horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mumbles said:
Wow, $130,000.

I mean, if they're looking for savings, Chicago's paid out $370,000,000 in the past six years for police brutality, but, you know...130k is good enough.
Click to expand...

They have some bad people so other bad people should be let off?

By your logic if any mod has ever had an infraction, we should be able to violate forum rules.
 
Mark Geragos (Smollett lawyer) has written a letter to the city of Chicago in response to the threat of Smollett being sued now that the deadline has expired.

Basically he says that it's supposed to be all over and done already, and that it's unconstitutional to send Smollett a bill, and that it's double jeopardy, and that if they insist on proceeding he will go ahead and subpoena the Mayor, the Top Cop, the brothers, and all of their attorneys to get depositions and to put everything out in public.

Here, you read it: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...mollett-legal-letter--20190405-htmlstory.html
 
William Parcher said:
Mark Geragos (Smollett lawyer) has written a letter to the city of Chicago in response to the threat of Smollett being sued now that the deadline has expired.

Basically he says that it's supposed to be all over and done already, and that it's unconstitutional to send Smollett a bill, and that it's double jeopardy, and that if they insist on proceeding he will go ahead and subpoena the Mayor, the Top Cop, the brothers, and all of their attorneys to get depositions and to put everything out in public.

Here, you read it: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...mollett-legal-letter--20190405-htmlstory.html
Click to expand...

The lawyers will all play their best bluffs and we will see who folds first.
 
Yeah, no trial, no jeopardy. I'm wondering if the charges can be re-instated at this point. What kind of game of chicken are these guys playing?
 
I assume it's not double jeopardy because it's a civil suit, for damages.

"You owe us damages for the cost of your false report."

"I didn't make a false report!"

"Your Honor, may I present Exhibit A: Forfeiture of $10,000 bond, on the charge of making a false report."
 
theprestige said:
I assume it's not double jeopardy because it's a civil suit, for damages.

"You owe us damages for the cost of your false report."

"I didn't make a false report!"

"Your Honor, may I present Exhibit A: Forfeiture of $10,000 bond, on the charge of making a false report."
Click to expand...

I would guess that the deal was that the bond forfeiture and the comm service ended the case.

If Chicago wanted reimbursement, it needed to be part of the deal to drop the charges, imo.

My guess is that Kim Foxx forgot about the costs to the city when making the deal, and now realizes it and is trying to re-negotiate after the fact.

If I were on a jury, I would not let Chicago go back on the deal.
 
Smollett has not admitted wrongdoing as far as I know.

Chicago has not proven wrongdoing as far as I know

Chicago has dropped all charges against Smollet.

Chicago even sealed the case records.

I can't see any way for Chicago to now try to collect anything from Smollett.

Chicago had it's chance.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I would guess that the deal was that the bond forfeiture and the comm service ended the case.

If Chicago wanted reimbursement, it needed to be part of the deal to drop the charges, imo.

My guess is that Kim Foxx forgot about the costs to the city when making the deal, and now realizes it and is trying to re-negotiate after the fact.

If I were on a jury, I would not let Chicago go back on the deal.
Click to expand...


Kim Foxx can't negotiate for Chicago. She doesn't work for them. She's in the Cook County government. (ETA: theprestige phrased this more accurately than I did. She's in the Cook County office of the State government)
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
I would guess that the deal was that the bond forfeiture and the comm service ended the case.

If Chicago wanted reimbursement, it needed to be part of the deal to drop the charges, imo.

My guess is that Kim Foxx forgot about the costs to the city when making the deal, and now realizes it and is trying to re-negotiate after the fact.

If I were on a jury, I would not let Chicago go back on the deal.
Click to expand...

Foxx is a state official for the State of Illinois. She's the State Prosecutor for Cook County. Her office made a deal between the State of Illinois, which she represents, and Jussie Smollett. The City of Chicago and the CPD were not invited to that deal.

Likewise, the City of Chicago and the CPD are free to make their own deals with Smollett, separate from whatever he's worked out with the state. Foxx does not represent the city or the police department, and isn't involved in their suit against Smollett.
 
LTC8K6 said:
She can drop the charges and seal the case, but she can't be involved in the deal to drop the charges and seal the case?

Or am I asleep and having a weird dream?
Click to expand...

There are two cases. One brought by the state and the State's attorney (Foxx wasn't actually supposed to be personally involved in that one but scumbags gonna scum).

One brought by the City through its Corporation counsel.
 
Last edited:
And what the heck is going on with the poisoned hate letter?

Is Smollett's team just hoping that goes nowhere?


The FBI and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service are investigating the letter, which was sent to the Chicago studio for "Empire" on Jan. 22, and whether Smollett played a role in sending the letter, two federal officials confirmed to ABC News. The letter is currently in the FBI crime lab for analysis, according to one of those sources.
Click to expand...
 
LTC8K6 said:
Chicago appears to be the county seat of Cook County though.
Click to expand...

That just means that the county government has is headquarters there. But that's irrelevant, because Foxx isn't a county official, she's a state official.

Foxx is responsible for representing the state's interests, specifically in the state administrative district of Cook County. That's why her office caught the Smollett case: because it happened in Chicago, which is in the part of the state she's assigned to.

Foxx's deal is between the state of Illinois and Jussie Smollett.

Chicago is seeking a separate deal between the city and Jussie Smollett. Their deal may refer to Foxx's deal, or depend on Foxx's deal, or even seek to challenge and overturn Foxx's deal, but it's not the same deal.

The idea that Foxx was representing the city of Chicago in her deal with Smollett is wrong. She was representing the state of Illinois. The idea that Chicago isn't entitled to seek their own deal with Smollett, because Foxx already got a deal on their behalf, is also wrong. You are making some incorrect assumptions about American jurisprudence, the role of prosecutors and attorneys general, and the relationships between the various administrative and governmental entities and divisions.
 
It's hard to believe there was no communication here, though. Foxx knows that CPD expended an enormous effort in the case, as has the FBI and the postal inspectors.

It's hard to believe Foxx dismissed all charges without a word to the investigating entities about making a deal with Smollett, but maybe she did.

Let's see what is revealed as things drag on and the finger pointing and back stabbing continues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom