  Zulu_warrior Member Username: Zulu_warrior Post Number: 2255 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.27.41 |
Chris Rock: Watching C-Span "I was watching C-Span, and this guy comes on speaking," Chris Rock once recalled. "I didn't have the sound up, and I see the big earring, and I see this kind of loudish suit and I started joking about it, me and a friend - we were like, 'Aaah, this guy, what's he getting indicted for?' And then we see MAYOR OF DETROIT. We're like, 'Oh shit - it's the new mayor of Detroit!'" Will Chirs Rock be a prophet? | ||
Zulu_warrior Member Username: Zulu_warrior Post Number: 2261 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.27.41 |
Waiting for replies.... | ||
Lurker Member Username: Lurker Post Number: 1449 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 65.196.220.198 |
Didn't he say this 3 years ago before making "Head of State", back when Kwame was the new mayor of Detroit? | ||
Ilovedetroit Member Username: Ilovedetroit Post Number: 1443 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 63.149.5.130 |
Yes, he did. It is old stuff. | ||
Sharkskin Member Username: Sharkskin Post Number: 363 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 66.178.227.202 |
That bit is definitely an older one, from the very begining of Kwame's term. I would like to request that this thread is bronzed and kept as a keepsake. It's the only time I've ever seen Zulu make a mistake! | ||
Zulu_warrior Member Username: Zulu_warrior Post Number: 2265 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.27.41 |
This is not a mistake. I remembered when he made the comments and now that we have 4 years of evidence the question I posed is an accurate one. Will Chris Rock's words turn out to be an irony, that he thought he was a criminal who was being indicted, before he turned the sound up? | ||
Wcpo_intern Member Username: Wcpo_intern Post Number: 1811 Registered: 04-2004 Posted From: 65.31.69.174 |
Please, McNamara's chosen people never have and never will be indicted on anything. That's how a one party system works. | ||
1honey Member Username: 1honey Post Number: 833 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 208.39.170.90 |
Ever heard of Wilborn Kelly(sp)? Believe that someone is going to be indicted before it's all said and done. | ||
Wcpo_intern Member Username: Wcpo_intern Post Number: 1812 Registered: 04-2004 Posted From: 65.31.69.174 |
No. Who is he? | ||
Mrsjdaniels Member Username: Mrsjdaniels Post Number: 59 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 141.217.46.39 |
oh, I get it...so he is getting indicted as Chris Rock assumed from jump! question, what he wearing one of those Cedric the Entertainer jacket suit vests at the time? | ||
Zulu_warrior Member Username: Zulu_warrior Post Number: 2267 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.251.27.41 |
Since WCPO intern is the Board's legal eagle a question.... Is the evidence that was presented in the Al Bowman case admissible evidence in a criminal case to prove obstruction of justice? | ||
1honey Member Username: 1honey Post Number: 837 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 208.39.170.90 |
Ex-Wayne Co. official, wife ordered to prison Wilbourne and Barbara Kelley, convicted of extorting money and gifts from a contractor who did business with Wayne County government, have been ordered to report Monday to begin serving their sentences in federal prisons in West Virginia. Wilbourne Kelley III, 70, Wayne County's former chief operating officer, was sentenced to serve 44 months in federal prison in Morgantown, West Virginia. Kelley was the county's officer who oversaw contracts at Detroit Metro Airport. His wife, Barbara, 57, has been sentenced to 41 months at the Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, West Virginia. It's the same prison where Martha Stewart served her sentence. The Kelleys, of Detroit, are to report to prison by 2 p.m. Monday, according to an order signed Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Marianne Battani. Last week, a ruling by a U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Cincinnati overturned Battani's earlier decision to allow the couple to remain free on bond pending appeals. http://www.freep.com/news/mich /date10e_20050810.htm http://www.freep.com/news/locway/fraud12_20040312.htm By Patricia Montemurri First round of federal investigation. The FEDS work slow. (Message edited by 1honey on October 25, 2005) (Message edited by 1honey on October 25, 2005) | ||
Wcpo_intern Member Username: Wcpo_intern Post Number: 1816 Registered: 04-2004 Posted From: 65.31.69.174 |
Zulu, it usually is, but I don't know which specific pieces of evidence you are discussing nor was I there to watch the trial. A criminal case will have a higher burden of prove of beyond a resonable doubt. They jury only found the city liable for wrong doing by a prepoderance of the evidence, i.e. more likely than not. This is why a civil decision itself means nothing for a criminal trial and why a Not Guilty verdict doesn't do anything to protect one from civil liability. This is how a Prosecutor's Office is able to seize vehicles of people who are not convicted of the underlying crime. | ||
Wcpo_intern Member Username: Wcpo_intern Post Number: 1817 Registered: 04-2004 Posted From: 65.31.69.174 |
Thanks, 1honey. | ||
Zulu_warrior Member Username: Zulu_warrior Post Number: 2269 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 64.12.116.195 |
Looking at the issue of obstruction of justice, could a case be built on the matters that emerged in the Bowman case that say- some one deliberately by their actions imepeded an criminal investigation and therefore, obstructed justice? | ||
Wcpo_intern Member Username: Wcpo_intern Post Number: 1821 Registered: 04-2004 Posted From: 65.31.69.174 |
MCL 750.505 would give a prosecutor authority to file charges for obstruction of justice under common law. I haven't read these cases but here's some that deal with the issue: People v Boyd, People v Davis, People v Alexander, and People v Somma. If i were the Prosecutor, I would argue that MCL 750.479, Interferring with an officer, could be read to apply to such a situation. Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions 13.2 require that 1) the defendant resisted, 2) the person resisted was an officer, 3) the defendant knew he was an officer, 4) Officer was carrying out legal duties, 5) Defendant knew officer was carrying out legal duties, and 6) Defendant intended to resist. If I were the attorney for the Defendant, I would argue that nobody kept the officer from maintaining the peace, enforcing a local ordinance, or enforcing a court order as required by the statute itself. I would argue that the CJI does not properly describe the law and that the Prosecutor's interpretation of resisting is unconstitutionally vague. It doesn't let someone know whether they are resisting an officer or just being uncooperative. My bet would be on the Defense, but as far as I know, the courts have never been asked this issue. Furthermore, the decision doesn't necessarily say that someone impeded a criminal investigation. It says that Bowman was punished for attempting to reveal what he believed to be illegal misconduct. Whether there was actual misconduct is irrelevant. Whether the Defendant was successful at stopping an investigation is irrelevant. The issues are whether Bowman believed the allegations warranted further investigation and whether he was punished as a result of holding to those beliefs. (Message edited by wcpo intern on October 26, 2005) |
