people doing an investigation. especially since it would have made an imprint
horrifying attack on Jussie Smollett
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
- Status
people doing an investigation. especially since it would have made an imprint
Ernie M
Graduate Poster
Chuck Norris is tough, as evidenced in this video:
Jean Claude Van Damme takes toughness to a new height:
Not to be outdone on the toughness scale, Jussie Smollett never lost grip of a Subway sandwich:
[Sorry, no video. It must've been sealed]
Last edited:
Ernie M
Graduate Poster
In post 3562 I wrote "Sorry, no video. It must've been sealed."
The camera that could've captured the Smollett/alleged hate-crime perps interaction was reported as pointing in another direction. So there's no video of the interaction.
Equal justice under law is a great ideal. But not everyone gets equal justice.
I wanted to poke fun at the bendable justice system; a system that's ripe for manipulation by those with wealth, power, or other status, who know someone well-connected, that can get preferential treatment in the justice system.
The Chuck Norris and astronaut Jeanne Claude Van Damme videos were computer-generated (fabricated) parodies of a real event, a Volvo Trucks advertisement, "to demonstrate the stability and precision of Volvo Dynamic Steering." Van Damme did a split (his signature movie move) with his feet on the outside rearview mirrors as two trucks drove backwards.
Rigged
Van Damme was never in danger of falling. He wore a harness that was rigged with a wire to a truss attached to one of the trucks. Visual special effects removed the rigging and shadows in post production.
The camera that could've captured the Smollett/alleged hate-crime perps interaction was reported as pointing in another direction. So there's no video of the interaction.
Equal justice under law is a great ideal. But not everyone gets equal justice.
I wanted to poke fun at the bendable justice system; a system that's ripe for manipulation by those with wealth, power, or other status, who know someone well-connected, that can get preferential treatment in the justice system.
The Chuck Norris and astronaut Jeanne Claude Van Damme videos were computer-generated (fabricated) parodies of a real event, a Volvo Trucks advertisement, "to demonstrate the stability and precision of Volvo Dynamic Steering." Van Damme did a split (his signature movie move) with his feet on the outside rearview mirrors as two trucks drove backwards.
Rigged
Van Damme was never in danger of falling. He wore a harness that was rigged with a wire to a truss attached to one of the trucks. Visual special effects removed the rigging and shadows in post production.
Last edited:
Ernie M
Graduate Poster
The justice system is ripe for manipulation
Below are some examples of exclusionary strategies and tactics used in the "emergency" hearing in the Smollett case.
• An "Emergency" hearing was made
On 26 March 2019, an “emergency” hearing was held. The Illinois Prosecutor's Bar Association (IPBA) article, "IPBA Statement on Jussie Smollett Case Dismissal,"1 says the case was not on the regularly scheduled court call. The "emergency" hearing meant that A) the public had no reasonable notice to view the proceedings, and apparently the B) Chicago Police Department (the arresting agency of Jussie Smollet) didn't have enough notice to be at the hearing.
Someone in the prosecution or defense had to contact someone in court administration to make that emergency hearing.
It is not public knowledge of how, when, who, or why, the emergency hearing was assigned to Judge Steven G. Watkins.
• Keep the reason behind the emergency hearing from the public
“To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed,” wrote the IPBA.2
• Ensure uncontested & immediate sealing of court records
The Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association wrote that,3 "the process employed 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."
• Discretionary actions
Discretionary actions are made by individual choice or judgement, exercised at one's own discretion, so says online Merriam-Webster's definition.
As it relates to the immediate sealing of court records in the Smollett case, the IPBA wrote that sealing is a discretionary action, not a mandatory action.4
“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.”
• Keep sealing order from the public
Judge Steven G. Watkins asked if there was an order prepared for the sealing of the court records. Attorney Patricia Brown Holmes, one of Smollett's defense attorneys answered, "Yes we do, Judge."5
Had Judge Watkins read the sealing order out loud, and if it would have been on the record for the court reporter (or audio recording if one was made, too), the court transcript from March 26, 2019, could have made the contents of the sealing order public. But apparently Judge Watkins didn't read the sealing order out loud. So the sealing order has been excluded from becoming public knowledge.
Sealing orders should be filed on the public docket.
If files need to be sealed, there should be public justification on the record. Why has the public's First Amendment right of access been denied in the Smollett case?
Sources:
1, 2, 3, 4. "IPBA Statement on Jussie Smollett Case Dismissal." ilpba.org, 28 Mar 2019. Accessed from URL www. ilpba.org/announcements/7249825 9 April 2019.
5. WGN Web Desk. "Read the full transcript from Jussie Smollett’s court appearance." wgntv.com. 27 March 2019. Accessed from URL wgntv.com/2019/03/27/read-the-full-transcript-from-jussie-smolletts-court-appearance/ on 9 April 2019.
Posted Tuesday, 9 April 2019 at approximately 11:30 a.m. (EDT) by Ernie Marsh. My full legal name is Raymond Ernest Marsh. My friends and most people call me Ernie.
Below are some examples of exclusionary strategies and tactics used in the "emergency" hearing in the Smollett case.
• An "Emergency" hearing was made
On 26 March 2019, an “emergency” hearing was held. The Illinois Prosecutor's Bar Association (IPBA) article, "IPBA Statement on Jussie Smollett Case Dismissal,"1 says the case was not on the regularly scheduled court call. The "emergency" hearing meant that A) the public had no reasonable notice to view the proceedings, and apparently the B) Chicago Police Department (the arresting agency of Jussie Smollet) didn't have enough notice to be at the hearing.
Someone in the prosecution or defense had to contact someone in court administration to make that emergency hearing.
It is not public knowledge of how, when, who, or why, the emergency hearing was assigned to Judge Steven G. Watkins.
• Keep the reason behind the emergency hearing from the public
“To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed,” wrote the IPBA.2
• Ensure uncontested & immediate sealing of court records
The Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association wrote that,3 "the process employed 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."
• Discretionary actions
Discretionary actions are made by individual choice or judgement, exercised at one's own discretion, so says online Merriam-Webster's definition.
As it relates to the immediate sealing of court records in the Smollett case, the IPBA wrote that sealing is a discretionary action, not a mandatory action.4
“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.”
• Keep sealing order from the public
Judge Steven G. Watkins asked if there was an order prepared for the sealing of the court records. Attorney Patricia Brown Holmes, one of Smollett's defense attorneys answered, "Yes we do, Judge."5
Had Judge Watkins read the sealing order out loud, and if it would have been on the record for the court reporter (or audio recording if one was made, too), the court transcript from March 26, 2019, could have made the contents of the sealing order public. But apparently Judge Watkins didn't read the sealing order out loud. So the sealing order has been excluded from becoming public knowledge.
Sealing orders should be filed on the public docket.
If files need to be sealed, there should be public justification on the record. Why has the public's First Amendment right of access been denied in the Smollett case?
Sources:
1, 2, 3, 4. "IPBA Statement on Jussie Smollett Case Dismissal." ilpba.org, 28 Mar 2019. Accessed from URL www. ilpba.org/announcements/7249825 9 April 2019.
5. WGN Web Desk. "Read the full transcript from Jussie Smollett’s court appearance." wgntv.com. 27 March 2019. Accessed from URL wgntv.com/2019/03/27/read-the-full-transcript-from-jussie-smolletts-court-appearance/ on 9 April 2019.
Posted Tuesday, 9 April 2019 at approximately 11:30 a.m. (EDT) by Ernie Marsh. My full legal name is Raymond Ernest Marsh. My friends and most people call me Ernie.
Last edited:
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Smollett got a sweetheart deal for sure but the whole thing about the city of Chicago suing him now seems like a loser. The legal cost will be greater than any money they might recover.
The damage to his reputation will be the real lasting punishment.
The damage to his reputation will be the real lasting punishment.
Thermal
August Member
I'm no lawyer, but the claim against Smollett amounts to a shifting of fees by the city. Couldn't the Judge also shift court fees if Smollett loses the subsequent trial?
I think JS certainly had the initial $130k, so his refusal to remit amounts to contempt. He could have paid under protest and litigated accordingly, but chose the flip-off.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,487
Now that he has failed to pay the $130,000, the city could begin asking for triple the amount. So, they can sue him for $390,000. This was stated in their demand letter to him.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jussie...t-investigation-today-live-updates-2019-03-28
Thermal
August Member
I wonder if Smollett is going to try saying that he did not call police, or ask for their services, overtime or otherwise, and so does not owe them anything? Longshot, but I otherwise don't get his strategy.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,487
He could also just say that the police successfully caught his attackers but then they just let them go. Why owe the city money for that?
His actual "strategy" seems to be doing is the same thing he has always done in this case. He insists that he told the truth. It's not about him not asking for police services - he doesn't show a strategy of saying he didn't ask for police help. It's about him not telling any lies to the police.
Ernie M
Graduate Poster
Transparency, traceability, and accountability
The Jussie Smollett case epitomizes the lack of transparency, traceability, and accountability, in the bendable justice system. In the system, people of wealth, power, or other status, who know someone well-connected, can get preferential treatment, advantages, not afforded to others. Manipulation happens.
Chicago isn't the only place where the bendable justice system lives. The system is all over, and preferential treatment can be had in other jurisdictions across the United States.
While the Smollett case deals with criminal matters, civil cases also involve the same disturbing issues.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel called the dismissal of charges "a whitewash of justice."
Nobody from the Mayor's office, to my knowledge, has produced a link analysis of who's who, of the Smollett case. A link analysis diagram could show the people, organizations, and transactions, that connect the Smollett case, with the outcome.
The Jussie Smollett case epitomizes the lack of transparency, traceability, and accountability, in the bendable justice system. In the system, people of wealth, power, or other status, who know someone well-connected, can get preferential treatment, advantages, not afforded to others. Manipulation happens.
Chicago isn't the only place where the bendable justice system lives. The system is all over, and preferential treatment can be had in other jurisdictions across the United States.
While the Smollett case deals with criminal matters, civil cases also involve the same disturbing issues.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel called the dismissal of charges "a whitewash of justice."
Nobody from the Mayor's office, to my knowledge, has produced a link analysis of who's who, of the Smollett case. A link analysis diagram could show the people, organizations, and transactions, that connect the Smollett case, with the outcome.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
The problem is that this nose-thumbing is sure to get details released, should it go to civil court, that I would think would not be advantageous to his narrative. In short, he had plausible deniability, that he stands to lose by pushing the envelope.
Were I him, I would pay the $130k and say it was a business decision, because the expense of a legal battle would cost him more. He could even play the wrongful persecution card and milk it out in the court of public opinion. He must have either an amazing hand, or a slick alternate ending strategy.
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
I suspect just writing that 130K check is no longer an option. I think that's off the table unless he confesses in public. Maybe not even then.
Thermal
August Member
Not necessarily. Triple damages can be pursued to offset costs of litigation. He could likely plea it out and pay a smidge over the buck thirty.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,487
The lawsuit is go...
Chicago sues Jussie Smollett to recoup police overtime costs
Copy of the suit is at the link.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/entert...t-chicago-police-overtime-investigation-costs
Chicago sues Jussie Smollett to recoup police overtime costs
Chicago Sun-Times said:
Copy of the suit is at the link.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/entert...t-chicago-police-overtime-investigation-costs
I'll definitely be reading that after my exam tomorrow!
Link for others' convenience
https://www.scribd.com/document/405946384/City-lawsuit-against-Jussie-Smollett
it's not very long at all, though.
Link for others' convenience
https://www.scribd.com/document/405946384/City-lawsuit-against-Jussie-Smollett
it's not very long at all, though.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,487
So that everyone knows what we are talking about...
Jussie Smollett has now been sued by the City of Chicago for:
$130,106.15 x 3 = $390,313.45 (this is the overtime cost trebled)
$1,000 x 16 = $16,000 (this is the maximum fine for each charge)
Plus Attorney's fees and costs.
Plus litigation and collection costs.
Plus court costs.
Plus any other financial reliefs that the court finds to be just and equitable.
So, it's for sure more than $406,313.45
Jussie Smollett has now been sued by the City of Chicago for:
$130,106.15 x 3 = $390,313.45 (this is the overtime cost trebled)
$1,000 x 16 = $16,000 (this is the maximum fine for each charge)
Plus Attorney's fees and costs.
Plus litigation and collection costs.
Plus court costs.
Plus any other financial reliefs that the court finds to be just and equitable.
So, it's for sure more than $406,313.45
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Maybe I didn't make my point clear. I don't think Jussie can just write a check to make this go away at this point. I think he's going to have to admit guilt or be found guilty (or whatever the civil term is in the case).
BTW I don't know what you mean about "offsetting cost of litigation". The 130K was for cost of investigation. Now he's additionally facing cost of litigation. There was no litigation cost at the time I wrote my post.
Thermal
August Member
In the civil cases I have been peripherally involved in, you usually settle without admission of guilt. He could do so at any point. If he does this soon, the settlement amount would be likely at or near the original $130k, as no significant additional costs have been incurred and the city would plus or minus get what they were demanding in the first place.
- Status