Jussie Smollett/Chicago police nice work

[G&T]

10 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

The law is the law which is why her spokesperson said afterwards she meant it "colloquially" the problem is recused is a legal term the unethical part is claiming she recused herself when she clearly didn't and not following state law after doing so. 

It isn't open up to interpretation. It doesn't say could it says shall. It's a required action.

Of course considering she now claims to have lied and never filed the recusal with the court so it's not likely illegal. You make the case the idea the whole department isn't conflicted is nonsense well what was the result? I would say the law was in place for a very good reason and precisely to prevent a situation like this from happening. I am not someone who honestly cares one way or another of whether Smollett spends a day in jail.

I also don't think this reflects badly on the police department. The problem is someone did him a tremendous favor they expunged the case files, sealed the court records, didn't go to trial, didn't force him to accept any guilt in the deal. It stinks of corrupt Chicago Politics.

First, I'm speaking in likelihoods, not definitives because I doubt the issue has ever been decided.

Second, I have tried to explain that in the event the office is entirely conflicted, then a special prosecutor is appointed. For example, if an employee of the State's Attorney Office is a defendant, or a family member thereof, the whole office is probably conflicted and a special prosecutor is appointed.

There is nothing wrong with Foxx having a conflict and invoking a firewall to remove herself from the investigation, which is covered in the ethical rules. The unethical part is violating the firewall, which may have resulted in this outcome. That's a serious problem.

[Harry Chappas]

Kim Foxx has no business being the District Attorney and it is really a shame that media no longer exists in the fashion in which it should to inform voters of this.  She literally is not qualified for her position.

The failing legal system is what is hurting Chicago more than anything right now and it is not just about holding the police accountable, it is about enforcing the rule of law and her office is not doing that.

Precwinkle should not get a single vote but it is Chicago, she'll probably end up winning.

[Insp]

To be perfectly honest, I don't know what's more outrageous:

The way Hahn went about not adding talent to the Sox this offseason.

or

The way that Kim Foxx handled the Jussie Smollett case.

[Balta1701]

After paying out $50 million to settle police misconduct penalties in 2018 the fiscally responsible city  of Chicago would like you to know they will still try to get Smollett to pay a few hundred thousand dollars to cover the costs for the investigation into this case. 

[wrathofhahn]

20 hours ago, G&T said:

First, I'm speaking in likelihoods, not definitives because I doubt the issue has ever been decided.

Second, I have tried to explain that in the event the office is entirely conflicted, then a special prosecutor is appointed. For example, if an employee of the State's Attorney Office is a defendant, or a family member thereof, the whole office is probably conflicted and a special prosecutor is appointed.

There is nothing wrong with Foxx having a conflict and invoking a firewall to remove herself from the investigation, which is covered in the ethical rules. The unethical part is violating the firewall, which may have resulted in this outcome. That's a serious problem.

And I have tried to explain that is not the law. It doesn't matter what you or I deem sufficient.

http://www.ilpba.org/announcements/7249825

The manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the State.  Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received.  Even more problematic, the State’s Attorney and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and circumstances surrounding the dismissal.

The public has the right to know the truth, and we (Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association) set out to do that here. 

When an elected State’s Attorney recuses herself from a prosecution, Illinois law provides that the court shall appoint a special prosecutor.  See 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-15).  Typically, the special prosecutor is a neighboring State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, or the State Appellate Prosecutor.  Here, the State’s Attorney kept the case within her office and thus never actually recused herself as a matter of law.

Additionally, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office falsely informed the public that the uncontested sealing of the criminal court case was “mandatory” under Illinois law.  This statement is not accurate.  To the extent the case was even eligible for an immediate seal, that action was discretionary, not mandatory, and only upon the proper filing of a petition to seal.  See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(g)(2).  For seals not subject to Section 5.2(g)(2), the process employed in this case by the State’s Attorney effectively denied law enforcement agencies of legally required Notice (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(4)) and the legal opportunity to object to the sealing of the file (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(5)).  The State’s Attorney not only declined to fight the sealing of this case in court, but then provided false information to the public regarding it.

The appearance of impropriety here is compounded by the fact that this case was not on the regularly scheduled court call, the public had no reasonable notice or opportunity to view these proceedings, and the dismissal was done abruptly at what has been called an “emergency” hearing.  To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed.  The sealing of a court case immediately following a hearing where there was no reasonable notice or opportunity for the public to attend is a matter of grave public concern and undermines the very foundation of our public court system. 

Lastly, the State’s Attorney has claimed this arrangement is “available to all defendants” and “not a new or unusual practice.”  There has even been an implication it was done in accordance with a statutory diversion program.  These statements are plainly misleading and inaccurate.  This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State’s Attorney initiated diversionary programs.  The IPBA supports diversion programs, and recognizes the many benefits they provide to the community, the defendant and to the prosecuting agency.  Central to any diversion program, however, is that the defendant must accept responsibility.  To be clear here, this simply was not a deferred prosecution. 

Prosecutors must be held to the highest standard of legal ethics in the pursuit of justice.  The actions of the Cook County State’s Attorney have fallen woefully short of this expectation.  Through the repeated misleading and deceptive statements to the public on Illinois law and circumstances surrounding the Smollett dismissal, the State’s Attorney has failed in her most fundamental ethical obligations to the public.  The IPBA condemns these actions.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by wrathofhahn

[G&T]

1 hour ago, wrathofhahn said:

And I have tried to explain that is not the law. It doesn't matter what you or I deem sufficient.

http://www.ilpba.org/announcements/7249825

The manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the State.  Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received.  Even more problematic, the State’s Attorney and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and circumstances surrounding the dismissal.

The public has the right to know the truth, and we (Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association) set out to do that here. 

When an elected State’s Attorney recuses herself from a prosecution, Illinois law provides that the court shall appoint a special prosecutor.  See 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-15).  Typically, the special prosecutor is a neighboring State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, or the State Appellate Prosecutor.  Here, the State’s Attorney kept the case within her office and thus never actually recused herself as a matter of law.

Additionally, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office falsely informed the public that the uncontested sealing of the criminal court case was “mandatory” under Illinois law.  This statement is not accurate.  To the extent the case was even eligible for an immediate seal, that action was discretionary, not mandatory, and only upon the proper filing of a petition to seal.  See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(g)(2).  For seals not subject to Section 5.2(g)(2), the process employed in this case by the State’s Attorney effectively denied law enforcement agencies of legally required Notice (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(4)) and the legal opportunity to object to the sealing of the file (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(5)).  The State’s Attorney not only declined to fight the sealing of this case in court, but then provided false information to the public regarding it.

The appearance of impropriety here is compounded by the fact that this case was not on the regularly scheduled court call, the public had no reasonable notice or opportunity to view these proceedings, and the dismissal was done abruptly at what has been called an “emergency” hearing.  To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed.  The sealing of a court case immediately following a hearing where there was no reasonable notice or opportunity for the public to attend is a matter of grave public concern and undermines the very foundation of our public court system. 

Lastly, the State’s Attorney has claimed this arrangement is “available to all defendants” and “not a new or unusual practice.”  There has even been an implication it was done in accordance with a statutory diversion program.  These statements are plainly misleading and inaccurate.  This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State’s Attorney initiated diversionary programs.  The IPBA supports diversion programs, and recognizes the many benefits they provide to the community, the defendant and to the prosecuting agency.  Central to any diversion program, however, is that the defendant must accept responsibility.  To be clear here, this simply was not a deferred prosecution. 

Prosecutors must be held to the highest standard of legal ethics in the pursuit of justice.  The actions of the Cook County State’s Attorney have fallen woefully short of this expectation.  Through the repeated misleading and deceptive statements to the public on Illinois law and circumstances surrounding the Smollett dismissal, the State’s Attorney has failed in her most fundamental ethical obligations to the public.  The IPBA condemns these actions.

 

 

I don't even know what you are arguing. You claimed that Foxx broke the law by recusing herself but not having a special prosecutor appointed, and I said that wasn't likely true. Nothing in this statement contradicts my position. She didn't recuse herself before the court, so the statute doesn't apply.

I'm not debating that she appears to have breached ethical rules and best practices, but I don't see where she broke the law.

Funny thing, that statement was written by a guy I went to high school with.

Edited March 29, 2019 by G&T

[Quin]

23 hours ago, Harry Chappas said:

Kim Foxx has no business being the District Attorney and it is really a shame that media no longer exists in the fashion in which it should to inform voters of this.  She literally is not qualified for her position.

The failing legal system is what is hurting Chicago more than anything right now and it is not just about holding the police accountable, it is about enforcing the rule of law and her office is not doing that.

Precwinkle should not get a single vote but it is Chicago, she'll probably end up winning.

Here's CNN with damning text messages

Here's the Sun-Times with the same damning reporting

Here's a Tribune column putting her on blast

Here's Cox Media's national desk putting all the pieces on the table very clearly

Here's NBC News reporting it

-----------------------------

Don't confuse readers ignoring good reporting with the media not reporting it.

[Harry Chappas]

11 minutes ago, Quin said:

Here's CNN with damning text messages

Here's the Sun-Times with the same damning reporting

Here's a Tribune column putting her on blast

Here's Cox Media's national desk putting all the pieces on the table very clearly

Here's NBC News reporting it

-----------------------------

Don't confuse readers ignoring good reporting with the media not reporting it.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-kim-foxx-cook-county-states-attorney-endorsement-1009-20161007-story.html

Now we are finding out she is not qualified for her elected office.  I hate the Sun Times and pay it no mind but I kind of still respect the Tribune.

Alvarez may have had her issues but Foxx is the living version of Daniel Caffey from a Few Good Men.  Her career was spent in Juvenile court she has no experience actually trying cases.  

Yet there she was being touted as the #1 choice.  The Republican candidate should have been endorsed over her but that can't be the case in Cook COunty. 

Yet here we are now finding out how incompetent she really is and how she basically does not really care to enforce the law.

 

[Quin]

14 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-kim-foxx-cook-county-states-attorney-endorsement-1009-20161007-story.html

Now we are finding out she is not qualified for her elected office.  I hate the Sun Times and pay it no mind but I kind of still respect the Tribune.

Alvarez may have had her issues but Foxx is the living version of Daniel Caffey from a Few Good Men.  Her career was spent in Juvenile court she has no experience actually trying cases.  

Yet there she was being touted as the #1 choice.  The Republican candidate should have been endorsed over her but that can't be the case in Cook COunty. 

Yet here we are now finding out how incompetent she really is and how she basically does not really care to enforce the law.

 

They laid out their reasoning. You can argue that State's Attorney shouldn't have political affiliations on the ballot, but the Tribune has shown a willingness to buck partisan trends. They have Kass as a columnist and endorsed Gary Johnson in 2016.

That being said, considering how blown out of the water that election was, I doubt the Tribune's endorsement was the key deciding factor.

Also, while I linked Zorn's column, this is something I truly wish there were less of and/or a sharper line drawn. Editorial =/= reporting. But people conflate the two and great reporters get dragged down due to trash columnists. You said "and it is really a shame that media no longer exists in the fashion in which it should to inform voters of this."

There's plenty of articles going around right now showing exactly that. 

[greg775]

9 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

After paying out $50 million to settle police misconduct penalties in 2018 the fiscally responsible city  of Chicago would like you to know they will still try to get Smollett to pay a few hundred thousand dollars to cover the costs for the investigation into this case. 

I assume you are against Jussie paying back the city of Chicago for wasted resources. I contend if you or I did this, we'd probably be locked in the slammer and they'd throw away the key so to speak. Jussie should be so grateful for no jail time he should pay up. You know, as much as people think I'm despicable on here, I am FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO in almost all my posts, cept for the high taxes forcing some peeps to leave. I love Chicago and Chicago got played (allegedly).

p.s. Like the police chief said, I'm all for this playing itself out in the courts. If Jussie was attacked, let's throw the attackers in jail. If not, pay up, Jussie.

Edited March 29, 2019 by greg775

[Harry Chappas]

4 hours ago, greg775 said:

I assume you are against Jussie paying back the city of Chicago for wasted resources. I contend if you or I did this, we'd probably be locked in the slammer and they'd throw away the key so to speak. Jussie should be so grateful for no jail time he should pay up. You know, as much as people think I'm despicable on here, I am FOR THE CITY OF CHICAGO in almost all my posts, cept for the high taxes forcing some peeps to leave. I love Chicago and Chicago got played (allegedly).

p.s. Like the police chief said, I'm all for this playing itself out in the courts. If Jussie was attacked, let's throw the attackers in jail. If not, pay up, Jussie.

No we wouldn't a couple from Minnesota did the same thing a couple of years back.  They pled guilty and got probation.

[LittleHurt05]

15 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

After paying out $50 million to settle police misconduct penalties in 2018 the fiscally responsible city  of Chicago would like you to know they will still try to get Smollett to pay a few hundred thousand dollars to cover the costs for the investigation into this case. 

The 2019 police misconduct penalty budget isnt gonna pay itself!

[raBBit]

22 hours ago, Quin said:

Here's CNN with damning text messages

Here's the Sun-Times with the same damning reporting

Here's a Tribune column putting her on blast

Here's Cox Media's national desk putting all the pieces on the table very clearly

Here's NBC News reporting it

-----------------------------

Don't confuse readers ignoring good reporting with the media not reporting it.

Q the corporate media is awful. Just because you work in media doesn’t mean you have to carry water for it all the time. I’m an accountant and I’m not going to defend Enron and Worldcom as if doing so would validate my career. 

[raBBit]

21 hours ago, Harry Chappas said:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-kim-foxx-cook-county-states-attorney-endorsement-1009-20161007-story.html

Now we are finding out she is not qualified for her elected office.  I hate the Sun Times and pay it no mind but I kind of still respect the Tribune.

Alvarez may have had her issues but Foxx is the living version of Daniel Caffey from a Few Good Men.  Her career was spent in Juvenile court she has no experience actually trying cases.  

Yet there she was being touted as the #1 choice.  The Republican candidate should have been endorsed over her but that can't be the case in Cook COunty. 

Yet here we are now finding out how incompetent she really is and how she basically does not really care to enforce the law.

 

Her platform was restoring justice after the city bungled the LaQuan Macdonald tragedy. What a joke. 

[greg775]

The biggest thing I hate about this case was Smollett insisting after he got off with no jail time that the attack occurred and he's not told any fibs at all. It's embarrassing to the City of Chicago when he does something like that. If he just shut up and didn't act like he's been vindicated I'd be better with him getting off. You get away with something, just shut up and move on, don't rub Chicago's face in it.

No harm no foul so I don't even think Jussie needs to go to jail over this case. I do wish his pocketbook would get hit and hit hard, though.

[wrathofhahn]

On 3/29/2019 at 10:11 AM, G&T said:

I don't even know what you are arguing. You claimed that Foxx broke the law by recusing herself but not having a special prosecutor appointed, and I said that wasn't likely true. Nothing in this statement contradicts my position. She didn't recuse herself before the court, so the statute doesn't apply.

I'm not debating that she appears to have breached ethical rules and best practices, but I don't see where she broke the law.

Funny thing, that statement was written by a guy I went to high school with.

Well originally I argued she possibly violated the law but after she later claimed her recusal was informal (never filed with the court) that makes it unlikely. I honestly don't know where it goes from here clearly she misrepresented her recusal, acted unethically, misinformed the public, and failed to properly enforce the law. Whether these things are illegal is debatable I've heard the charge of "depriving citizens of honest services" but it seems for that to stick she would have to not only acted unethically but also received something tangible in return for doing so.

She is currently being investigated by the FBI my hope would be pending the results of the investigation even if they found she acted unethically but not criminally the ISBA and ARDC would step in and disbar her effectively ending her career as a DA.

Edited March 31, 2019 by wrathofhahn

[Moan4Yoan]

On 3/29/2019 at 7:16 AM, Balta1701 said:

After paying out $50 million to settle police misconduct penalties in 2018 the fiscally responsible city  of Chicago would like you to know they will still try to get Smollett to pay a few hundred thousand dollars to cover the costs for the investigation into this case. 

Shouldn’t the outrage be on this story and the ridiculousness of all charges against Smollett being dropped?  This guy staged a hate crime so he could:

1.  Further his career and make money off of it.

2.  Make Trump and MAGA supporters look like racist individuals to push his agenda.

How did this case get dropped when there is overwhelming evidence against him?  It makes you wonder who truly is pulling the strings on this story.

[greg775]

13 hours ago, Harper2Sox said:

Shouldn’t the outrage be on this story and the ridiculousness of all charges against Smollett being dropped?  This guy staged a hate crime so he could:

1.  Further his career and make money off of it.

2.  Make Trump and MAGA supporters look like racist individuals to push his agenda.

How did this case get dropped when there is overwhelming evidence against him?  It makes you wonder who truly is pulling the strings on this story.

Staging a hate crime is dangerous business (greg is capn obvious again). But some of these things escalate quickly and people riot over things that allegedly were done to Jussie (the bleach, the noose, etc.). Jussie deserves to at least lose a lot of cash over this. He could have picked a better way to draw attention to himself and further his career. You don't need to go inflaming a city over alleged attack over race/sexual orientation. Shame on Jussie if he is guilty. Kudos to Chicago cops for fine work.

Edited April 1, 2019 by greg775

[pettie4sox]

MAGA trolls just a got a license to inflict damage on people and get away with it because of Jussie's actions.

[Jenksismyhero]

So, here's what confuses me about this whole situation: who the hell is this guy and why is he worth protecting?

He's got supporters. He's got some kind of connection to Foxx or someone in the SA's office. He's clearly got friends in high places who pulled some favors to get the charges dropped. Why? Why is he so important that he needs to be protected from these claims? I mean, the fact that Rainbow Push and Sharpton are having protests/rallies. Why? 

Any reasonable person could see that his claims are very troubling and it's at least possible he made the whole thing up. So why not at least be neutral about it? See where the trial goes. Why do this big favor and protect him?

 

 

[Balta1701]

11 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

So, here's what confuses me about this whole situation: who the hell is this guy and why is he worth protecting?

He's got supporters. He's got some kind of connection to Foxx or someone in the SA's office. He's clearly got friends in high places who pulled some favors to get the charges dropped. Why? Why is he so important that he needs to be protected from these claims? I mean, the fact that Rainbow Push and Sharpton are having protests/rallies. Why? 

Any reasonable person could see that his claims are very troubling and it's at least possible he made the whole thing up. So why not at least be neutral about it? See where the trial goes. Why do this big favor and protect him?

 

 

The fact that you are correct and based on what we know the decision to drop the charges makes no sense could also make one wonder whether there is some other detail in this investigation we are unaware of, something that calls into question the CPD investigation that would be exposed if this case went to court, and that might also be part of the motivation.

[Jenksismyhero]

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The fact that you are correct and based on what we know the decision to drop the charges makes no sense could also make one wonder whether there is some other detail in this investigation we are unaware of, something that calls into question the CPD investigation that would be exposed if this case went to court, and that might also be part of the motivation.

I thought that too, but then the reaction by everyone at CPD (and the City) doesn't make sense. Supposedly Johnson and the lead investigator were never given a heads up about this before the decision was made. And they've been pretty pissed off since. You would think if someone was covering for them (or the City) they would be getting a heads up. 

Also,  CWBChicago was able to get a response to a FOIA request within a day, meaning someone at CPD told the FOIA officers to get that paperwork ready to go immediately, before the court could revise the order sealing the file. So the CPD wanted their investigation materials out there. 

 

[greg775]

11 hours ago, pettie4sox said:

MAGA trolls just a got a license to inflict damage on people and get away with it because of Jussie's actions.

Wrong. If somebody takes part in a hate crime, it can and will be proven and they will go to prison a long time. Each case is an individual case. I still have confidence in the United States of America.

[wrathofhahn]

23 hours ago, pettie4sox said:

MAGA trolls just a got a license to inflict damage on people and get away with it because of Jussie's actions.

As a matter of law nothing has changed. Real hate crimes will get investigated and prosecuted by the police in the same manner as Johnson said in his press conference.

When it comes to the media if this causes them to put their journalism hat on rather then their advocate hat and start reporting these events with dispassion mixed in with a healthy does of skepticism then we would all be better off. This is the forth major hoax the American media has perpetrated on the American public from Covington, Russia, Jessie to Kavanaugh there has to some point be some sort of reflection of why they are getting so many of these big stories so wrong.

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by wrathofhahn

[wrathofhahn]

22 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

The fact that you are correct and based on what we know the decision to drop the charges makes no sense could also make one wonder whether there is some other detail in this investigation we are unaware of, something that calls into question the CPD investigation that would be exposed if this case went to court, and that might also be part of the motivation.

If that were true Jesse and his lawyers wouldn't be so desperate to keep it sealed nor would they be talking to the media about their whiteface theory. This was chicago poltiics Kim Foxx did a favor to Jesse.