which it is difficult to trust courtroom personnel. As a judge, I have no desire to continue in a position whereby I cannot trust clerks to provide truthful information, nor do I have the desire to continue in a position where operation of the court is hindered by micro management by persons within the executive branch of city government.”

Hattiesburg’s Municipal Court was subsequently restructured by the City Council with a majority vote to move away from three, part-time judges to a single, full-time judge court. The new judge would be paid $104,000, and he or she would have complete control over the court, its management, and hiring of court clerks. These court clerks would all be under the department of the City Clerk.

On October 24th, 2012 local Attorney Jerry Evans was appointed by Mayor Johnny DuPree to become the new Judge over Hattiesburg’s Municipal Court. The City Council approved Evans, and then Council President Kim Bradley proclaimed,

“a new day for change,”

Bradley went on to say,

“It’s work that can be done properly and be done right with accountability, with transparency, so that the people know that the judicial system in the City of Hattiesburg is fair and is just.”

Ward 3 Councilman Carter Carroll told the Hattiesburg American

“We are asking Jerry to create a new entity that is not only going to take the next two or three weeks, but the next six to eight months,”

Carroll went on to say,

“We’re not asking him just to be judge.”

Judge Evans even told the Hattiesburg American at the time of his appointment,

“My job will be to bring the city court system into the 21st century and make it something that citizens can be, not proud of — that’s not the appropriate word — but feel like they can have trust in,”

Since Evans took over the management of the court’s finances, in particular, the fine accounts have created enormous problems for the city. On February 24th, 2016, Lisa Diaz, represented by local attorney Chris Farris, filed suit against the City for her wrongful arrest and incarceration over traffic fine that was shown as outstanding with the court. She was arrested and taken to jail. The arresting officer, Liquori Tate, was killed in the line of duty in May of 2015.

In Diaz’s lawsuit, Farris alleged that Evans’ Municipal Court engaged in,

“negligence in the handling and receipt of fine money and docketing the payments properly. Further there never should have been a warrant issued on this charge without verification of the payment. As a result Officer Tate wrongfully arrested the Plaintiff resulting in false imprisonment and negligent infliction of emotional distress.”

Diaz ticket was indeed paid, but she did not prevail in her suit for damages. This outlet was the only news outlet to report Diaz’s lawsuit. You can read that story by clicking here. Diaz’s lawsuit was the symptom of a much larger problem.

Behind the scenes and hidden from the public by the DuPree administration, outside auditing firm Riggs & Ingram, LLC. sent an email to the DuPree Administration. The letter, dated September of 2016, stated the firm could not complete the city’s audits for 2015 and 2016. The firm pointed to a few issues, but number one on the list pointed the finger at Judge Evans’ court, and specifically pointed out the inadequate accounting of the court’s fines accounts.

Riggs & Ingram reported that as of May 31st, 2016,

“certain essential detail and summary reports from the City that are required for audit purposes remain outstanding or incomplete. As a result, significant fieldwork progress for the audit as of 9/30/15 has been delayed.”

“The most critical areas for (which) complete data has not been received are Municipal Court fines and expenditures of federal awards. Each of these elements represents a significant area of our audit and will require considerable fieldwork focus.”

Click to Zoom. The city’s attorney and financial officer were notified by Moody’s that the city had lost its credit rating due to the Municipal Court and Federal Programs Department not providing a proper accounting of their finances.

On November 2rd, 2017, Moodys pulled Hattiesburg’s credit rating, and on November 3rd, Sharon Waits, DuPree’s Chief Financial Officer during this time, failed to notify the Hattiesburg City Council. This information remained under wraps until June 2nd, when councilman Kim Bradley discovered it in a conversation with a local bank employee. Bradley told WDAM on June 2nd, 2017,

“Did not know that our rating had been withdrawn,” said Kim Bradley, Ward 1 councilman. “I found out from a lending institution here in town.”

Flash back to March 13th, 2017, Municipal Court Clerk, Morgan Owens, was arrested for credit card fraud. Morgan allegedly paid her AT&T bill with a credit card number used to pay a fine. Morgan was arrested, but she has not been indicted by the Forrest County District Attorney’s office. A member of law enforcement who was not authorized to speak on the record, told Hattiesburg Patriot News Media that the discovery process, in that case, is ongoing and an indictment is expected.

Hattiesburg Patriot News Media has been conducting its own investigation into the court. A records request was submitted for the browser histories of all computers within the court. put in a public records request The browser history on Judge Evans’ chambers computer was almost completely nonexistent. However, there was one record on Evans’ computer which entailed a small browser history for June 22nd. (see photo).

The videos being watched on Evans’ computer reveal sophomoric you tube videos, one dealing with a guy getting an erection while receiving personal training services by an attractive female. One has to wonder, given the terrible situation with the courts accounting practices, how would anyone have time to watch boner videos in the Judge’s chambers?

An even bigger boner for Evans are the records for the amount of money being billed by the court’s pro tem judges. These judges are supposed to serve in the event Judge Evans is sick or out of town. But these numbers have skyrocketed.One year after Evans took over, for the year 2013, Evans spent $9,000 for his pro tem judges. That is 90 hours at $100 per hour. For 2017, from January to June, the City spent almost $18,000, over a 400% increase.

If Judge Evans is spending time watching these types of videos in lieu of solving the problems with his fine accounts, it should be no surprise that Hattiesburg’s Municipal Court is in the shape it is in, and this Jerry Rigged Justice system is indeed very bad for Barker’s Administration.

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB8v6O3EjZU[/embedyt]

Former recycle truck driver says he was “just following orders” when taking recycle material to the landfill, and Director Barnes made “inaccurate statements” to public.

Hattiesburg City Government

HPNM

June 27, 2017

Below is an audio interview with Mr. BC Smith. Smith was a former driver for public works and dumped recycle materials in the landfill transport station for two years.

BC Smith, a former truck driver with the City Hattiesburg, went on the record in a taped interview. Smith came forward after learning of the video published by this outlet, which showed a city recycle truck dumpling recyclable materials into a container. The container was headed for a landfill. Citizens pay extra for the recycle service.

Public Works Director, Larry Barnes told the community in a letter that the incident on video was an “isolated incident.” Smith said Barnes was making,

“inaccurate statements.”

Smith says that Barnes’ claim that the video tape, which showed the truck dumping recycle material at a dump transfer station, was not an “isolated incident.” Smith told the Hattiesburg Patriot that during the approximate two years when he drove a recycle truck, on his route, he only took his recyclable material to the sort center in Sumrall a couple of times.

Smith said he was directed to let the recycle materials sit overnight in the truck. The following morning he was told to dump garbage on top of the previous days’ collected recyclables. Smith said that over the two years he worked his route, he had only been to the Sumrall recycle sort center,

“maybe one or two times”.

Smith says he was directed by his manager Oliver Gilmore to take the material to the landfill transport station, just like he claims the current driver, George, was ordered to do. Smith said,

“George was following orders just like I was. He wasn’t acting on his own will,”

Groundworx and Blanton have oral arguments

Latest News

HPNM

June 6, 2017

1...988989990...1,006 Page 989 of 1,006

“culture of corruption in the Forrest County Jail,”

“There are good people in Forrest County that deserve honest government. They deserve people to be straight up with the resources of the county….”[1]

“[W]hen an employee works under the direct supervision of his or her relative, a violation of Section 25-4-105(1) is virtually inevitable.”[5]

2. The Mississippi Constitution.

Possible Punishment.

“The legislative directive focuses on the wrongful gain to the violative public servant as a measure of damages to the public trust. The injury is the loss of public trust; the damages are the benefits wrongfully gained.”[12]

Procedure.

Mississippi’s “Nepotism Statute.”

6. Conclusion

The below document Ethics Opinions

The below document 25-1-53-Employment of relatives prohibited; exceptions

The below document 25-4-101 Legislative Declaration

The below document 25-4-103-Definitions

The below document 25-4-105 Contract restrictions and other prohibited conduct penalties

The below document 25-4-109 Fines and other penalties

The below document 25-4-113 Civil actions against violators costs and attorney fees

The below document Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning v Ray

The below document City of Jackson v Greene

The below document Hinds Community College Dist v Muse

Judge Starrett rules,

The below document (Doc.314) is Judge Starrett’s Order sanctioning Mary Lee Holmes.

The below document (Doc.250) is what was filed by Mary lee Holmes which led to her being threatened with sanctions.

The below document (Doc.251) was filed by Mary lee Holmes to withdraw Document 250 from the record.

The below document (Doc. 252) is the government’s response to document 250, and in it prosecutors ask Judge Starrett to impose sanctions.

The below document (Doc.307) is Judge Starrett’s Order to Show Cause as to why Ms. Holmes should not face sanctions.

The below document (Doc.313) is Mary Lee Holmes’s response to Judge Starrett’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 307)

“to get egg off of their face”

“this whole trial was an attempt to justify a false media driven unsubstantiated food theft.”

“defrauded the court”; “blatantly lied in open court”; and made “lies and deceit in open court,” “wild accusations” and “fraudulent assertions.”

“blatantly false and slanderous allegations” that “are totally unsupported by the record.”

“stands by the statements made to the Court ….”

“Given her outrageous arguments in her Motion [250],1 the Court finds that Holmes should be sanctioned under its inherent powers. Under its inherent power, the Court may impose sanctions for “bad faith or willful abuse of the judicial process.”

“For my deep, deep emotions getting in the way of my thinking in trying to defend Linda Bolton, I sincerely apologize to the Court and all those concerned who I may have offended”

“In rereading the transcripts and information on the record I have access to, I now see how my emotions heavily clouded my thinking.”

“I realize I misunderstood a number of things, and for that, I owe an apology to Mr. Fred Harper.

“My failure to recognize the terms ‘likely’ and ‘potential’ in the rule and transcript is much of the root in why, again, my interpretation was that the government had misled the court”

The below document (Doc.250) is what was filed by Mary lee Holmes which led to her being threatened with sanctions.

The below document (Doc.251) was filed by Mary lee Holmes to withdraw Document 250 from the record

The below document (Doc. 252) is the government’s response to document 250, and in it prosecutors ask Judge Starrett to impose sanctions.

The below document (Doc.307) is Judge Starrett’s Order to Show Cause as to why Ms. Holmes should not face sanctions.

The below document (Doc.313) is Mary Lee Holmes’s response to Judge Starrett’s Order to Show Cause (Doc. 307)

The Court recognizes that Charles has repeated (sic) used both this Court and the media in an attempt to publically (sic) vilify both Owen and the Government.

Honorable Keith Starrett

BOLTON WAS OFFERED DEAL IN FOOD THEFT CONSPIRACY AT BILLY MCGEE DETENTION CENTER

BOLTON DODGED THE FOOD THEFT CONSPIRACY BULLET

“Owen transmitted Charles’s denial of the plea offer on January 9, 2015.” (Document 295) p.15

JIM DUKES AND BUD HOLMES WERE POSSIBLE WITNESSES AND COULD NOT REPRESENT LINDA BOLTON

Because they were potential witnesses in the case, Holmes and Dukes were disqualified from the case in a hearing held on July 28th, 2016, and the court gave Linda ten days to find new representation . (3) Charles Bolton in his filings that John Lee was a “key government witness. Starrett wrote,

CHARLES BOLTON DELAYED HIS SENTENCING AT AN UNPRODUCTIVE PLAY AT COOPERATION

BOLTON COULD HAVE ADMITTED TO A CRIME WHILE UNDER OATH AT SENTENCING

BOLTON MISREPRESENTED OWEN’S RELATIONSHIP WITH LEE TO MANUFACTURE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DEFENSE ON APPEAL

“the Court can find with certainty that Owen had no conflict of interest in this case based on any payment made by John Lee for Charles’s legal fees” (document 295) p.16

OWEN NEGOTIATED A PLEA DEAL IN THE TAX CASE BUT BOLTON TURNED IT DOWN

JOHN LEE FUNNELED MONEY THROUGH CARL NICHOLSON TO HELP FUND BOLTON’S DEFENSE

Nicholson states in his Affidavit [177-3] that this money was given to him by John Lee because “he did not want his office manager to know all of his personal activities.” (footnote p.14 #32)

BOLTON AND HIS ATTORNEYS LIED ON THE INITIAL APPEAL WHEN THEY CALLED JOHN LEE “a key government witness.”

JUDGE STARRETT IS EXPECTED TO SANCTION AT LEAST ONE OF BOLTON’S ATTORNEYS

“Some of the allegations in defendant’s motions even cross the thin line between flagrant misrepresentation and blatant lie. The court is even considering sanctions against one or more of Bolton’s attorneys.”

“The Court has not ruled out sanctions under its inherent powers for these falsehoods against the attorneys involved.”

THE BOLTON’S PULLED THE PLUG ON THEIR DEFENSE JUST DAYS BEFORE TRIAL

“Furthermore, ‘ the initial defense strategy of Owen, Galloway, and OGM was to aggressively challenge Nicholson and Co., particularly Carl Nicholson’ and to ‘lay the blame for the indictment at the feet of Nicholson,’ a strategy to which Charles objected”

During the nearly two-month investigation, police found the following violations: Truthfulness, assisting criminals, conduct unbecoming, improper association, withholding information, incompetence, rewards, and debt incurring payments.

According to the investigation findings: Several employees of municipal court were receiving rewards for dismissing tickets, fines, and warrants for defendants. The investigation also confirmed there was inappropriate conduct between judges and court clerks.

“There has been undue influence and interference with the operation of the court by the Hattiesburg Police Department…intentional, malicious, and slanderous statements made about judges by HPD employees, and perpetuated by other police employees.”

“the court clerk and the deputy court clerks are employed by the Hattiesburg Police Department and as such are responsible to the chief of police, not the municipal court judges.”

“a new day for change,”

“It’s work that can be done properly and be done right with accountability, with transparency, so that the people know that the judicial system in the City of Hattiesburg is fair and is just.”

“We are asking Jerry to create a new entity that is not only going to take the next two or three weeks, but the next six to eight months,”

“We’re not asking him just to be judge.”

“My job will be to bring the city court system into the 21st century and make it something that citizens can be, not proud of — that’s not the appropriate word — but feel like they can have trust in,”

“certain essential detail and summary reports from the City that are required for audit purposes remain outstanding or incomplete. As a result, significant fieldwork progress for the audit as of 9/30/15 has been delayed.”

“The most critical areas for (which) complete data has not been received are Municipal Court fines and expenditures of federal awards. Each of these elements represents a significant area of our audit and will require considerable fieldwork focus.”