Page 8: "...according to Circuit Clerk records, no payments have been made towards the$15,000 in sanctions placed on the DEC in October". (Actually, it was September.)
This is not true. $6,000 was taken from one member's account, monies have been taken from member's paychecks and individual members have taken money to the Circuit Clerk.
Who is responsible for this false statement? The Tunica Times or the Circuit Clerk?
UPDATE: 5 FEB 2016: 8p
I asked for a copy and this is what I received. This letter is from Sharon Granberry Reynolds. It is on her stationary and contains her signature at the bottom.
In case you can't read the picture on whatever devise you are using, this is what the letter says:
"January 22, 2016
Dear Judge Lackey,
I have received information that Mrs. Jacqueline Dishmon-Boykin has been paid in full on the Cause No. 2015-0027. The Democratic Executive Committee is now asking to be released from all garnishments.
Sincerely,
Sharon G. Reynolds"
I have other information but let's just let this sink in awhile.
UPDATE: 11 FEB 2016
Now, let's look at the whole paragraph. I am going to number the sentences for comments.
"Littleton asked if Conley's sanctions would be in addition to the previous sanctions placed on the DEC. (1) Lackey asked if it had been paid. (2) Conley said it had. (3) But according to Circuit Clerk records, no payments have been made towards the $15,000 in sanctions placed on the DEC in October. (4) Lackey said this was another contempt."
1. Since I was not in attendance, I asked 4 individuals who were there if Sharon Reynolds was there. The response was yes. I then asked what did she say when Lackey asked if the sanctions had been paid. Each and every one of the 4 individuals said Reynolds said yes, they have been paid in full.
2. See the above letter to Judge Lackey from Sharon Reynolds.
4. Did Lackey really say this after Reynolds stated yes they have been paid in full?
I am so tired of spending my time trying to give the readers the truth. I have quilting and knitting and cooking to do. Why are we having to put up with the spreading of these lies? And what is the purpose of not telling the truth?
UPDATE: 14 FEB 2016:
So, this is an email I received from the reporter of the article I am discussing in this post.
I've heard that you are inquiring about the information provided in my Feb. 5 article on Judge Lackey's decision. In the future, should you have a question, please ask me directly. I do not read your blog.
These are the judgement rolls in the Tunica County Circuit Clerk's office and these photos were taken on Wednesday, Feb 3.
If the debt has been satisfied, it was not recorded here.
Thanks so much,
Meg Coker
Here is my answer. No, I will not ask you directly. You are a reporter and you need to get your facts straight before going to print. Since you say you don't read this blog, could you tell me who has been copying various posts?
In the future, if you see something on this blog that you would like to comment on, do so and I promise to publish your comment(s) as long as you use your own name and don't us bad language.
Now, along with this email, the reporter included a picture of the Judgement Book page that showed the entry of the Judgement against the DEC for Jacqueline Dishmon-Boykin. The date entered in the Judgement Book is 9 Oct 2015. However, this reporter was in the Courtroom on 22 Sep 2015 when Judge Lackey sanctioned the DEC for not putting Boykin on the ballot. The reporter was sitting in the same row as I was sitting, at the end and next to Mark Hudson. So, she knows that what Judge Lackey stated was not true. She and every last one of us knows that Boykin was on the Primary Ballot of 4 Aug 2015 and she won that election. And yet the sanctions.
Further, it has been reported to me by 4 individuals that this reporter was in the room when Judge Lackey asked if the DEC sanctions had been paid. I am told that the Circuit Clerk responded yes, they have been paid in full.
What good is it to take a picture of the Judgement Book? None. This reporter had already heard the Circuit Clerk's response to the question because she was there. What doesn't she understand about "paid-in-full"? Why did she write the article as she did? Who knows.
These are the judgement rolls in the Tunica County Circuit Clerk's office and these photos were taken on Wednesday, Feb 3.
If the debt has been satisfied, it was not recorded here.
Thanks so much,
Meg Coker
Here is my answer. No, I will not ask you directly. You are a reporter and you need to get your facts straight before going to print. Since you say you don't read this blog, could you tell me who has been copying various posts?
In the future, if you see something on this blog that you would like to comment on, do so and I promise to publish your comment(s) as long as you use your own name and don't us bad language.
Now, along with this email, the reporter included a picture of the Judgement Book page that showed the entry of the Judgement against the DEC for Jacqueline Dishmon-Boykin. The date entered in the Judgement Book is 9 Oct 2015. However, this reporter was in the Courtroom on 22 Sep 2015 when Judge Lackey sanctioned the DEC for not putting Boykin on the ballot. The reporter was sitting in the same row as I was sitting, at the end and next to Mark Hudson. So, she knows that what Judge Lackey stated was not true. She and every last one of us knows that Boykin was on the Primary Ballot of 4 Aug 2015 and she won that election. And yet the sanctions.
Further, it has been reported to me by 4 individuals that this reporter was in the room when Judge Lackey asked if the DEC sanctions had been paid. I am told that the Circuit Clerk responded yes, they have been paid in full.
What good is it to take a picture of the Judgement Book? None. This reporter had already heard the Circuit Clerk's response to the question because she was there. What doesn't she understand about "paid-in-full"? Why did she write the article as she did? Who knows.
No comments:
Post a Comment