Jackson Jambalaya

The files for five of those who were pardoned could not be located.

Constitutional requirement to keep a "file" for pardons: none.

Such an application is required by parole board rules.

Constitutional authority of the parole board over pardons: none.

However, there should be a process in place to insure that there is proper documentation of all the relevant facts.

Constitutional requirement that the Governor "document" any facts whatsoever about clemency: none.

... But hey, let's beat up on the Parole Board! And let's pretend that the Legislature can amend the state constitution!

... And hey, Kingfish, I don't think one has to be a robot to have difficulty reading those new "word verifications." Yikes.

I'm with Anderson, they are impossible to read.

Given Cecil Brown's history of extreme partisanship and of slanting the "facts" to the benefit of his arguments, I would check each and every statement he made in this article before believing it.

Yeah what they said about verfiy

Juuuuuusst a bit outside. Cecil Brown tries the corner and misses.

Gov. Barbour exercised his constitutional authority to grant clemency. Not a shred of evidence the parole board had anything to do with Barbour's decisions. And the members were powerless to stop it, even if they had been inclined to do so.

Cecil the Frown Brown has done a wonderful job of coming up with a solution in search of a problem. All in the hopes of deceiving the people into thinking he's actually doing something.

The House Demobiotches really aren't handling being in the minority very well. By my calculation, they're averaging 2.7 press release temper tantrums a week this session. Each more ridiculous than the last.

I like Anderson's post very much.

Can we add my name to the list of objectors to the new verification system. They're called 'words' but most are not. The occasional need for a magnifying glass and even phoning a friend also come to mind.

Then you have the contorting EichelDonkeyHack fibbing a Cottoncandyblog headline to create an appearance that the gasping Brown is referring to official PEER data despite his notation otherwise.

The apocalypse is near; we are all in agreement. Oh shit.

And here was my verify...I think...

urmingai exchequer

Of all the (formerly) bad@zz criminals on the pardon list, Cecil the Frown Brown mentions only one clemency recipient by name: Karen Irby.

Cecil Brown mentioned Karen Irby for one reason and one reason only: to stoke up the Irby-hating, Harper Valley PTA he calls his constituency.

Cheap. Transparent. Bush League. Dishonest. Gratuitous infliction of pain on another person for political gain.

... to create an appearance that the gasping Brown ...

Words whispered in the halls of the Capitol are that Cecil is going to get redistricted either into HD#64 represented by Bill Denny OR into a district currently seating one of Jackson's LBC delegation.

ONE of the four (4) City of Jackson-resident Senators is also toast.

Holy Shit Batman; I find myself in total agreement with not only The Commish, but the Kap'n as well. Methinks JJ should spring for steaks.

Funny but I was having a conversation regarding the Frown's comments. It occurred to me, isn't it the liberal philosophy that punishment/jail/etc. is a rehabilatative process and we should be forgiving. Therefore, the pardons should be in line with the act of rehabilitation and forgiveness and thus the liberal philosophy. It would appear it is lost in this argument. Call them die-hard conservatives!!! Actually call them "I want my cake, and I want to eat it to. We're here, we're hungry and NO CAKE FOR YOU!"

Please let the fun continue watching them squirm.

Sorry to report KF that WLBT took the triple-zaftig bait.

AP: Brown released the PEER findings on Thursday, although PEER itself did not issue a report.

WLBT: Brown says Thursday that the Legislative Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review Committee found the 16 rejected by the Parole Board but pardoned by Barbour had been convicted of crimes ranging from methamphetamine possession to murder.

NOW let us see what Kittredge and Nosef and, quite frankly Phil Bryant since its his party now, are made of.

Hopefully we won't have to wait for Steve Azar to sing the chorus to Waitin' on Joe [Nosef]

look.... Cecil Brown is nothing more than a democrat hack....

Too funny. Not to worry, actually ole Cecil doesn't care either way.

It was just his turn in the "Democratic Trust" to throw this week's child-like hissy fit over what ever they tell him to.

Brown 'released' nothing but malodorous gas.

Cecil spoke at my civic club once..."facts" on education and other key talking points...the problem is, there was no time for questions to counter said remarks...he may have well been saying "brown bananas are best", which would work to folks who had limited access to fresh produce...not the case with this group!

Cecil is Gallo's new friend. One of them will convert the other.

You folks are very courageous to villify someone on a blog and then hide behind names like "Anonymous." What a bunch of wimps.

Cecil Brown

Thus far, every comment indicates a dislike for Brown ( and every Democrat) and nothing more.

The silliest comments are Anderson's, who seems to think that government can function with only a Constitution on a couple of sheets of paper.

The irony is the commenters , no doubt , want to help the GOP , but are doing just the opposite. In defending ONE Republican,or limiting the powers of ONE Democrat and catering to the party extremists, you help Obama.

These " messages" are added to , for example, the actions of GOP legislators in Minnesota and Virginia in the public mind, and will lose, not just the Presidential election but future elections.

The American people, are, if nothing else, pragmatic and the GOP is really frightening the hell out of women. NOT SMART.

Thus far, every comment indicates a dislike for Brown ( and every Democrat) and nothing more.

Uh, as a Democrat, I must be one of those self-haters then. And I thought I had some substantive points - oh did you write more? let me look:

The silliest comments are Anderson's, who seems to think that government can function with only a Constitution on a couple of sheets of paper.

I wonder what this means, particularly since I've been arguing for some time now that Section 124 has to be interpreted in view of case law.

To the extent 8:19 means anything here, I suppose the implication is that a constitutional provision can be implemented by statutes and rules. Sure. But those statutes and rules cannot conflict with the constitution.

Hence, the Parole Board, MDOC, and the Legislature have no power to place any procedural requirements on the pardon power.

I have zero desire to help the GOP, but I'm also not a hack. I call 'em as I see 'em. And while I agree Barbour violated the constitution, it's not clear to me at all that the issue is justiciable.

The MSSC may decide it is, but I have trouble seeing how it does so without upsetting 120 years of precedent as to separation of powers under the 1890 constitution. It will be interesting to see how they rule.

STRAW MAN ALERT: GOP frightening segment of the population, especially Democrats.

Go tell it Cecil to the Cottoncandyassblog or the MS Donkeycrat Trust or to Chism. Or you could bitch to the Bugle like McMillin and whine about how you are being mistreated @ JJ.

February 17, 2012 8:19 AM, aka, the broken record poster is back.

Cecil has much more backbone than does Cottonchicken.

That is the same belle, er, troll Anderson who keeps dogging you over and over again for straying off the reservation.

You are your own person. Regardless of stripe 99% of the readers here applaud that!

Some of you apparently cannot read. I do not want to in any way limit the Governor's ability to pardon. The issue is a state agency losing files that contain important information about inmates and former inmates. In addition, all official actions such as recommendations by a board should be reflected in the minutes.That is the law. That has nothing to do with the Governor pardoning folks. You either want open government or you don't. By the way, some of the information in the missing files could be privileged. No one admits to knowing where they are. Big problem.

Anyone got Cecil's voting record on recent Sunshine Bill? or any "Sunshine" bill?

In the case of KI, is it really important to have a case file from the Parole Board that reiterates that she is guilty, has a sentence, behaved or not in the framework of the Pardon Discussion? I believe she is still under the custody of the state with a reduced/commuted sentence. Again, what does your witch hunt have to do with this? You want answers to questions, perhaps you are asking the wrong people? I don't know, but she's only been in Jail for a little bit, perhaps she hasn't gone before the Pardon Board?

The issues regarding your statements was answered succinctly by Anderson in the beginning. I defer to his points.

Oh, we can read all right, Mr. Brown.

"Files could not be located."

Maybe because they don't exist? Any evidence they did? THAT would be news.

But instead of the non-event of "there is no file, never was," you prefer the implications of "can't be located."

You know what else can't be located? Sasquatch and Nessie. Let us know when you find 'em.

In the Karen Irby case, there was a file. In fact, she had requested a pardon which the board voted against. The governor granted a commutation instead. The request and a record of the vote should have been in the file. Whether you like me or not is irrelevant in this debate. When you cannot win the argument attack the other side personally.

ALl right, I'm going to say this once. When legislators or other public officials are nice enough to come post under their real names here, treat them with the same respect. No personal attacks, stick to the points. Pretend you are commenting over at the Wall Street Journal.

Cottonchicken and Ladd are the ones who don't allow differing opinions, this is where you really show them up.

Shadow, make comment again without that last paragraph and its fine.

Sasquatch and Nessie got pardoned too? Damn! CNN missed that scoop.

To the extent Cecil Brown also implies that the Governor cannot grant a pardon without an application to the Parole Board; or that he intends to impose such a requirement legislatively in order to create a "file"--these ideas are violative of the constitution itself.

Brown: When you cannot win the argument attack the other side personally.

But, but, but ...

Brown: Some of you apparently cannot read.

When you come clean Mr. Brown about all your PACs; when you fully disclose the various games you play to shift money between these PACs in order to obscure from public view your campaign funding shenanigans; when you step up and reveal to the public your associations with the various anonymous Democratic mouthpieces and front organizations (like the Parents Campaign) then maybe people will revisit your sudden interest in transparency, open government and accountability as serious and worthy of reconsideration.

You treat the public with contempt and the condescending attitude you display to those who disagree with you is a reputation you've earned. Your outrage about the missing files is hollow and nothing more than lip service parroted now for political gain.

Action talks Mr. Brown and your actions to hide matters of campaign finance from public view during recent elections speak volumes versus the weak words and feigned public interest concerns you are trotting out now.

I am not being disrespectful and it is never personal, even if your name is Shadowfax, but I digress. ;)

I have questions about the statement and the insinuation regarding a pardon boards "hiding something" and confusing the Pardon's issue.

KI requested a pardon from the Board? or from the Governor? Was this a letter she sent? I mean, "the missing file" makes it sound like a conspiracy of the Parole Board to favor KI when it might have just been a written request for a hearing with the board regarding a pardon and they stamped it "denied" before it ever went before an official board meeting and was spread upon the minutes.

I'm curious at this point.

The law gives the Governor the authority to grant pardons. According to the Parole Board chairperson, pardon requests usually go directly to the Governor or to the Parole Board. Either route is lawful. There is no legal requirement that the Parole Board be involved,but if they are, there are laws that require them to keep records. In re: Karen Irby, the chairperson states that there was a file and a pardon application. PEER staff attempeted to find the file at the Governor's office, the Parole Board and the Department of Corrections. All stated that they did not have the file and did not know where it is.

Maybe the files are in the possession of the Green's Clerk, maybe call Mrs. Dunn?

Or, better yet, perhaps Mr. Hood has them.

The mess that was created after the pardons probably contributed significantly to your lack of findings.

The direct involvement of Hood's office on the periphery of the collusion by Dickie and the Rigsby bimbos to gain advantage via the illegal appropriation of State Farm files -- and the assistance Hood provided Dickie to evade a Judge's direct order to surrender copies of the stolen documents in Scruggs' possession -- certainly heightens the curiosity that Hood may know the location, or even have, the AWOL Karen Irby file.

Hood has muscled preferences for family and friends before so it isn't beyond reason to ask if he isn't entangled now in the sudden and unexplained disappearance of the Irby file in order to benefit the raw politics of conspiracy theorists like the squawking Representative Brown and his other Donkeycrat stablemates.

The question to be asked is why didn't the PEER staff doing Brown's bidding bother to ask the AG's office whether the AG himself or any of his staff had any knowledge as to the current location of the missing Irby file and whether or not AG Hood or his staff had any copies of Irby file documentation in their possession?

Because if we know anything about Attorney General Hood we know that if you ain't asking he sure as hell ain't telling.

Crechale's anyone?

But the Irby file is not the only one that was allegedly missing, Mr. Brown. Why mention her file specifically, as opposed to one of the violent offenders? From a public safety standpoint, would it not be more significant that the file of a potentially homicidal pardonee was missing?

The AP story regarding the "PEER findings" highlights the complete dishonesty in the op-ed. Your silly little missive made a point to mention that 16 received negative recommendations for pardons, yet omitted that the vast majority of the other pardoned persons were "approved" by the parole board. The fact that such a large majority of the persons who received clemency got favorable recommendations from the parole board seems kinda relevant to this issue, does it not?

You omitted this fact from your letter because it did not support the spin for which you were aiming. Had you stated that the vast majority of applicants were "approved" by the parole board, that would have demonstrated the frivolousness of your bellyaching about the few that were not. The true facts were not consistent with your agenda in writing that letter, so you left them out. This is a lie-by-omission.

Look, I know you democrats are having a tough time. After years of extending your collective middle finger to every other part of the government, y'all are now about as relevant as sanskrit. Even so, that's no justification for the childish antics we're seen recently.

Now put Bob Evans back on the mic. At least his absurd BS has comedic value.

Always interesting to debate people who are too afraid or too ashamed to sign their own names.

Just because I use a moniker, does not mean I am a real person. In fact, I know a great many of the people here face-to-face.

Your normal course of business would not bring you into contact with many of us. I would hope that you intellectually appreciate the feedback and challenge of our analysis. You are the one who put out an OP-ed piece and we have analyzed and concluded that the work is not truthful or well researched.

Your dismissal of "anonymous" comments simply doesn't hold water, especially when the criticism is right on target.

Addition, "does not mean I am NOT a real person." Sorry, not fond of double negatives.

The truth shall set you free Mr. Brown.

That goes for speaking it and hearing it.

Mr. Brown; instead of whining about the advent of anonymity on chat boards, how about just pretending you are sitting in a straight chair with a bright light swinging over your head, being questioned by the people who employ you ~ citizens of this state. I tried to post earlier but for some reason, unknown to me, was censored. I'm not trying to be unkind (that should get me off the hook), but I'm personally not impressed with your defense, which, to this point, seems to be that you're not sure who you are conversing with. Be assured that all of these comments are placed here by real people, not a robo-system.

And to the point of your comment regarding 'hiding behind anonymity', none of us has the luxury of hiding behind speaker McCoy or the democrat microphone, and now neither, it turns out, do you. Loosen up and defend you're report and answer the suggestions that it's full of untruths and was rather shoddily prepared.

I doubt Mr. Brown you would receive such an honest assessment of your piece at any other media outlet around. There are a bunch of us here, right/left/independant, men/women, etc. We choose to find out truth for ourselves and are not your atypical spoon-fed missives you might find at the local paper or the local rag. Those readers enjoy being spoon fed, they need to be spoon fed, they don't know how to think for themselves.

I commend you for at least giving it the college try and welcome your defense.

Right on Shadow!

Brown came here to engage and now is pissy about names because nobody wants to chug his koolaid merely because he says it is good.

Hey Brown. Since you are eager to file some bills why don't you LEAD and file a bill to eliminate SLRP beginning with the next incoming Legislature in 2016.

Put your bill writing leadership shoes on and show us how it is done.

Is this better, Mr. Brown? One would think that someone who spends so much of his time eating out of a taxpayer-funded trough would have the decency to answer citizens' questions, rather than whine about the identity of the citizen asking the question.

Most regulars know who I am even though I used the other name on blogger. But I went and changed it to my real name just for you (actually to deprive you of the lame excuse about debating those who are anonymous when you cut and run after your last comment).

So, please, Mr. Brown, set me straight with some "facts."

Anderson, really...can you possibly be any more " convenient" in your arguments? You argue in favor of case law to support Barbour and then reject precedent when it comes to agencies and process as that doesn't favor Barbour.

And, obviously, few of the bloggers here understand how many deep pocket Republican conservatives,especially in the business and professional communities, support Cecil Brown.

While we may not agree with him about everything,for some of us, competence and honesty about where he stands, matters. And, we can see he hasn't, unlike some others, enriched himself while in office.

I will say, however, the anonymous comment was not a good moment and is an example of why Cecil Brown isn't known for his patience and ability to charm.

6:04PM I think you are incorrect. You should probably visit Anderson's site and edjumicate yourself on his position. Read his many comments on the Pardon situation, I believe he has done a very good job of establishing the many different issues, but remained steadfast on the constitutional issue.

Want to talk about deep pockets and the support of the liberal pockets in this town? Many do get support because at least Conservatives celebrate diversity of thought, even when they pursue their agenda.

Competence? Honesty? Did you actually take the time to read the comments? Or, are you doing a "hit piece"?

The anonymous comment was fine. He held his own for a bit, then realized, it is a losing battle.

Nobody gives a shit how many RINOs support Brown.

"Hey Brown. Since you are eager to file some bills why don't you LEAD and file a bill to eliminate SLRP beginning with the next incoming Legislature in 2016.

Put your bill writing leadership shoes on and show us how it is done. "

Perfect!
=================================

Cecil Brown - since you have such a deep distrust of speaking anonymously, how do you feel about voting anonymously? Personally, if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me.

But you're smarter than them, apparently.

Anderson, really...can you possibly be any more " convenient" in your arguments? You argue in favor of case law to support Barbour and then reject precedent when it comes to agencies and process as that doesn't favor Barbour.

Ok, I simply have no clue what you are talking about. Explain your position or don't, but these gnomic comments are surely enlightening to no one.