Monday, December 05, 2011

Well, Mr. Jackson, we have a small problem here...

Otis Jackson, currently on suspension from his job as General Sessions Court Clerk due to the fact that he was indicted back in July, has apparently decided that it would be an admission of guilt NOT to run for re-election to his position.  Toward that end, he has pulled and FILED a petition for re-election.

My question to Mr. Jackson would be this: Why are you not focusing on preparing for your defense in your trial?  In putting up a fight for re-election, are you not placing your liberty and the security of your family in jeopardy?  What on earth are you thinking?

Sir, you are entitled to the presumption of innocence until and unless you are proven guilty in a court of law. However, the perception that occurs when ANY office-holder is indicted renders moot their ability to perform their duties.  I am rooting for your acquittal, Mr. Jackson; if and when that day comes, you would then be welcomed back as a candidate.

Until that day comes, you should NOT be involved in any elective campaign; you need to think of your family, your workers in that office, and your obligation to the County of Shelby to remove that cloud which now hangs over you.  Then, and only then, should you consider seeking office again.

Toward that end, if you do not withdraw your petition prior to the end of the withdrawal deadline of December 15 at noon, I will then petition the Shelby County Democratic Party to decertify you as a candidate in the Democratic primary.  The potential that you could take the entire Democratic ticket down with you, should you be renominated in March, is too great.  You may not be thinking of your party, sir, but I am.

I do not take this action lightly; however, as a Shelby Countian, I am tired of the endless problems with office-holders, especially those who run under the Democratic banner.

Enough is enough, Mr. Jackson.  Put your liberty first, and withdraw your candidacy.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

What grounds for decertification are there beyond not being a bona fide Democrat?

Perhaps he was blatant beyond today's standards. Whether that was so morally, ethically, or legally is for due process under current law.

I'm most interested in how his continued candidacy, which I think is nearly certain, plays out on primary day.