Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick will spend the night
in jail after a judge ruled he violated the terms of his bond in his perjury case by making a business trip to Canada and not informing the court.
Judge Ronald Giles ordered Kilpatrick to jail Thursday, a decision the judge said he would have made for any “John Six-Pack” defendant before him.
Only minutes earlier, the mayor offered an apology to the court, telling Giles that for seven months, “I’ve been living in an incredible state of pressure and scrutiny.”
But Giles sent the mayor to jail anyway, telling him he would have given any defendant the same treatment.
“What matters to me though is how the court overall is perceived and how if it was not Kwame Kilpatrick sitting in that seat, if it was John Six-Pack sitting in that seat, what would I do? And that answer is simple,” he said.
Good. Because, that’s probably the biggest crime issue over there in Detroit these days. Felonious mayors sneaking off for illicit day trips to Canada.
#31 “A Judge may not put conditions upon an elected office without having had a trial first.”
Where does it say that?
#29
I have read the Constitution many times thank you very much and I also have witnessed how it is interpreted in the real world. Given that the mayor had come close to violating his bail previously, the judge would have been well within his authority to keep the mayor locked up as a flight risk until his trial. It would appear you have a lot to learn about how the justice system works in practice.
With respect to Vermont, your examples are of course ridiculous. What you are saying is that a State makes a law that is enforced retroactively. By your logic, a State could make a law that says that having sex in the Oval Office is illegal and arrest Clinton. A State cannot make a law that indicts Federal representatives for decisions in which their own State representatives took part.
#31
You really lack information about the justice system. The Mayor had already been arrested and had almost violated his bail restrictions. The Judge has a tremendous degree of latitude with respect to the conditions placed on bail including whether it is even offered, the amount and travel restrictions. You seem to think that judges *must* offer bail to everyone in every case and that is simply not how it works in the real world. For example, a judge can tell you that you cannot leave the county or State if they want and no Court is going to find that unreasonable. In fact, I’ll bet that the cases of unreasonable bail restrictions are rare and the ones that are successful involve outlandish restrictions.
Isn’t smartalix a laywer? What has he to say on this?
#31
> Judge may not put conditions
> upon an elected office without
> having had a trial first
On contrary, a judge is fully within their authority to put restrictions on someone that has been arrested on criminal charges and is awaiting trial. While they are not obligated to accommodate the person’s profession or personal life, the judge did in this case provide incredibly gracious bail restrictions.
> The fact that the court
> allowed him up to 48
> hours notice demonstrates
> that this is not so they
> can keep tabs on him.
> It is harassment.
AHAHAHA. Check. The fact that they would let him travel out of the country as long as he gave notice is incredibly gracious. Most judges would have simply denied foreign travel.
Regardless of whether your think the court restriction on his travel were constitutional (and I admit I am in no way an authority on that), surely the fact that the guy was prepared to ignore the order and not give the 48 hour notice, is evidence that he can’t be trusted to abide by the terms of any reasonably bail order?
I posted a longish reply on Saturday. Unfortunately the DU Spam Monster has eaten it. So what follows might seem a little disjointed, but I will re-post it in pieces.
#32, Cow-Paddy,
Simply put, you are a moran.
#33, Thomas,
I have read the Constitution many times thank you very much …
Then you are well aware of the Eighth Amendment
Continuation of post #37
and the concept of Separation of Powers.
The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; nor any legislative function, though they may be advised with by the legislative councils. The entire legislature can perform no judiciary act, though by the joint act of two of its branches the judges may be removed from their offices, and though one of its branches is possessed of the judicial power in the last resort[power of impeachment]. The entire legislature, again, can exercise no executive prerogative, though one of its branches constitutes the supreme executive magistracy, and another, on the impeachment of a third, can try and condemn all the subordinate officers in the executive department.
James Madison, Federalist Papers #47
Continuation of post#37
Given that the mayor had come close to violating his bail previously, the judge would have been well within his authority to keep the mayor locked up as a flight risk until his trial.
Kwame has not missed any court date. That makes him NOT a flight risk.
With respect to Vermont, your examples are of course ridiculous
Only if the States are impotent to enforce their laws. Do we need more citations proving that point?
By your logic, a State could make a law that says that having sex in the Oval Office is illegal and arrest Clinton
Now who is being ridiculous? I never mentioned anything about creating a retroactive law. Usually they are unenforceable anyway.
A State cannot make a law that indicts Federal representatives for decisions in which their own State representatives took part.
Who said anything about a political decision being a crime? Only an idiot would make that claim. I said that a State Judge in Vermont has the authority to sign a warrant for the arrest of the President for a criminal act currently on the books and that warrant would be legal in 52 States, the District of Columbia, and several territories. AS AN EXAMPLE, there was no formal declaration of war against Iraq by Congress so the President sending troops, including Vermont’s best, could have violated existing Vermont law. That is a criminal offense, not a political issue.
If the President is arrested the court would not be able to prevent the President from traveling or any other function of the office. If the court could impose restrictions on an elected office holder, then any person with an issue with the President, or any elected office holder for that matter, could in theory paralyze the country.
The Judge has a tremendous degree of latitude with respect to the conditions placed on bail including whether it is even offered, the amount and travel restrictions.
No he doesn’t. Bail restrictions must be reasonable. Most people who are arrested do not hold public office. In fact, very few do. Office holders are not above the law BUT their offices are not subject to judicial oversight without a hearing. Even then, an elected office is subject to legislation for limits and even then judicial review may only review the decisions of the office, they may not review the office itself.
Most judges would have simply denied foreign travel.
And most Judges would be overstepping their authority.
Isn’t smartalix a laywer? What has he to say on this?
Smartalix is an Electronic Engineer if I remember correctly. But, why don’t you look it up yourself instead of using so many bullshit, emotional arguments. It’s called research. Wikipedia is a great place to start.
#37
Indeed I am well aware of the 18th Amendemt. However, there are also decades of precedent with respect to the application of that Amendment to real cases and I’m telling you that judges have quite a bit latitude with respect to bail parameters .
#39
> Kwame has not missed any court
> date. That makes him NOT a flight risk.
Whether they have *yet* missed a court date is only one small factor taken into account. In this case, Kilpatrick showed a disregard for his original bail parameters. The judge revoked bail on those grounds. If the fact that a person had yet missed a court date was the rule by which bail was set, bail would almost never be set as most people would show up to the first hearing.
RE: Vermont
So you are claiming that a law existed prior to the invasion of Iraq with which VT could supposedly arrest the President. What law would that be?
RE: Declaration of war
Again, yes there was and the Supreme Court has backed that claim. The AUMFs are equivalent to a declaration.
> If the court could impose restrictions on an
> elected office holder, then any person
> with an
> issue with the President, or any
> elected office
> holder for that matter, could in
> theory paralyze
> the country.
Yes, a Court can issue restrictions on a person that has been indicted even if they are an elected official and frankly that is how it should be. Elected officials are not above the law. However, the core issue is whether a State can make a law that would indict the President and a State court enforce it and frankly I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that the only way that would work is if the State took the issue to the Supreme Court.
RE: Bail restrictions
Actually, yes they do because “reasonable” is entirely in the eyes of the judge (and precedent) with respect to felonies. At the end of the day, it is the judge’s opinion about whether a person will show in court that matters. For example, the judge released Kilpatrick the next day, set a $50K bail and forced him to wear an electronic monitor. There are many factors that go into a bail such as the number of accounts, the types of accounts, previous adherence/ignoring of bail, previous criminal history etc. In this case, Kilpatrick was in a grey area of compliance when he went to Texas without notifying the Court. That and the fact that he is facing eight felony indictments (now 10) gave the judge plenty of latitude in setting bail. If any other person than the mayor were facing the same eight indictments and had pulled that stunt of going to Texas, they would have also gone to jail.
From a well written Wikipedia article on Bail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail
Kilpatrick’s indictments:
4 counts of Perjury
Conspiracy to obstruct justice
Obstruction of justice
2 counts of Misconduct in office
As I said, given that list, he’s lucky he was granted bail.