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.
sometimes you smoke the crack. other times you are the crack.
“Good. Because, that’s probably the biggest crime issue over there in Detroit these days. Felonious judges sneaking off for illicit day trips to Canada”
But of course the laws do not apply to Judges and since this isn’t the “biggest crime issue”, let’s completely ignore it.
Actually, this isn’t a case of a felonious judge, but a corrupt mayor not following clear instructions laid out by the court. He’s on trial for perjury, as he lied in court about making sexual messages via texting pagers to a member of his staff. (Christine Beatty, who also lied in court, and is pending trial) He has fled the state before, going to texas to try and drum up some money/support (details are sketchy) from a religious leader down there. When you are accused of a crime, you are not supposed to leave the state. He had been warned that the court would let him do his job as mayor, but he must report to the court when leaving the state. He did not do so in this instance, so he goes to jail, like the rest of us would. It’s nice to see a judge not show preferential treatment to the corrupt politician.
“Good. Because, that’s probably the biggest crime issue over there in Detroit these days. Felonious judges sneaking off for illicit day trips to Canada.”
Actually, corrupt gov’t officials IS one of the biggest crime problems in Detroit these days…
BTW – He is the Mayor, not a judge.
Yeah only the most serious crime problem should be prosecuted. Everything else should be ignored.
I think that in light of many such events, we need tighter border control. Look at all these stories of Americans coming up here causing all sorts of trouble. What if he had perjured while he was here? We are tired of dealing with your criminals.
Cow-Paddy & Lyin’ Mike,
Just hold on there. He is the Mayor. He went to Canada on official business. Until a court removes him from office or what he does is unconstitutional, it may not interfere in what the government does. The Mayor has a good case of Judicial interference.
Can you imagine a State Court imposing conditions upon Bush that he can’t leave the state or the country without permission first? What if it was a Senator or Congressman and was told he couldn’t leave his home state without court permission?
Now as far as “Law & Order” must be preserved. Bullshit. Even if he were an ordinary citizen, there was no harm here. The bond provisions are overly restrictive and without purpose. Bail is to ensure the defendant will show for his trial. If there is fair reason that he would not show then there is reason to to make him wear an electronic bracelet or even incarcerate him. To say that he can’t do his job without the court’s scrutiny is a waste of resources. Jailing him cost the taxpayer money.
#7 “Just hold on there. He is the Mayor. He went to Canada on official business. Until a court removes him from office or what he does is unconstitutional, it may not interfere in what the government does. The Mayor has a good case of Judicial interference.”
Nope. He’s under bond in a criminal case against him. Constitutionally, it’s sound. That’s why his atty isn’t going that route.
Canada is south of Detroit.
The judge is actually doing a good job in this case. You have a mayor who thinks he is above the law and can do what ever he wants.
A couple of months ago the mayor went off to Texas without notifying the court. The prosecutor wanted his bail revoked for that trip then but the judge said no. The mayor was warned that for all future travel he needed to notify the court. The court never said he could not travel, just that he need to clear the trip with them prior to traveling.
This is pretty standard in criminal cases. The fact that he did it again is just nuts, specially sense the mayor has a law degree.
And it’s not like he even notified the court as soon as he got back and apologized for leaving without notification. Instead he waited until he got caught before saying a word.
This mayor is one of the stupidest politians of his era. He’s been in trouble for years, he goes to jail and still won’t quit.
Normally, I’m all for sensationalist headlines, but this one goes to far! As a Canadian, I’m outraged that you would imply that a trip to Canada is a jail sentence! Besides, you’re money is worthless up here now.
Thanks for the catch. Hard to keep track of the felons these days. Post fixed.
# 14 Read the whole headline. That is not what it implies at all. He went to Canada. Then he went to jail. One event followed as a result of the other. You should take it as a compliment that, apparently, he likes your country enough to risk the big house for a visit.
Tim Horton’s drew him over to our side of the border. You cannot say enough about a box Timbits and a double-double.
#8, Cow-Paddy & #9, Bryan,
So what would happen if his attorney did make a case out of it? The simple fact remains is that the Judge is interfering with the governmental function of a duly elected official.
Let’s go the route that a court in Vermont orders President Bush to appear to answer a charge he caused the death of a Vermonter by his aggressive and illegal pursuit of a war. The Judge imposes bail conditions on the President that precludes or interferes with his ability to perform the job the wing nuts claim he was elected to do. Where the hell would your heads be on that one.
Don’t answer, I know. Everyone else except for fellow wing nuts, especially black mayors of struggling cities, are automatically guilty but wing nuts are innocent until proven guilty.
If this is allowed to stand then all someone has to do with an opposition political figure is have criminal charges brought against them. A Judge could be found to impose restrictions on the defendant that would impede his ability to perform the job he was elected to do. This totally frustrates the will of the people.
No, this isn’t giving this Mayor a free pass. The Judge, however, does not have the authority to restrict his constitutional job function minus some obvious threat that he will abscond.
#18–Fusion==What does “We are a nation of laws” mean to you? How about: “No man, not even the President, is above the law?”
Your position and analysis is untenable in a democratic system. There is no unreasonable interference in public duties by imposing a requirement of mere notice before traveling.
Silly.
#7
> The Mayor has a good case of
> Judicial interference.
No, he does not. #8 beat me to it. The Mayor was indicted and released on bond and then ignored the terms of his release. It could not be more Constitutionally sound.
#18
> the Judge is interfering with
> the governmental function of
> a duly elected official.
Huh? He was indicted. If the judge had not offered him bail, he would have never been released from custody on the original charge. Just because you are mayor, does not prevent the Courts from putting you in jail.
As should be obvious, your Bush analogy is irrelevant. Vermont cannot legally make a law that indicts the President based on his rationale to go to war. Further, I believe a State would have to bring any charge against the President to the Supreme Court or would have to be entered by one of the branches of Congress. Lastly, the President has not been indicted and subsequently violated the terms of his release.
Kwame is being now charged with assault for shoving a cop, in addition to all the other crap he’s pulled. This guy is an absolute idiot.
Fusion, I’m sure you were objecting when they indicted Tom Delay too.
I don’t hold to this idea that elected officials, once elected are sacrosanct.
#19, Bobbo,
There is no unreasonable interference in public duties by imposing a requirement of mere notice before traveling.
No government official is beholding to a Judge. Kwame is the duly elected Mayor and as such has a job to do. Regardless of how benign or minor the conditions imposed are, they were imposed to interfere with his elected position. That is beyond the Judges power.
Once the Mayor is found guilty then the Judge may impose restrictions on the person that would reflect upon the position.
#20, Thomas,
Huh? He was indicted. If the judge had not offered him bail, he would have never been released from custody on the original charge.
The Judge did not do him any favor by allowing bail. The Judge is required to GIVE him reasonable bail.
Try reading the Eighth Amendment, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Vermont cannot legally make a law that indicts the President based on his rationale to go to war.
Why can’t they? Every State is fully entitled to enact laws pertaining to their citizenry. Congress did not declare war. Besides, if you don’t like this law, then make your own scenario of a local Judge deciding the limits of a sitting President under indictment.
Further, I believe a State would have to bring any charge against the President to the Supreme Court or would have to be entered by one of the branches of Congress.
Nope. The Supreme Court already ruled that the President may be sued while in office. BUT, if you are claiming that the President has special powers where the law can not touch him then the same is true of every elected official.
#22, Lyin’ Mike,
I’m sure you were objecting when they indicted Tom Delay too.
Delay was not given any restrictions on the performance of his public office.
***
What you fools fail to understand is that a person charged with a crime in this country is innocent until proven guilty. The purpose of bail is to ensure the accused will show for his trial. It is not intended as a punishment. Yet so many posters here want his ass in jail because he performed his job. When will you people start to understand that.
Plainly put, the Judge does not have the authority to remove or interfere with an elected position without having had a trial on that person.
If he can’t perform his job, he should resign. Bail has standard limits, and there is no reason why they shouldn’t be imposed here.
More proof of media bias. That AP story just couldn’t tell us which party the guy belongs to. But when Ted Stevens was indicted, they saw fit to keep repeating which party he is in, and even stared with ‘longest serving GOP Senator’.
If a Democrat commits a crime, it’s just coincidence, but if it’s a Republican, the whole party needs to be identified with the crime.
#23
> The Judge did not do him any
> favor by allowing bail. The
> Judge is required to GIVE him
> reasonable bail.
The judge also has the authority to deny bail if they think the person is a risk of ignoring the parameters of their bail.
RE: Vermont making law
The simple reason is that they are part of the union and must use the mechanisms in place when there is a dispute with the executive office of the Federal government or more specifically the Supreme Court. If the State of Vermont has issue with the President, they cannot simply throw him the local county jail any old criminal charge that they dream up.
> Congress did not declare war.
Yes they did via an AUMF.
> The Supreme Court already ruled
? that the President may be sued
> while in office..
Note the key word: “sued”; meaning a civil suit. That is a far cry from a State make a law that allows them to arrest the President.
#18 and #7 – The judiciary system was not trying to him doing his job. It was merely instisted that he give 48 hours notice of such travel before.
What I’d like to know therefore is this: Unless there is some weird crisis going on in Detroit that neccessitates it’s Mayor travelling to Canada at less than two days notice(Life-threatening shortage of Alanis Morrisette albums in Detroit perhaps) how could that possibly have interfered with him doing his job? How long does it take to pick up the phone and tell the court that you’re planning a trip?
#18 and #7 – The judiciary system was not trying to him doing his job. It was merely instisting that he give 48 hours advance notice of such travel.
What I’d like to know therefore is this: Unless there is some weird crisis going on in Detroit that neccessitates it’s Mayor travelling to Canada at less than two days notice(Life-threatening shortage of Alanis Morrisette albums in Detroit perhaps) how could that possibly have interfered with him doing his job? How long does it take to pick up the phone and tell the court that you’re planning a trip?
#26, Thomas,
The judge also has the authority to deny bail if they think the person is a risk of ignoring the parameters of their bail.
A Judge may only deny bail in extreme cases. I know you don’t really care for the Constitution, but check it out sometime. The court can not deny him REASONABLE BAIL. If that bail interferes with his elected duties then it can not be held to be reasonable. Only after he is found guilty could a court restrict his travels.
The simple reason is that they are part of the union and must use the mechanisms in place when there is a dispute with the executive office of the Federal government or more specifically the Supreme Court.
My example is not a case against the office, it is a criminal charge against the person in that office.
Just because the President has a job with the Federal Government does not protect him from State or local prosecution. For example, Tom Delay is indicted under Texas law and Larry Craig was arrested under Minnesota law. No one even challenged the Constitutionality of those arrests. Yet in neither case were the functions of their offices affected by their bail terms.
That is a far cry from a State make a law that allows them to arrest the President.
Every State currently has homicide laws on their books. If one State cares to enforce those laws it is up to them to convince a Judge to swear out a warrant for the arrest of that person. Note the key word there is person. While most civil servants and elected officials have some degree of civil immunity, none have criminal immunity.
#29 “Every State currently has homicide laws on their books. If one State cares to enforce those laws it is up to them to convince a Judge to swear out a warrant”
And that has to do with a State arresting a President conducting a war how?
#28, Neal,
The judiciary system was not trying to him doing his job. It was merely instisting that he give 48 hours advance notice of such travel.
Like Thomas, you miss the point. A Judge may not put conditions upon an elected office without having had a trial first. By insisting on the travel restrictions, he has ruled what the office of the Mayor may do.
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.
A court may only deny bail if there is a reasonable risk the accused will not show up for trial, there is a history the accused may harm a witness or similar reasons. Any additional conditions must be warranted, such as not communicating with any witnesses or staying away from a specific area.
Unless someone can explain how an accused may only travel if they give the court prior notice I don’t see this as reasonable.