Jackson Jambalaya

The issue of whether any judicial corruption took place in the Robbie Bell prosecution is settled now that Professor Matt Steffey has spoken to us from Mount Sinai. The Robbie Bell prosecution was a reunion of sorts for the Ed Peters gang: Tom Royals (Ed Peters' former partner and defense attorney, George Bell, III's lawyer), Cynthia Speetjeens (defense attorney for Robbie Bell and Bobby DeLaughter and prosecutor under Peters), Tommy Mayfield (George Bell, III's lawyer and prosecutor under Peters), Bobby DeLaughter and Ed Peters. Then there was the matter of Peters' friend Frank Melton putting pressure on JPD to make the case "go away" as sources have told JJ.

Judge DeLaughter heard Ms. Bell's arraignment and was scheduled to preside over her trial when he was removed from the bench. After reading Eaton, Kirk, other cases such as Shelton, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what was going on here after reading through the police reports on the Heather Spencer murder posted last week. There is a reason one gets Ed Peters for a lawyer and gets the case assigned to his boy. However, Rat Stiffey states: "I think there is no reason at all to believe that Judge DeLaughter in any way conspired with Ed Peters.. or anybody else in disposing of the charges against Ms. Bell."

Really Professor Steffey? Let's look at the facts. Steffey didn't practice law in Hinds County, much less try criminal cases, but instead practiced for a short while in Florida very early in his career. He has been a professor for over twenty years. Regular lawyers know his type: such professors in the Never-never-land that is the law school classroom, while they are slugging it out in the trenches with clients, prosecutors, and judges, getting their hands dirty while the pretty-boy REMF's go on t.v. and appear as experts. The real lawyers know who is in whose pocket or which lawyers are connected, while the "expert" talks about theory. Steffey was not even an authority on criminal law. The only reason he became a criminal law professor was that in the late 90's a professor left, so MCSOL assigned him to teach criminal law classes. Prior to this charge, he taught Constitutional Law, Admiralty, and other non-criminal law courses. The media began interviewing him as an "expert" because he was the local criminal law professor and they needed someone who can go on camera on short notice.

If he was a real lawyer and practiced criminal law while Ed Peters was District Attorney, he would know some of the garbage that went on under Peters' tenure in the Hinds County District Attorney's office. How prosecutors saw their cases reassigned to other prosecutors who then dropped the charges if his little pets just happened to be the lawyers representing the defendant. How Peters would indict people "on a dare" to quote the Shelton case. How Peters was indicted several times while the Mississippi Bar looked the other way. Steffey merely shows his ignorance to the local legal community which laughed very hard when it heard this "expert opinion".

Robbie Bell, the mother of convicted murderer George Bell III, is currently under indictment for accessory after the fact. The Clarion-Ledger reported this week "Robbie Bell's trial is tentatively set for March 31 on the accessory charge. The case was reassigned last week to Kidd." http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008802050376

This is good news for those who wish to see Ms. Bell prosecuted as the judge first assigned to the case was Judge DeLaughter, who also handled her arraignment. Why is this good news? Well, it seems there is a little bit of possible incest among the lawyers and judges in this case.

George Bell III's lawyer was esteemed local defense attorney Tom Royals. Mr. Royals was once the law partner of Ed Peters before he became Hinds County District Attorney over 30 years ago. Mr. Royals represented Mr. Peters several times:
1. The NASA case where Mr. Peters was judged by the court liable for fraud.
2. Mr. Peters indictment in 1975 for extortion. He was acquitted.
3. In 1975, Mr. Peters was indicted for practicing law after assuming the office of D.A. (Charges dropped by court after prosecutors requested dismissal).
4. A 1977 incident where Mr. Peters was accused of taking payoffs to protect a prostitution ring. Mr. Peters was not indicted.

Mr. Peters and Judge DeLaughter now stand accused of working in concert with Joey Langston in order to "fix" civil cases:
"The 50-year-old Langston, who will never practice law again, had just admitted to offering a bribe and the hint of a federal judgeship to Hinds Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter in exchange for a favorable ruling in a legal fees lawsuit.
Langston said he did so with the full knowledge of famed Oxford attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, and he said he used former Hinds district attorney Ed Peters to ferry messages to the judge." http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/langston_says_ed_peters_his_money_man/
Text of Langston's plea: http://djournal9to5.wordpress.com/

Is it any coincidence the case was going to be heard before Judge DeLaughter, who has been accused by others of criminal conduct in cases involving Mr. Peters? While it is true Mr. Royals is not representing Ms. Bell, it does not require one to suspend reality in order to conclude Mr. Royals and Ms. Bell's lawyer (who I am told is in the "Ed Peters crowd") have probably worked together on the defense of their clients. Until the case was reassigned to Judge Kidd last week, the Judge accused by Joey Langston of fixing cases for him through Ed Peters was going to hear a case where the recently convicted son of the accused was represented by the former law partner of Mr. Peters.

For other posts on the Heather Spencer Case, see section in the lower sidebar on the right side of the page.
NASA Post: http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2008/02/ed-peters-do-leapords-ever-change-their.html
Robbie Bell indicted: http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2007/11/wheels-slowly-turn-robbie-bell-indicted.html

While the controversy rages over the of role former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters in the Dickie Scruggs scandal, the media has so far ignored his involvement in the long-forgotten NASA fraud case from the mid-1970's. (469 F. Supp. 54) See http://groups.google.com/group/jackson-jambalaya/files (click on Peters case link)

NASA (National Account Systems Association) was an investment scheme cooked up by Mr. Peters and Charles Steen which promised to pay a rate of return at 12% interest (The market rate then was 6%) to investors. Charles Steen was earlier convicted in Alabama of operating a similar bogus investment scheme and served a three-year prison sentence. NASA was shut down by then-Mississippi Secretary of State Heber Ladner in 1974 for violating state securities laws after the scheme took in $340,000 from Mississippi investors. ( See "Peters Liable for NASA Fraud" by Bill Minor, Capitol Reporter, December 7, 1978)

The victims sued Mr. Peters and three other defendants in federal court to recover for alleged violations of federal and state securities law. The Court ruled Mr. Peters "was a controlling person of the issuer and is jointly liable for all violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act". The scheme involved the selling of accounts receivables purchased at a discount(with the money from the promissory notes) as promissory notes to investors. Unfortunately for the investors, the receivables originated from STARCO, a bogus paper company. Mr. Peters was also the attorney for STARCO (Conflict of interest?).

"NASA itself never issued any stock and never had any paid-in capital as required by law. Neither Peters nor Steen paid for any stock and none was issued. NASA was a corporate sham." (page 10 of Court's opinion). It should also be noted these companies had no reserves nor collateral, in violation of the law.

U.S. District Judge Orma Smith issued the following findings about Mr. Peters in the opinion:
"In the present case, Peters owed a special duty of diligent investigation and disclosure. Not only was he the lawyer responsible for the issuer's compliance with applicable laws, he also permitted his name (and his office) to be exploited as “president” of NASA when he clearly knew the daily operation of NASA would be controlled by Steen. He permitted NASA to utilize his signature stamp and made no effort to determine how his signature was being used...."

"Peters, as lawyer for the issuer, secured an exemption based on promotional material furnished to him by Steen. He did not make a reasonable inquiry to ascertain the truth or falsity of the representations when these statements could have been readily verified by a lawyer. He secured the certificate of exemption without which these securities would not have been offered or sold when he knew or should have known that NASA was in violation of law, had issued no stock and had no paid-in capital. During the term of the offering, when Peters had ample opportunity to detect the misrepresentations, he failed to report violations to NASA, to the Secretary of State of to the Securities & Exchange Commission."

The court concludes that without the active, affirmative assistance of Peters as lawyer for the issuer, including the use and exploitation of his name, the sale would not have been accomplished. Therefore, under applicable law, Peters was a participant in the sale and is jointly liable with the issuer for all damages....

Further, the Court concludes that, because of his approved designation as “president” and his role in connection with the sale, Peters was a controlling person of the issuer and is jointly liable for all violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act..

Peters, moreover, materially and substantially aided and abetted the issuer in connection with the offer and sale of these securities. The “scienter” requirement is satisfied because the evidence establishes overwhelmingly that Peters' conduct was grossly negligent and reckless. His conduct was an extreme departure from and a gross violation of the duties imposed on him as lawyer for the issuer. The preparation and assistance with the materially false and misleading statements and the course of conduct of Peters clearly imposes aiding and abetting liability on him as a matter of law...

The court concludes, therefore, that Peters, as lawyer for the issuer, is jointly liable for all violations of s 12(2) and s 17(a) of The Securities Act, s 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, Mississippi “Blue Sky” law and common law....

It should be noted the same court ruled "In the case of defendant Peters, the evidence does not show that he profited financially in any way in the subject transactions and the court cannot find that he intended to defraud plaintiffs.."

Despite this Panglossian finding by the court, it does not take a genius to figure out what happened. Mr. Peters acted as President of NASA and the attorney for other companies in the scheme controlled by his partner, Mr. Steen. Mr. Peters was so negligent in this deception the NASA phone line rang in the Hinds County District Attorney's office. (To think Tyrone Lewis was demoted for less). The offices of NASA and the District Attorney were in the same building. Mr. Peters inexplicably did not check the background of Mr. Steen, which would have revealed a criminal record. He allowed Mr. Steen to have his signature stamp, something an attorney should never do. It boggles the mind to think Mr. Peters took a prominent role in the companies involved yet was able to escape a harsher judgement. Bernie Ebbers is probably wondering right now why this defense did not work for him.

Mr. Peters' claim was he was just a Mississippi bumpkin who had no clue as to what a security was even though he was the District Attorney for the largest county in Mississippi and one of the sharpest lawyers in the state. The Court accepted his defense and merely charged him with being reckless, ignorant, and negligent BUT liable for the fraud anyway even if he did not profit from it. Hmmm....he gets involved in a case that blows up but yet there is no finding he profited from it. Does anyone see a pattern here?

The plaintiffs were awarded damages of $240,000. The defendants appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals but the case was settled before it was heard. Despite the Court's findings, the state of Mississippi NEVER PROSECUTED ANYONE IN THE CASE! One must wonder where the true negligence occurred: in the office of the Hinds County District Attorney or the Mississippi Attorney General.

Do not even ask what action the Mississippi Bar took against Mr. Peters as it waited two years before issuing a cute little public reprimand to the District Attorney. However, it should come as not surprise to anyone who studies this case that Mr. Peters is once again involved in a controversy involving corruption and fraud.

Additional reading:
The Clarion-Ledger, "Hinds D.A. Reprimanded for 1974 Legal Job", January 6, 1981
The Clarion-Ledger, "Peters Stays Quiet on Reprimand by Peers, November 13, 1980
The Clarion-Ledger, "D.A. Asks Overturn of Ruling", March 8, 1979
The Clarion-Ledger, "Ex-D.A. Peters, Lawsuit was only NASA Benefit", October 6, 1978
The Capitol Reporter, "Book Closed on Ed Peters' NASA Boondoggle", January 8, 1981

Well, killer cop (not cop-killer) and former JPD officer Jeffrey Middleton is now off the hook after his record was cleared, thanks to Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Bobby DeLaughter. The Clarion-Ledger reported today:
"The guilty plea by Jeffrey Middleton has been removed from his record.
In March 2007, Middleton, then 29, pleaded guilty to culpable negligent vehicular man-slaughter in the death of 23-year-old Desmonde Harris of Jackson....
When Hinds County Circuit Judge Bobby DeLaughter took Middleton's plea, he placed him on two years' probation and withheld adjudication of the case.
Withholding adjudication meant that if Middleton stayed out of trouble while on probation, the judge could, in effect, undo his guilty plea.
Earlier this month, Hinds County Circuit Judge L. Breland Hilburn, who has assumed DeLaughter's criminal docket, signed an order that Middleton had successfully completed probation and dismissed the charge....
But questions also were raised because Mayfield and DeLaughter had worked together as assistant district attorneys and on cases together...." http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080721/NEWS/807210332/1001/news

The story leaves out the fact Mr. Middleton had TWO attorneys. Does anyone want to guess who the second one was? Delaughter.....Mayfield....... drum roll..... ED PETERS. I remember the newspaper covering this story when it happened and Ed Peters was mentioned as his lawyer, which was one reason why the case raised so many eyebrows. Unfortunately, today's story by Mr. Gates does not mention Peters' name anywhere. Thankfully (yes, I wrote that), the Jackson Free Press reported on the story at the time as well:
"DeLaughter has had close relationships with Middleton attorneys Ed Peters and Tommy Mayfield in the past. Peters is a former Hinds County district attorney and Tommy Mayfield is a former assistant district attorney. DeLaughter was an assistant district attorney before he was elected to the circuit court. He prosecuted cases under Peters and worked alongside Mayfield..." http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/print.php?id=13152_0_27_0

Removing Mr. Peters' name from the story completely changes its nature as he has been linked repeatedly to Judge DeLaughter in the Scruggs scandals. It is inexplicable why Mr. Gates left out this very relevant fact, as Mr. Gates has reported on some of the more local aspects of the Scruggs scandals. One would think Mr. Gates would check his own archives when covering a story. All he had to do was look at the story on March 28, 2007: "Former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters and former Assistant District Attorney Tommy Mayfield are Middleton’s attorneys...."
http://folo.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/the-ed-peters-judge-delaughter-restrospective-part-4-state-v-middleton/

Mr. Gates should add a correction to his online story and apologize to his readers for this glaring omission. The Middleton family has suffered enough and does not need this kind of treatment by the Clarion-Ledger.

Note: Thanks to Lotus over on Folo for linking this post.

James Jennings filed a lawsuit against Hinds County Court Judge Houston Patton and former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters yesterday in federal court in Jackson. The lawsuit claimed Judge Patton illegally confined Jennings in order to "coerce him to forego a civil judgement" and that Peters engaged in a conspiracy with Patton to indict and prosecute Jennings under false pretenses.
Jennings' Complaint Against Houston Patton and Ed Peters

The nightmare for James Jennings began ( According to a finding of fact by the Mississippi Bar) "on September 24, 1993, as a judgement in favor of Jennings in the amount of $35,000 by Judge Houston Patton (p.4)...... Mississippi Bar's Finding of Fact

Jailtime for Jennings
Unfortunately, Jennings was unaware his ex-wife filed telephone harassment charges against him. On February 1, 1994, Justice Court Judge Clyde R. Chapman signed an order and mittimus to place Jennings in the county jail until a bond was posted.... (p.4) On February 11, Justice Court Judge Raymond Bates signed a warant for Jennings' arrest...... It should be pointed out Jenning's ex-wife then hired local attorney James Bell (remember him?). Jennings became the Man in the Iron Mask as Judge Patton sent Jennings back to jail without ever affording Jennings the opportunity to have counsel..... (p.6. He was imprisoned on March 5).

Ten days later, Jennings was still in jail. Bonds were refused, release orders were found, then revoked by judges. Jennings was tried in absentia. His new attorney was not allowed to represent him. Every legal trick in the book to keep Jennings in jail was used as he continued to rot in a Hinds hellhole. Finally his lawyer cornered Judge Patton on March 15. Ms. Pierce spoke with Judge Patton in the foyer of the Hinds County Courthouse and asked Judge Patton what it would do to get Jennings out of jail. Judge Paton replied "get the agreement (giving up his judgement of $35,000) signed." (p.9)

"It became clear to Ms. Pierce that in order for Jennings to be released he would have to give up his $35,000 judgement against Kenney. Mr. Kirstine (Jennings' other lawyer) drafted the agreement for Jennings to sign. Jennings at first emphatically refused to sign the agreement. After much protest, Jennings eventually signed the agreement and was then immediately released.

It is important to note that at no time during Jennings' incarceration was he ever charged or tried for any alleged conduct but instead was simply held in jail until he agree to give up his rightfully obtained judgement against Kenny. Jennings was apparently deprived of due process which would give rise to claims under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983." Jennings sat in jail for nearly two weeks as he became a pinata for Judge Patton and his judicial cronies.

Jennings later filed a complaint against Judge Patton with the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance and hired Jackson attorney Keith Shelton to represent him in a Section 1983 action against the Hinds County Jurist. It should be noted the narrative for this ordeal is taken directly from the Mississippi Bar's finding of fact and is not just hearsay or some outrageous claim made by Jennings. (There are many more details, including some that are very juicy, but in the interest of presenting a story easier to follow, they have been omitted from this post. Please read the rest of the findings and accompanying affidavits).

The Empire Strikes Back
While discussing a possible settlement of the lawsuit, Judge Patton informed Jennings' lawyer, Shelton, he would settle if he dropped the complaint with the Commission. It is a pretty well established point of judicial ethics in Mississippi that once a complaint is filed against a judge or lawyer, it cannot be dismissed by the person who signed the complaint. The two sides agreed to a sum of $25,000 for settlement, with Judge Patton paying Jennings $5,000 up-front and the rest in installments. Meanwhile, Judge Patton contacted law enforcement and told them Shelton and Jennings were attempting to extort him, while neglecting to mention he himself was the subject of an ethics complaint filed by Jennings and a possible Section 1983 lawsuit.

Patton wore a wire to the meeting. He paid Jennings the $5,000 and both parties signed the settlement agreement. Shelton and Jennings were later arrested and then indicted. The charges were later dismissed as Hinds County Assistant District Attorney Robert Taylor (served from 1982 to 2006). Taylor stated Judge Patton deviated from the script he was given. Taylor said he didn't understand why they were indicted and said seeking the indictments "was an egregious error". Taylor testified to the bar "it's clear in retrospect we didn't get the complete story."

Taylor revealed some other important facts in an internal memo:
"After examining the transcript of the conversation, it was determined that Judge Patton had deviated from the script given to him in many material ways. Also, it was agreed the suspects had not said things which were quite incriminating enough. Everyone who reviewd the case at that time, agreed there now was no case against either Shelton or Jennings. I was not one of the persons who reviewed the case. I know that Tommy Mayfield, Ed Peters, and another Assistant did. Again, it was agreed there was NO CASE.
Then for reasons which are unclear to me, and will never be clear, the case against Shelton and Jennings is presented with the recommendation of this office that True bills (indictments) be returned as to both defendants for Conspiracy and Bribery. This was in fact done....
This case lacks, and has never had any prosecutive merit. The decision to send it on to the Grand Jury was an egregious error......" Robert Taylor Memo (Kingfish note: Do any of these names sound familiar? See The Robbie Bell Case Family Tree)

However, Taylor also testified his boss, Ed Peters (who was D.A. when Jennings was arrested and indicted), would indict defendants on a "dare" just to see if he could get away with it. It should also be noted Taylor was a partner of Tom Royals when Royals defended Peters in the NASA case in the 1970's. See Ed Peters: Do Leopards Ever Change Their Spots? Taylor stated he was not sure who indicted Jennings, as it could have been one of any number of prosecutors but that once he became aware of the flaws and misrepresentations in the case, he moved to dismiss it.

Jennings Files Complaint against Peters and Patton
The complaint states "Unbeknownst to Mr. Shelton and Mr. Jennings, the Defendant Patton had contacted the Hinds County District Attorney’s Office and falsely and maliciously claimed that Mr. Shelton and Mr. Jennings were attempting to bribe him. The Defendant Patton’s initiation of criminal charges against Mr. Jennings and Mr. Shelton did not constitute a judicial act. On, or about, April 16, 2008, Mr. Jennings and the Defendant Patton signed a settlement agreement and release which ostensibly resolved Mr. Jennings’ civil rights claim.

After consummating the settlement, the Defendant Patton left and Mr. Jennings and Mr. Shelton were arrested as a direct result of the false and malicious claim by the Defendant Patton that Mr. Jennings and Mr. Shelton were attempting to bribe him. The Defendant Patton in making a criminal complaint and preparing an affidavit which he knew was false and in withholding exculpatory evidence initiated a prosecution of Mr. Jennings without probable cause.

Mr. Jennings was indicted by a Hinds County Grand Jury on August 14, 1997, for the felony offense of bribery based on the false affidavit and/or the false testimony of the Defendant Patton. The false affidavit and/or the false testimony of the Defendant Patton invalidated the probable cause determination of the Hinds County Grand Jury.

The Defendant Peters was at all times relevant to this civil action the Hinds County District Attorney. The Defendant Patton and the Defendant Peters, pre-indictment, individually and in combination, fabricated evidence and withheld exculpatory evidence for the sole-purpose of prosecuting Mr. Jennings without probable cause.

The Defendant Peters, pre-indictment, also rendered eroneous and false legal advice to the police and others regarding the existence of probable cause to arrest Mr. Jennings based on the fabricated evidence and withheld exculpatory evidence for the sole-purpose of prosecuting Mr. Jennings without probable cause...."

Jennings requests the following remedies:
"1. actual damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
2. compensatory damages for emotional distress, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, humiliation, shame, loss of self-esteem, fear, embarrassment, and injury to reputation and professional standing which Mr. Jennings has suffered or may suffer in the future;
3. punitive damages;
4. reasonable attorney’s fees; and
5. reasonable costs;"

There is no record of service of process for Peters and Patton of the lawsuit yet. Credit must be given to the website FOLO, http://www.folo.us/, which originally published details of this nightmare in The Shelton Series. Sources have also informed Jackson Jambalaya a complaint was filed several months ago with the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance against Judge Patton for his performance in this affair. The disposition of the complaint is not yet known at this time.

James Jennings, Jr. sued Hinds County Judge Houston Patton and former District Attorney Ed Peters in federal court last year. The lawsuit claimed Judge Patton illegally confined Jennings in order to "coerce him to forego a civil judgement" and that Peters engaged in a conspiracy with Patton to indict and prosecute Jennings under false pretenses. Original post. Peters filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 18, 2009, claiming "absolute immunity" as District Attorney from the lawsuit. Copy of Motion, Memo in support of motion

The Court ordered discovery halted while the Motion to Dismiss was adjudicated. Rebecca Cowan and Michael Myers filed an Entry of Appearance for Judge Patton. Judge Patton filed a Motion for Summary Judgement on September 4, 2009, claiming immunity from actions committed while on the bench and a failure by Jennings to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Copy of Motion for Summary Judgement

While Patton and Peters claim their divine rights, one should remember exactly what the Mississippi Bar published in its findings of fact concerning their treatment of Mr. Jennings. From an earlier post:

"The nightmare for James Jennings,Jr. began ( According to a finding of fact by the Mississippi Bar) "on September 24, 1993, as a judgement in favor of Jennings in the amount of $35,000 by Judge Houston Patton (p.4)...... Mississippi Bar's Finding of Fact

Jailtime for Jennings
Unfortunately, Jennings was unaware his ex-wife filed telephone harassment charges against him. On February 1, 1994, Justice Court Judge Clyde R. Chapman signed an order and mittimus to place Jennings in the county jail until a bond was posted.... (p.4) On February 11, Justice Court Judge Raymond Bates signed a warant for Jennings' arrest...... It should be pointed out Jenning's ex-wife then hired local attorney James Bell (remember him?). Jennings became the Man in the Iron Mask as Judge Patton sent Jennings back to jail without ever affording Jennings the opportunity to have counsel..... (p.6. He was imprisoned on March 5).

Ten days later, Jennings was still in jail. Bonds were refused, release orders were found, then revoked by judges. Jennings was tried in absentia. His new attorney was not allowed to represent him. Every legal trick in the book to keep Jennings in jail was used as he continued to rot in a Hinds hellhole. Finally his lawyer cornered Judge Patton on March 15. Ms. Pierce spoke with Judge Patton in the foyer of the Hinds County Courthouse and asked Judge Patton what it would do to get Jennings out of jail. Judge Paton replied "get the agreement (giving up his judgement of $35,000) signed." (p.9)

"It became clear to Ms. Pierce that in order for Jennings to be released he would have to give up his $35,000 judgement against Kenney. Mr. Kirstine (Jennings' other lawyer) drafted the agreement for Jennings to sign. Jennings at first emphatically refused to sign the agreement. After much protest, Jennings eventually signed the agreement and was then immediately released.

It is important to note that at no time during Jennings' incarceration was he ever charged or tried for any alleged conduct but instead was simply held in jail until he agree to give up his rightfully obtained judgement against Kenny. Jennings was apparently deprived of due process which would give rise to claims under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983." Jennings sat in jail for nearly two weeks as he became a pinata for Judge Patton and his judicial cronies.

Jennings later filed a complaint against Judge Patton with the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance and hired Jackson attorney Keith Shelton to represent him in a Section 1983 action against the Hinds County Jurist. It should be noted the narrative for this ordeal is taken directly from the Mississippi Bar's finding of fact and is not just hearsay or some outrageous claim made by Jennings. (There are many more details, including some that are very juicy, but in the interest of presenting a story easier to follow, they have been omitted from this post. Please read the rest of the findings and accompanying affidavits).

The Empire Strikes Back
While discussing a possible settlement of the lawsuit, Judge Patton informed Jennings' lawyer, Shelton, he would settle if he dropped the complaint with the Commission. It is a pretty well established point of judicial ethics in Mississippi that once a complaint is filed against a judge or lawyer, it cannot be dismissed by the person who signed the complaint. The two sides agreed to a sum of $25,000 for settlement, with Judge Patton paying Jennings $5,000 up-front and the rest in installments. Meanwhile, Judge Patton contacted law enforcement and told them Shelton and Jennings were attempting to extort him, while neglecting to mention he himself was the subject of an ethics complaint filed by Jennings and a possible Section 1983 lawsuit.

Patton wore a wire to the meeting. He paid Jennings the $5,000 and both parties signed the settlement agreement. Shelton and Jennings were later arrested and then indicted. The charges were later dismissed as Hinds County Assistant District Attorney Robert Taylor (served from 1982 to 2006). Taylor stated Judge Patton deviated from the script he was given. Taylor said he didn't understand why they were indicted and said seeking the indictments "was an egregious error". Taylor testified to the bar "it's clear in retrospect we didn't get the complete story."

Taylor revealed some other important facts in an internal memo:
"After examining the transcript of the conversation, it was determined that Judge Patton had deviated from the script given to him in many material ways. Also, it was agreed the suspects had not said things which were quite incriminating enough. Everyone who reviewd the case at that time, agreed there now was no case against either Shelton or Jennings. I was not one of the persons who reviewed the case. I know that Tommy Mayfield, Ed Peters, and another Assistant did. Again, it was agreed there was NO CASE.
Then for reasons which are unclear to me, and will never be clear, the case against Shelton and Jennings is presented with the recommendation of this office that True bills (indictments) be returned as to both defendants for Conspiracy and Bribery. This was in fact done....
This case lacks, and has never had any prosecutive merit. The decision to send it on to the Grand Jury was an egregious error......" Robert Taylor Memo (Kingfish note: Do any of these names sound familiar? See The Robbie Bell Case Family Tree)

However, Taylor also testified his boss, Ed Peters (who was D.A. when Jennings was arrested and indicted), would indict defendants on a "dare" just to see if he could get away with it. It should also be noted Taylor was a partner of Tom Royals when Royals defended Peters in the NASA case in the 1970's. See Ed Peters: Do Leopards Ever Change Their Spots? Taylor stated he was not sure who indicted Jennings, as it could have been one of any number of prosecutors but that once he became aware of the flaws and misrepresentations in the case, he moved to dismiss it."


A little bit different than what Peters and Patton claim in their motions. The Court has not ruled on their motions to dismiss the case.

One previously unknown and highly relevant fact about the Heather Spencer case is that Ed Peters represented Robbie Bell when the investigation into the murder began. Detective Derrick Jordan states in his report:
"On 9-25-2007, I, Detective Derrick Jordan along with Sgt Eric Smith, Sgt. A. Cooper and Detective Sparkman meet with Attorney James, Kelly and Attorney Edward Peters in reference to this case. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Peters represent Ms. Robbie Bell. The purpose of this meeting was to obtain a statement from Robbie Bell in reference to the murder of Mary Heather Spencer..." Copy of statement

Ed Peters represented Robbie Bell. That fact alone should give everyone reason for concern. She was later represented by Bobby DeLaughter's current lawyer, Cynthia Speetjeens. Judge DeLaughter heard her arraignment when she was indicted for accessory after the fact and was scheduled to preside over her trial when he was suspended from the bench. The other two lawyers of the Ed Peters gang, Tom Royals and Tommy Mayfield, represented George Bell, III on his murder and kidnapping charges. The only thing missing from this reunion is Dale Danks serving up some drinks and Coppertone.

Keep in mind Ms. Bell came home at approximately 8:00 PM to a home awash in blood and a victim who lay dying, as pieces of her skull littered the floor. She was there all night long, making no attempt to call for the police or medical help for Ms. Spencer (who didn't die until 3:00 AM).

Ms. Bell made no attempt to contact the authorities even when she was alone for an hour. Ms. Bell faced serious charges when George was arrested based upon her conduct. The entry of Peters and the rest of his gang into this affair only makes Jim Hood's decision to drop the indictment against Ms. Bell even more suspicious, given his ties to Dickie Scruggs. The question that remains is whether hiding the role Robbie Bell played in the death of Heather Spencer was another example of Ed Peter's talent for helping his friends escape justice.

Or is the tree so tangled it should be a wreath?

Tom Royals: George Bell III's defense attorney. Former law partner of Ed Peters. Defended Ed Peters on several occasions when he was indicted or the subject of several investigations. Partner is Mayfield, George Bell III's other defense counsel.
Bobby DeLaughter: Former prosecutor for Ed Peters when he was Hinds County District Attorney. Currently represented by Cynthia Speetjeens and is suspended from the bench. Was supposed to hear Robbie Bell's case until reassigned to Judge Kidd. Heard Robbie Bell's arraignment.
Cynthia Speetjeens: Represents Robbie Bell in this case and represents Judge DeLaughter in the Scruggs scandal.
Ed Peters: Former partner of Tom Royals. Employed Mayfield, George Bell's co-counsel, and DeLaughter as prosecutors while Hinds County District Attorney.
Robert Smith: Hinds County District Attorney. Mayfield's wife is office manager for D.A.'s office. Ed Peters headed his transition team between election and inauguration.
Jim Hood: __________(fill in the blank)

U. S. District Court Judge Tom Lee ruled against Hinds County Court Judge Houston Patton's motion for summary judgement in the lawsuit filed against him by James Jennings, Jr. The federal judge didn't just rule against Mr. Patton but used some rather strong language in his opinion against the judge. Copy of order, Earlier post (Folo first broke this story two years ago).

Judge Patton threw James Jennings, Jr. in jail for two weeks without charge, hearing, or bond in 1994. Jennings filed a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Performance and prepared to file a lawsuit against Patton. His attorney, Keith Shelton, made a settlement offer to the judge. The judge then contacted the Hinds County District Attorney's office and told them Shelton and Jennings were attempting to extort him. Patton lied to the D.A.'s office, which subsequently prosecuted the pair. Although indicted, the case never went to trial and was later dismissed with prejudice. This is the storyline given by the Mississippi Supreme Court in a finding of fact issued when it reinstated Keith Shelton's law license.

Jennings filed a lawsuit against Patton and Ed Peters in 2008 seeking damages for his false imprisonment and later indictment. Patton and Peters filed motions for summary judgement, claiming they were both immune from the lawsuit as Judge and District Attorney.

Judge Lee agreed with Peters and strongly rejected Patton's attempt to claim immunity for his actions on the bench. The Court cited case law to support its judgement that Patton did not enjoy any immunity for his actions:
"There are only two circumstances under which immunity may be overcome. 'First, a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e. actions not taken in the judge's judicial capacity.' 'Second, a judge is not immune from actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.' The issue here is whether Patton's challenged actions were taken in his judicial capacity, as he contends, or whether they were nonjudicial actions, for which there is no absolute judicial immunity."

The Court stated that "under the version of facts offered by Jennings, which the court accepts as true for present purposes, Patton's action may not be fairly characterized as judicial." Judge Lee states "Plaintiff maintains these (settlement offer of $25,000) were the sole terms of what was a simple settlement proposal, and yet Patton falsely reported to law enforcement officials and signed a formal statement to the effect that Jennings and Shelton had attempted to extort and/or bribe him." The Court didn't stop here but went further and stated "In the court's opinion, based on plaintiff's version of the facts, no reasonable argument can be made that Patton's alleged acts of making false statements to law enforcement and withholding material and exculpatory information to bring about the criminal prosecution of two innocent men are judicial or adjudicative acts." Judge Lee then concludes there are "genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgement on this immunity defense."

What is more interesting is the Court found Ed Peters did enjoy immunity from his actions in Jenning's prosecution. Interesting in that in typical Ed Peters fashion, he threw Patton under the bus. Of course his office would have never knowingly prosecuted an innocent man. It was the Judge's fault, he lied to them you see. Well, the Court did say that was exactly the case and that the prosecutors were acting in good faith based on what Judge Patton told them. Thus, Peters escapes, again.

Although Br'er Peters wriggled free yet again, judgement moves closer to Houston Patton, who now must face a trial and explain why he issued a letter de cachet against Jennings and then served him and Keith Shelton up to the District Attorney in an effort to protect his own ass. While he saved his own ass back then, it appears now that it might finally be cooked as there will finally be a trial and Judge Patton will be forced to account for his actions. Does anyone think Jennings will accept a settlement at this point? Stay tuned.

Oh, one other question must be asked: how many other people has Patton thrown in jail without charge or hearing?

Mississippi Bar's finding of fact


Background of Jennings case:
"The nightmare for James Jennings,Jr. began ( According to a finding of fact by the Mississippi Bar) "on September 24, 1993, as a judgement in favor of Jennings in the amount of $35,000 by Judge Houston Patton (p.4)...... Mississippi Bar's Finding of Fact

Jailtime for Jennings
Unfortunately, Jennings was unaware his ex-wife filed telephone harassment charges against him. On February 1, 1994, Justice Court Judge Clyde R. Chapman signed an order and mittimus to place Jennings in the county jail until a bond was posted.... (p.4) On February 11, Justice Court Judge Raymond Bates signed a warant for Jennings' arrest...... It should be pointed out Jenning's ex-wife then hired local attorney James Bell (remember him?). Jennings became the Man in the Iron Mask as Judge Patton sent Jennings back to jail without ever affording Jennings the opportunity to have counsel..... (p.6. He was imprisoned on March 5).

Ten days later, Jennings was still in jail. Bonds were refused, release orders were found, then revoked by judges. Jennings was tried in absentia. His new attorney was not allowed to represent him. Every legal trick in the book to keep Jennings in jail was used as he continued to rot in a Hinds hellhole. Finally his lawyer cornered Judge Patton on March 15. Ms. Pierce spoke with Judge Patton in the foyer of the Hinds County Courthouse and asked Judge Patton what it would do to get Jennings out of jail. Judge Paton replied "get the agreement (giving up his judgement of $35,000) signed." (p.9)

"It became clear to Ms. Pierce that in order for Jennings to be released he would have to give up his $35,000 judgement against Kenney. Mr. Kirstine (Jennings' other lawyer) drafted the agreement for Jennings to sign. Jennings at first emphatically refused to sign the agreement. After much protest, Jennings eventually signed the agreement and was then immediately released.

It is important to note that at no time during Jennings' incarceration was he ever charged or tried for any alleged conduct but instead was simply held in jail until he agree to give up his rightfully obtained judgement against Kenny. Jennings was apparently deprived of due process which would give rise to claims under 42 U.S. Code Section 1983." Jennings sat in jail for nearly two weeks as he became a pinata for Judge Patton and his judicial cronies.

Jennings later filed a complaint against Judge Patton with the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance and hired Jackson attorney Keith Shelton to represent him in a Section 1983 action against the Hinds County Jurist. It should be noted the narrative for this ordeal is taken directly from the Mississippi Bar's finding of fact and is not just hearsay or some outrageous claim made by Jennings. (There are many more details, including some that are very juicy, but in the interest of presenting a story easier to follow, they have been omitted from this post. Please read the rest of the findings and accompanying affidavits).

The Empire Strikes Back
While discussing a possible settlement of the lawsuit, Judge Patton informed Jennings' lawyer, Shelton, he would settle if he dropped the complaint with the Commission. It is a pretty well established point of judicial ethics in Mississippi that once a complaint is filed against a judge or lawyer, it cannot be dismissed by the person who signed the complaint. The two sides agreed to a sum of $25,000 for settlement, with Judge Patton paying Jennings $5,000 up-front and the rest in installments. Meanwhile, Judge Patton contacted law enforcement and told them Shelton and Jennings were attempting to extort him, while neglecting to mention he himself was the subject of an ethics complaint filed by Jennings and a possible Section 1983 lawsuit.

Patton wore a wire to the meeting. He paid Jennings the $5,000 and both parties signed the settlement agreement. Shelton and Jennings were later arrested and then indicted. The charges were later dismissed as Hinds County Assistant District Attorney Robert Taylor (served from 1982 to 2006). Taylor stated Judge Patton deviated from the script he was given. Taylor said he didn't understand why they were indicted and said seeking the indictments "was an egregious error". Taylor testified to the bar "it's clear in retrospect we didn't get the complete story."

Mike Gunn: A wimp like most bullies.
"Randy Newell also says Gunn provided law enforcement an expired driver's license - listing him as a senator - because Gunn wanted officers "to be aware that he used to be in the Senate."
Gunn, who in the 1990s represented a portion of Rankin County, pleaded guilty in federal court last week, admitting responsibility for the birds' deaths ....

The report says multiple neighbors - including Rankin County assistant prosecutor Mike Boland - watched Gunn chase down the birds, toss them into the grill, flip on the gas then throw them to his penned Mountain Cur hunting dog.
The neighbors immediately called authorities, but when they arrived, Gunn would not come to the door - even though officers saw him through the window of his 116 Port Lane home in Brandon.
The report says: "At this time, Newell observed Gunn in the upstairs window with the lights on. The lights were then turned off. The woman (at the door) advised Newell that Mr. Gunn was not at home .." http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080715/NEWS/807150340/1001/news

The former legislator got himself in trouble and was convicted of killing some baby geese. However, this wimp showed how tough he was by gassing the poor things in his grill. When the cops showed up, he then hid upstairs like the little sissy he is, and then when finally confronted by the police, tried to pull the "Do you know who I am?" defense. Fortunately, the DWF officer showed more integrity than the former legislator who constantly reminded the voters of what a great Christian whenever he ran for office. Although he was fined for killing the baby geese, no one bothered to knock his smirk off of his face as he left the courthouse. That would have been true justice for the bully.

Haley and Billy's game of Chicken threatens to destroy Mississippi Health Care
"Under Barbour's plan, which takes effect Aug. 6, Medicaid reimbursement rates for hospitals would be reduced by 33.5 percent. Michael Bailey, MHA's chief financial officer, said the reduction could lead to thousands of hospital layoffs and cuts to patient services....

Barbour's plan also reduces payments to pharmacists by 10 percent and nursing homes by 6.1 percent. Others affected include dentists, podiatrists and ambulatory services..." http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080715/NEWS/807150341/1001/news

Apparently Haley and Billy have forgotten that while they try to one-up each other thousands of Mississippians are going to be affected by this. Health care providers make little profit on Medicaid patients and all too often accept them because they are truly interested in helping them and not getting rich at the state's expense. Unfortunately, Speaker McCoy can't stand the thought of the Governor having his way and the Governor can't stand the thought of giving in one bit on a possible cigarette tax hike. To both of you I say a pox on both your houses as you drive the health care for many Mississippians into the ditch.

Melton: Does he have any idea what he is doing?
What does our Mayor do after getting indicted? Why go to the pool with a bunch of young boys of course. For stress relief as he says, "I promised the kids last week that I would come out and work with them in the water," he said Monday afternoon. "It's a stress reliever. It gets a little stress off of me." (Insert comment here)

Indicted. City budget is a mess. Supposedly working on a plan to hire Jackson youth for the rest of the summer. Crime is getting worse. The Farish Street Project is at a standstill. What is Frank's solution? Go swimming. Nice.

Apparently Frank hasn't retained a lawyer for his defense either: "no attorneys have been formally entered into the court record for the defense. Melton was noncommittal on plans for his defense.
"Certainly I'm going to be there (Wednesday). I'm not going to be a fugitive. But I'm just struggling with it," he said. "I don't want to spend $1 million on this thing, because there is no question that's what it is going to cost me. It is what it is, and I'm struggling with it. There is no question about that...."

Of course, Frank might not have the money as he STILL has not paid his property taxes and has a balloon note on his home (the first mortgage) due in December. Considering Frank just escaped foreclosure, one must wonder if he even has the money to pay for the high-priced legal talent he has hired in the past.

Yet another cartoon about gas prices
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=OPINION04

My good friend Marshall Ramsey dutifully fulfills his twice-weekly quota of drawing a cartoon about gas prices. Please bring back Election Man, the Cowboy, and some others. ;-)

Mississippi Supreme Court Justice flunks ethics 101
Apparently our justices have learned nothing and forgotten everything from the Dickie Scruggs scandal: "As reported by The Clarion-Ledger on Sunday, Randolph voted in a case to reduce a $1.7 million judgment against BancorpSouth Bank to $74,000, plus interest, even though he is a former member of the bank's board of directors in Hattiesburg and owns bank stock valued in April at $8,947..." http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080715/OPINION01/807150316/1008/OPINION

Where are we? New Orleans? Chicago? A justice rules on a case involving a company in which he holds stock and used to serve as a Director. Yet he sees no potential for a conflict of interest. You would think that after all of the judicial scandals, that boneheads like Justice Randolph would have learned that the last thing the bench needs is ANY appearance of impropriety. As the Bar and Commission on Judicial Performance have shown themselves to be fairly weak in policing the legal profession, Justice Randolph adopts the sleaze shown by Scruggs, Peters, Delaughter, and others that have made the news this year. Although Brant Brantley will likely do nothing, Justice Randolph should be disciplined by the Commission and apologize to the citizens of this state.

Folo scoop?
Over at Folo (http://www.folo.us/), Lotus apparently has a scoop as she drops a few hints involving Bobby DeLaughter and Ed Peters:
"There are more rumblings relating to one of those cases involving Ed Peters and Judge DeLaughter. Turns out there’s some sworn testimony out there in which the “client” on Peters’s side testified about the large fee he paid Peters, that Peters was to get to keep regardless of whether he did one iota of legal work in the case. That was the express deal Peters got, before he started “maneuvering” in a Judge DeLaughter case, maneuvers he began without bothering to enter a formal appearance. And what was accomplished for that “fee”? Well, a case that one might have thought was absolutely positively lost suddenly became otherwise….
This is a case that’s been mentioned a fair amount on this site. As always, we find that you can’t beat getting your hands on the pleadings..." http://www.folo.us/2008/07/15/coming-soon-in-this-space-about-ed-peters-and-judge-delaughter/

My guess is that Lotus is referring to the Frisby v. Eaton case. Stay tuned.

Apparently former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters has been accused of taking over a million dollars from the attorneys involved in the current federal investigation into judicial corruption in Mississippi. The Clarion-Ledger reported today "According to statements, Peters was eventually given a total of $1 million to influence DeLaughter in the case. The statements show DeLaughter did not receive any of that money." http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080113/NEWS/801130376&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

Why did the newspaper BURY this in the middle of a story about Langston's guilty plea? One would think that the serious possibility of someone who was the Hinds County District Attorney for many years and has been connected with the current District Attorney and Mayor of Jackson taking ONE MILLION DOLLARS in payoffs would be worthy of its own headline. One might even think that there would be an editorial demanding an investigation into possible corruption in the Hinds County judicial system with DeLaughter, Peters, and possibly others. However, The Clarion-Ledger sees fit to just bury this little unimportant sentence in the middle of a story.

Unfortunately, the burial service does not stop with the alleged bribe. The story also mentions "Slater said Peters told that lawyer that a "high-ranking public official" asked him to prosecute Wilson."

Exactly WHO is the "high-ranking public official"? Why is the newspaper and the rest of the media not asking who this public official is? One wonders if the so-called state newspaper will give this some serious coverage to the alleged corruption among judges and district attorneys in Jackson instead of focusing on letting readers post their cute little pictures on their cute little blogs while bragging about their new "platforms".

Note: read the comments in the story online. They aren't too nice... to the newspaper.

Wager: Anyone think a certain alternative newsweekly that bashes the Ledge on a regular basis will do so for its failure to properly cover this story?

Update: I stand corrected. The JFP could not help itself and now has the Ed Peters angle posted: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=15972_0_67_0_C#104406. At least they did what our so-called newspaper of record should have done, which is give it its own headline.

Two weeks ago Jackson Jambalaya asked in a poll what the District Attorney should do in regards to former District Attorney Ed Peters and Judge Bobby DeLaughter. Four choices were given and 163 votes were cast. The choices and their votes received were:
Nothing. They did nothing wrong. 4 votes (2%)
Nothing. Let the feds investigate. 30 votes (18%)
Disassociate himself from Ed Peters publicly. 9 votes (5%)
Open an investigation & prosecute if needed. 114 votes (69%)
Its all a Frank Melton conspiracy. 6 votes (3%)

Until the "Hottest Reporter" polls were conducted, this poll received the highest number of votes ever on this blog, proving that this is an issue that matters to may people. 70% of the voters thought (not felt) that Mr. Smith should investigate and prosecute possible judicial corruption. I suspect that if a more scientific poll was conducted, the results would be somewhat similar.

My personal opinion is that the D.A. should open an investigation. Mr. Smith was elected to prosecute crime in Hinds County. That includes corruption among judges and former district attorneys if it occurred. It is a safe bet to say that more than a reasonable suspicion of such corruption has been raised.

Mr. Smith, there are going to be few moments that define your term. Some of us are sick and tired of seeing corruption cleaned up by the feds and wonder when our local officials for once will prove themselves up to the task of cleaning up Mississippi. We elected you to make such a stand. It is understandable if the feds have told you to back off while they handle it. However, these allegations, if true, occurred in Hinds County and are under your jurisdiction. There is nothing to stop you from announcing you are opening an investigation, then a few days later say you are deferring to the feds and will continue with the matter when the federal prosecution is substantially over. However, there has been no comment from your office, raising questions in the minds of many in Hinds County. The integrity of the legal system has been severely damaged(we won't even discuss the Keith Shelton case) as many people now question whether all the judges are paid off by the "right" attorneys, thus depriving them of any possibility for a fair hearing in Hinds County. It is your responsibility to restore faith in the judicial system and punish those who have corrupted it.

This is the Robert Smith's chance to define his term and show what kind of D.A. he will be. For over 30 years, Hinds County has been plagued by contoversy in the D.A.'s office. Mr. Smith should demonstrate to the voters that he is truly independent of Mr. Peters and that he truly thinks no one is above the law in Hinds County.

Hinds County Circuit Judge Swan Yerger denied a Motion to Reassign in the lawsuit filed by Elizabeth Hall against Robbie Bell. Ms. Hall filed the motion on August 27, 2009, asking Judge Yerger reassign the case to fellow Circuit Judge William Kidd. The motion argued other cases involving the same events were already before Judge Kidd and that in the interest of judicial economy, the Court would best be served by reassigning the case to a Judge already familiar with the issues, events, and witnesses. Copy of Motion, Response, Plaintiff's Reply to Response, and Order , Motion for Reassignment

Judge Yerger denied the Motion on October 7, 2009. It should be pointed out it was Judge Kidd who presided over the criminal proceedings for George Bell, III's guilty plea. It should also be pointed out Ed Peters was Ms. Bell's initial attorney. The same Ed Peters who was thick as thieves with Frank Melton and it was Judge Yerger who did everything he could to help Melton's young carjacking protege, Michael Taylor, escape justice. See earlier post: Frank & Yerger special. So the question must be asked about this case: Is the fix in?

Jackson awoke this morning to the news that the charges against Robbie Bell had been dropped by Attorney General Jim Hood and Hinds County District Attorney Robert Smith. Ms. Bell had been charged with "Accessory after the Fact" in connection with the murder of Heather Spencer by her son, George Bell, III. (See earlier post: http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2007/11/wheels-slowly-turn-robbie-bell-indicted.html) More than a few people are shocked and outraged by the dismissal of the case against Ms. Bell as evidenced by numerous comments on blogs and media websites.

In determining whether the dismissal was justified, one must first consider the law, Section 97-1-5 of the Mississippi Code:
"Every person who shall be convicted of having concealed, received, or relieved any felon, or having aided or assisted any felon, knowing that such person had committed a felony, with intent to enable such felon to escape or to avoid arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, after the commission of such felony, on conviction thereof shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not exceeding five years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by both; and in prosecution for such offenses it shall not be necessary to aver in the indictment or to prove on the trial that the principal has been convicted or tried." http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/97/001/0005.htm

Thus, the law states that Ms. Bell could be convicted if she knew her son had committed a felony AND tried to help him avoid a arrest. A reasonable interpretation of such an avoidance would be not calling the police when there was opportunity to do so after the accused had knowledge the felony had been committed.

The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the law in the Dampier case, stating the elements of Accessory after the Fact are:
"(1) a completed felony has been committed; (2) the accused concealed, received, relieved, aided, or assisted a felon, knowing that such person had committed a felony; and (3) such assistance or aid was rendered with the intent to enable such felon to escape or avoid arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment after the commission of such felony." Dampier v. State 973 So.2d 221, 231 (Miss.,2008)

There is little doubt that Ms. Bell knew a felony had been committed. At SOME point, she came home, sees a severely-beaten, unconscious Heather Spencer, at least one four-foot pool of blood on the floor, and other evidence of the murder. There was evidence of the murder in the hallway and at least one of the rooms. She knew a felony had been committed. Maybe not murder but definitely a felony. The law does not say it has to be the felony that the accused is convicted of committing, it says A felony. What is important is that there was a more than strong suspicion that Ms. Bell knew "a felony" had taken place in her home involving Ms. Spencer and possibly her son. At that point, it was her duty under the law to call the police.

It is important to note that there are several Mississippi cases dealing with this law. The Mississippi Supreme Court dealt with this crime in the Smith case. Mr. Smith was driving a car with his girlfriend as a passenger. In a burst of inspiration, she decided to take a crowbar out of his car and steal jewelry from a window display after smashing the window, despite his pleas not to do it. He drove off without her but she somehow chased the car and jumped in. Even though he tried to leave her and had commanded her not to commit the crime, the Court still said: . "Although Smith was present, the proof is uncontradicted that he neither assisted nor encouraged her by any word or act to commit this crime. A jury would have been warranted in finding him guilty as an accessary after the fact to burglary or larceny, but not as a principal to burglary." Smith v. State 523 So.2d 1028, 1030(Miss.,1988)

SOOOOO..... that means the Court said just for driving the burglar in his car KNOWING she had committed a burglary was enough for him to be convicted of "Accessory after the Fact". Given how the couple was caught as the car crashed a few blocks away from the scene of the crime, the Court made no mention of the personal safety of Mr. Smith.

The question remains if the Attorney General should have prosecuted Ms. Bell instead of dismissing the case. What evidence we do know is this:
1. Heather Spencer was beaten to death and sexually assaulted in Ms. Bell's home during the evening hours of that tragic Monday.
2. Numerous media sources have reported that other people were present in the home during the night in addition to George Bell.
3. George Bell, III, left around 6:00 or 7:00 AM and kidnapped Heather's roommate, bringing her back to Ms. Bell's home.
4. The kidnapping victim has testified that Ms. Bell was at the home while Ms. Spencer's body lay in the house and that Ms. Bell was already at the home when she was kidnapped and taken there.
5. Ms. Bell never once called the police or tried to notify the authorities that a crime had been committed in her home.
6. The coroner's report DOES say the time of death was 3:00 AM.

Given these facts along with several others that sources have told me but are unconfirmed, it is HIGHLY unlikely that Ms. Bell had no clue that a felony had taken place in her home. One must wonder exactly why Mr. Hood decided not to prosecute Ms. Bell as one would think that there was enough evidence to send the case to a jury.

What Mr. Hood's actions have done is to make a mockery out of this case. Everyone is familiar with the questions raised about Mr. Hood's character since so many of his friends have been convicted in the Scruggs scandal. Judge DeLaughter and Ed Peters have been implicated in the Scruggs case. The post below spells out how interconnected the Bells are with the Ed Peters mafia that is currently under so much scrutiny. If anything, one would think that Mr. Hood would be doing his best to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Mr. Hood and Mr. Smith, who is also tied to the Peters mafia, have a higher than normal duty to take a case such as this one to trial and then a jury even if they lose. See earlier post: http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2008/03/robbie-bell-case-family-tree.html

Unless a civil suit is filed, the public will never know what happened that night in Northeast Jackson. The family will continue to suffer as a case that should have been tried was inexplicably swept under the rug. While Ms. Bell struts around town claiming her vindication, the public will know she was aided by Attorney General Schultz and District Attorney Robert Schultz Smith.

Hopefully justice will still be served. Ms. Spencer has been let down by almost everyone concerned: a boyfriend who claimed to love her while he tried to kill her twice, police that went easy on her boyfriend and reduced the charges, her boyfriend's mother who refused to call the police as she lay dying through the night, and prosecutors who took the decision to let Ms. Bell off of the hook away from us through a jury and instead, spit in the face of justice and the Spencer family.

Also, one last suggestion to the A.G. and D.A.: if you think I am out of line, there is a simple solution. Release the police report, which you could have done at any time.

Cursed in life, Cedric Willis will hopefully be blessed in heaven.  Cedric Willis became Jackson's fifty-third homicide in 2019 yesterday.  JPD said he was shot multiple times yesterday at the corner of Bailey Avenue and Dewitt Street.  However, this was not the first time tragedy visited Willis as he was freed in 2004 after serving 11 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit.

"In Re: Petition of the Mississippi Bar to Accept Irrevocable Resignation of Edward J. Peters; Majority Opinion: Dickinson, J. Disposition: Petition of the Mississippi Bar to Accept Irrevocable Resignation Pursuant to Rule 10, MRD is granted. Edward J. Peters is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Mississippi. This order shall constitute notice of permanent disbarment in this cause. Edward J. Peters taxed with costs of appeal. Votes: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ., Concur." decision

Robbie Bell, mother of accused killer George Bell III, was arrested and indicted this week for the crime of Accessory After the Fact in the death of Mr. Bell's girlfriend, Heather Spencer. Although the grand jury indicted Ms. Bell three weeks ago, the indictment was not announced until this week. Ms. Bell turned herself in and was released on a $15,000 bond. Several new facts and allegations have come out this week. Members of the victim's family have stated that Ms. Spencer did not die when beaten by Mr. Bell, which would have been around 6 PM or so that evening but was probably alive until the morning hours, possibly even 6 or 7 AM. It has been established that Ms. Bell was in the house with her son most of the night. Thus, after Heather was raped and savagely beaten with a flashlight by her boyfriend, he and his mother were in the house all night while she slowly died, if the allegations about the time of death are to be believed. If such is the case, Ms. Bell deserves much worse than being charged with Accessory After the Fact. There are several questions that need to be asked in this case.

1. When will the District Attorney's Office release the results of the autopsy? At the very least it should discuss the results of the autopsy with Ms. Spencer's family. It is unconscionable that they are not even told at what time Heather died.

2. What time did Heather die? One hopes after her rape and beating, she died quickly. One shudders at the mere thought of her slowly dying during the night while George and his mother walked through the house all night. What kind of woman allows her son to muder someone and stays in the house with the dead or dying body all night?

3. Why did JPD reduce the charges Heather filed against George for her beating in June from Aggravated Assault to Simple Assault Domestic Violence? There has STILL been no explanation from JPD or the D.A.'s office for this action.

4. Is the JPD investigating whether Robbie helped George stay out of Mississippi until the charges from June were dropped? It is unbelieveable that Robbie had no idea George was at the treatment center in Tulsa. Who paid for the treatment? He was allowed to have a cell phone there since he was a business owner. Heather supposedly visited him several times. Robbie had a family get-together the day after he returned from the treatment center.

The point is, there was still an active warrant for George Bell, III. If Robbie knew where George was the entire time he was in treatment, did she break the law by helping him avoid arrest? If so, one must ask why she is not being prosecuted for helping her son.

5. Did Ms. Bell make any efforts to get Ms. Spencer to drop the charges against her son? Have the JPD obtained Ms. Spencer's bank statements to see if there were any large deposits after early June? Or Ms. Bell's for large unexplained withdrawals? Did Ms. Bell hire Heather? Was Ms. Spencer compensated at the time she tried to drop the charges against Mr. Bell?

6. Who are Ms. Bell's attorneys? It is my understanding that along with her defense attorney, Ms. Bell also has retained former District Attorney Ed Peters. Understandable as Judge James Bell is her former brother-in-law. If this is true, and I stand corrected if it is not and will say so in this post, what does this mean for the prosecution of the Bells? What is Mr. Peters' professional relationship with Ms. Bell and if there is one, should District Attorney-elect Robert Smith prosecute the case or recuse himself as he did recently with the Michael Taylor prosecution due to Mr. Peters involvement with his campaign and transition team?

7. WHY is the Spencer family complaining about a lack of communication from Faye Peterson's office? WLBT reported this week:
Dale Spencer of Florence says he was informed by the media on Tuesday, October 30 that the mother of his niece's accused killer had been indicted... a full three weeks ago. Spencer says the Hinds County District Attorney's office hasn't kept the family informed of anything.
"When you call in, all we were hearing was we can't disclose anything, we can't say anything," he says....
Heather's uncle says it's hard to separate fact from rumor. "I've heard that she was alive between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., when he beat her, all the way to 4 or 5 in the morning. Now new evidence is coming out that she may have been alive till 7 a.m.", he says. "That's why I wish the D.A., or I wish whoever is responsible for getting information to the family, would contact us."
Spokesmen for the Jackson Police, who are investigating the murder, and the Hinds County Sheriff's Department, say it's not unusual for an indictment to be served several weeks after the grand jury meets and makes its decision. That's just the grand jury process, they say. .."
http://www.wlbt.com/global/story.asp?s=7293634

additional story: http://www.wjtv.com/gulfcoastwest/jtv/search.apx.-content-articles-JTV-2007-10-31-0014.html

If there is an example needed to show why Faye Peterson was thrown out of office, this is it. It is inexcusable that her office has not contacted the family to discuss the indictment with them. Its nice of JPD to tell the media what the normal process for releasing indictments is. It would have been even nicer if Faye Peterson had gotten off her fat ass ( I would say JPD but its hard for them to talk to the families of murder victims when they are being used as Melton's taxi service ) and had her office explain all of this to them. Instead they have to learn about it from the media. Oh I'm sure Faye Peterson will have a very nice excuse that covers all the bases and makes perfect sense. She is very articulate on tv and well-versed in making excuses. Be that as it may, there is no excuse for Ms. Peterson's neglect of the Spencer family.

Our hearts go out to the Spencer family as they deal with this tragedy. One hopes that the criminal justice system in Hinds County will get its act together and help them get the justice they deserve. One also hopes that the questions raised above are answered as well. Justice demands no less.

Copy of Indictment: http://media.mgnetwork.com/jtv/PDF/robbie_bell_indictment.pdf
Copy of Arrest Warrant: http://media.mgnetwork.com/jtv/PDF/robbie_bell_arrest_warrant.pdf

Related posts on the Heather Spencer murder:
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2007/09/jpd-and-heather-spencer.html
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2007/09/latest-news-on-heather-spencer-murder.html
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2007/09/help-spencer-family.html
http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-do-you-say.html

A name known to long-time JJ readers surfaced as one of the deputies involved in the alleged shooting and savage beating of Michael Corey Jenkins: former JPD police officer Jeffrey Middleton.  

1. When will the Mississippi Bar actually get involved in this case?
2. Why is Judge Delaughter hearing cases filed by Jim Hood when some of Hood's Special Assistants, Agents, or whatever cover he gave them are pleading guilty to trying to bribe Delaughter?
3. Will Judge DeLaughter return the money donated to him by those who have pled guilty in this scandal?
4. Will Hinds County District Attorney Robert Smith open an investigation into judicial corruption in Hinds County? Since there is enough evidence for a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing among Peters and DeLaughter, will Mr. Smith investigate? He can always refer it to a special prosecutor or the feds if he is unable to do so due to prior relationships.
5. When will Jim Hood appoint a special prosecutor or actually do his job concerning this scandal?
6. Why isn't the Clarion-Ledger giving more coverage to its own reporting on former Hinds County District Attorney Ed Peters allegedly taking a million dollars in bribes? Why isn't the newspaper giving this coverage on its editorial page? One would think that the allegations reported by Mr. Mitchell in Sunday's edition of a long time District Attorney who also chaired the transition team of the current District Attorney.
7. Why is Steven Patterson, a non-lawyer living in north Mississippi, giving the maximum contribution allowed by law to a Hinds County Circuit Judge?
8. Why are lawyers and judges from Mississippi flipping condos in Orange Beach back and forth between each other?

Just some questions that crossed my mind this morning. I'll post more as I think of them.