Sugar Stallings holds herself out a qualified to be Southern District PSC Commissioner but a casual perusal of her campaign finance reports leaves the impression she would have a hard time passing third grade math:
On her May 10, 2019 report Ms. Stallings lists $1,500 in receipts and $1,1000 in disbursements leaving a campaign cash balance of $500.
On Her June 10, 2019 report Ms. Stallings lists $285.62 in receipts and disbursements leaving a campaign cash balance of $500. (Beginning cash of $500 plus June receipts less June disbursements) Ms. Stallings claimed to have $214.38, which is $500 less $285.62)
On her July 10, 2019 Stallings lists $761.44 of receipts and $1,000 in disbursements with ending cash at $261.44, which is correct based upon a $500 beginning cash balance plus receipts less disbursements. On the July report Ms. Stallings sole disbursement is to her husband repaying a $1,000 campaign loan. Looking at the receipts section it appears Stallings is including expenses she paid personally as contributions, which is correct. But they are also expenses too despite not being listed as such on her campaign finance report. It begs the question of exactly where Stallings got the money to repay a $1,000 loan to her hubby if all but $300 of her June-July receipts were expenses that she paid personally.
What started as a tip that a local radio personality/political candidate was pretending to be a lawyer has morphed into something more and that started when Slabbed obtained Southern District PSC candidate Demetria M “Sugar” Stallings resume from the Biloxi City Council minutes when former Biloxi Mayor AJ Holloway appointed Stallings to the Historical Preservation Commission:
The answer to that depends on the state in which you live and is incredibly nuanced. For example back in the 1990s the City New York Bar Association Ethics Committee found the term esquire, over time referred “commonly and exclusively” to lawyers. That same committee also found that “based on common usage it is fair to state that if the title appears after a person’s name, that person may be presumed to be a lawyer.”
I’m not a lawyer but I agree with logic. For example seeing the name Jane Doe followed by “,Esq.” would lead most folks to conclude the person was a lawyer. There are some states that take that notion seriously. The Ohio Supreme Court’s Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline prohibited a lawyer who was not licensed to practice law in the state from appending Esq. to his signature on business correspondence because it was deemed to connote licensure in Ohio. (Ohio S. Ct. Opinion 91-24 (1991).)