'Empire' Star Jussie Smollett Attacked in Possible Hate Crime (Update: All Charges Dropped. Records Sealed. Chicago Mayor Not Happy.)

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
886
1,081
230
City of Chicago Will Sue Jussie Smollett over Alleged Attack

http://www.tmz.com/2019/04/04/jussie-smollett-city-of-chicago-lawsuit-sue-attack

"Mr. Smollett has refused to reimburse the City of Chicago for the cost of police overtime spent investigating his false police report on January 29, 2019," a spokesperson for the City said, per TMZ. "The Law Department is now drafting a civil complaint that will be filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Once it is filed, the Law Department will send a courtesy copy of the complaint to Mr. Smollett's L.A. based legal team." TMZ adds that the city will be able to sue for three times the amount they previously asked, pushing the total number up to $390,000.
 

Kittehkraken

Member
Jan 14, 2017
541
742
245
City of Chicago Will Sue Jussie Smollett over Alleged Attack

http://www.tmz.com/2019/04/04/jussie-smollett-city-of-chicago-lawsuit-sue-attack

"Mr. Smollett has refused to reimburse the City of Chicago for the cost of police overtime spent investigating his false police report on January 29, 2019," a spokesperson for the City said, per TMZ. "The Law Department is now drafting a civil complaint that will be filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Once it is filed, the Law Department will send a courtesy copy of the complaint to Mr. Smollett's L.A. based legal team." TMZ adds that the city will be able to sue for three times the amount they previously asked, pushing the total number up to $390,000.
What an absolute top tier dumbass he is. He should of just paid the money and ran.
 
Last edited:

Grinchy

Gold Member
Aug 3, 2010
21,613
4,198
775
In a cave outside of Whooville.

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,735
14,519
940
Australia
That part is interesting. I wonder if they can use the police's evidence or if that is all sealed from the other case.
Civil suits are preponderance of evidence only, right? As in the adjudicator only has to feel that the likelihood of guilt is 51% or greater. Your legal system is fucked. I think it’s corrupt as hell that he was let off scot free from criminal charges without trial but I think it’s also fucked that he can now effectively be found guilty with a second chance civil suit. It’s almost like double jeopardy.
 

bucyou

Gold Member
Feb 3, 2018
967
1,122
335
he wanted to be the gay tupac, now he can be the gay OJ and pay up in civil court for getting off
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
2,910
523
765
Civil suits are preponderance of evidence only, right? As in the adjudicator only has to feel that the likelihood of guilt is 51% or greater. Your legal system is fucked. I think it’s corrupt as hell that he was let off scot free from criminal charges without trial but I think it’s also fucked that he can now effectively be found guilty with a second chance civil suit. It’s almost like double jeopardy.
He wasn’t found not guilty so I don’t believe it would be double jeopardy in that sense.
 

Scopa

The Tribe Has Spoken
Oct 27, 2017
4,013
5,293
505
your mind
It might yet. This ain’t over.
They will NEVER drag a public facing black woman across the coals in todays America. Even if it is justified. Never.

Nobody will have the balls. They won’t want to deal with the social media/CNN onslaught.
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
1,130
697
270
They will NEVER drag a public facing black woman across the coals in todays America. Even if it is justified. Never.

Nobody will have the balls. They won’t want to deal with the social media/CNN onslaught.
If the guy gets out scott free then honestly, he did america a favor of proving how corrupt is the legal system and should get a overhaul massively.
 
Last edited:

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,076
1,535
330
Civil suits are preponderance of evidence only, right? As in the adjudicator only has to feel that the likelihood of guilt is 51% or greater. Your legal system is fucked. I think it’s corrupt as hell that he was let off scot free from criminal charges without trial but I think it’s also fucked that he can now effectively be found guilty with a second chance civil suit. It’s almost like double jeopardy.
same thing happened to OJ. its actually quite common for someone to be found not guilty and then have a civil suit brought against them. usually not by the city that should have prosecuted thought that is about as uncommon as someone with 16 felony charges having them all dropped without admitting guilt.
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,047
2,217
240
Smollet wasnt found "not guilty" his punishment was just a couple of hours of social work and 10.000 bucks lol
I mean i would have had no issue with that if smollet would just shut up but nope he decided to spit on the police and run his mouth lying in public "hurr see innocent durr!!" lol fuck him now and fuck foxx.
 
Last edited:

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
2,910
523
765
I know, that’s why I said “almost like”.
It would be 'almost like' double jeopardy if he was found not guilty criminally and then sued civilly; like the example of OJ ( I actually don't think this similar to double jeopardy). Or a better example the LA cops who beat Rodney King were found not guilty by the State but were later charged and found guilty by the federal government. In this case it isn't 'almost like' double jeopardy at all.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,735
14,519
940
Australia
It would be 'almost like' double jeopardy if he was found not guilty criminally and then sued civilly; like the example of OJ ( I actually don't think this similar to double jeopardy). Or a better example the LA cops who beat Rodney King were found not guilty by the State but were later charged and found guilty by the federal government. In this case it isn't 'almost like' double jeopardy at all.
It is almost like double jeopardy in the sense that the criminal suit failed (ignoring the corrupt reason for its failure for the sake of the argument) so they now get a second chance to chase him with a civil suit. I think it's ridiculous that someone who hasn't been proven guilty in the criminal system can then be sued for money in the civil system for the same allegations with a much weaker burden of proof.
 

bumleforce

Member
Apr 6, 2017
146
91
195
Jessie had to many sjw points to go to jail. Its nice to k ow you can commit hate crimes and get off free. Chicago politics at its finest.
 

CDiggity

Member
Jan 3, 2014
1,102
116
340
For the record, this is what Section 1-21-010 of Chicago False Claims Act says

§ 1-21-010 False Statements.

Any person who knowingly makes a false statement of material fact to the city in violation of any statute, ordinance or regulation, or who knowingly falsifies any statement of material fact made in connection with an application, report, affidavit, oath, or attestation, including a statement of material fact made in connection with a bid, proposal, contract or economic disclosure statement or affidavit, is liable to the city for a civil penalty of not less than $500 and not more than $1,000, plus up to three times the amount of damages which the city sustains because of the person’s violation of this Section. A person who violates this Section shall also be liable for the city’s litigation and collection costs and attorney’s fees.

The penalties imposed by this section shall be in addition to any other penalty provided for in the municipal code.
Also, since the city is pursuing a civil case and not a criminal one, it is legally distinct therefore double jeopardy does not apply. Kinda like what happened with OJ since that comparison is being used a lot.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,129
2,807
415
Civil suits are preponderance of evidence only, right? As in the adjudicator only has to feel that the likelihood of guilt is 51% or greater. Your legal system is fucked. I think it’s corrupt as hell that he was let off scot free from criminal charges without trial but I think it’s also fucked that he can now effectively be found guilty with a second chance civil suit. It’s almost like double jeopardy.
Correct on the preponderance standard. Incorrect on him effectively being found guilty. Civil cases do not determine criminal culpability. They only determine if someone owes the other money for their actions. Unlike criminal cases, failure to pay what is deemed owed is not typically going to result in incarceration like it can in a criminal case (violating probation by failing to pay restitution). In civil cases failure to pay only causes lock up if the judge determines you are in contempt for failing to pay when you could have.
 

mekes

Member
Jun 30, 2013
1,851
528
380
London, UK
I don’t understand. I thought he was guilty, therefor why he left his 10k bail money? So why are his own legal team saying he vehemently denies making false statements? That would make the return letter as nonsense as Smolletts lawyers say the letter from the CPD is...

So double jeopardy wouldn’t hold up as a defence? Denying wrongdoing wouldn’t hold up as a defence? The police would have a legitimate claim to ask for appropriate compensation?

I hope the police department know what they are doing.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,735
14,519
940
Australia
Correct on the preponderance standard. Incorrect on him effectively being found guilty. Civil cases do not determine criminal culpability. They only determine if someone owes the other money for their actions. Unlike criminal cases, failure to pay what is deemed owed is not typically going to result in incarceration like it can in a criminal case (violating probation by failing to pay restitution). In civil cases failure to pay only causes lock up if the judge determines you are in contempt for failing to pay when you could have.
Right, but to me being required to pay restitution carries with it an implication that you actually committed the crime.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,129
2,807
415
Right, but to me being required to pay restitution carries with it an implication that you actually committed the crime.
It is not tantamount to a conviction, but can seem that way if you are not familiar with the purpose of the two tiered burden of proof. Bear in mind the difference in the burden of proof (civil v criminal) actually benefits the accused. It lets them avoid criminal liability because of the high threshold for a conviction (beyond reasonable doubt) even when they seem obviously responsible and would always have to pay if sued civilly, It just does not benefit them so much that the lack of a conviction (at a higher standard) hurts the victim's wallet, who again could always sue civilly regardless of criminal charges having been filed or not. If the system changed to let someone avoid civil liability when charges were dropped or acquitted, it would actually make victims of crimes worse off than people who walk down the street and get hurt by someone's non-criminal negligence.

I know you're a thoughtful person. Imagine if someone stole 10 million from your bank account. You could sue for that money whether charges are filed or not. Would you want to lose the right to sue for that money back, if say the cops took a statement unlawfully? Or if the DA, who is not your lawyer, failed to give the case their full attention? Heck no.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,735
14,519
940
Australia
It is not tantamount to a conviction, but can seem that way if you are not familiar with the purpose of the two tiered burden of proof. Bear in mind the difference in the burden of proof (civil v criminal) actually benefits the accused. It lets them avoid criminal liability because of the high threshold for a conviction (beyond reasonable doubt) even when they seem obviously responsible and would always have to pay if sued civilly, It just does not benefit them so much that the lack of a conviction (at a higher standard) hurts the victim's wallet, who again could always sue civilly regardless of criminal charges having been filed or not. If the system changed to let someone avoid civil liability when charges were dropped or acquitted, it would actually make victims of crimes worse off than people who walk down the street and get hurt by someone's non-criminal negligence.

I know you're a thoughtful person. Imagine if someone stole 10 million from your bank account. You could sue for that money whether charges are filed or not. Would you want to lose the right to sue for that money back, if say the cops took a statement unlawfully? Or if the DA, who is not your lawyer, failed to give the case their full attention? Heck no.
But what if the person who is accused of stealing my 10 million didn’t actually do it? Being required to pay 10 million is tantamount to a prison sentence imo. Why should that be subject to a preponderance of evidence?
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,129
2,807
415
But what if the person who is accused of stealing my 10 million didn’t actually do it? Being required to pay 10 million is tantamount to a prison sentence imo. Why should that be subject to a preponderance of evidence?
Matt - if you are advocating to change the civil standard to the criminal standard, you might as well just take the position:

1) People outside the 1% are barred from court unless accused of a crime or called as a witness. With that standard of proof no one could afford to sue essentially.
2) Auto insurance is just a tax. Short of clear liability and death or dismemberment, no one could afford to extend contingency fees to car accident victims (who cannot afford hourly fees).
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
2,910
523
765
I don’t understand. I thought he was guilty, therefor why he left his 10k bail money? So why are his own legal team saying he vehemently denies making false statements? That would make the return letter as nonsense as Smolletts lawyers say the letter from the CPD is...

So double jeopardy wouldn’t hold up as a defence? Denying wrongdoing wouldn’t hold up as a defence? The police would have a legitimate claim to ask for appropriate compensation?

I hope the police department know what they are doing.
Charges where dropped there wasn't a judgement. And remember these public statements are specifically for the public and are attempting to persuade.
 
Last edited:

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,898
3,521
1,090
Civil suits are preponderance of evidence only, right? As in the adjudicator only has to feel that the likelihood of guilt is 51% or greater. Your legal system is fucked. I think it’s corrupt as hell that he was let off scot free from criminal charges without trial but I think it’s also fucked that he can now effectively be found guilty with a second chance civil suit. It’s almost like double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy only applies to someone who was found not guilty of charges, not someone who had them dropped.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,129
2,807
415
Double jeopardy only applies to someone who was found not guilty of charges, not someone who had them dropped.
Actually, that is not always true. Depends on how the charges are dropped.

Also, it only bars a second criminal trial for the same charges. It does not apply to civil suits at all. And it does not prevent feds from charging for violations of federal law based on same underlying conduct that was focus of charges of state law violations, or vice versa.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,735
14,519
940
Australia
Double jeopardy only applies to someone who was found not guilty of charges, not someone who had them dropped.
This was already addressed earlier. I said “almost like”, as in it’s not double jeopardy, but the practical effects are similar. Civil suits just seem like second chance saloon to punish your accused with monetary damages it you can’t get them on criminal charges. I don’t understand this two tiered system.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,735
14,519
940
Australia
Matt - if you are advocating to change the civil standard to the criminal standard, you might as well just take the position:

1) People outside the 1% are barred from court unless accused of a crime or called as a witness. With that standard of proof no one could afford to sue essentially.
2) Auto insurance is just a tax. Short of clear liability and death or dismemberment, no one could afford to extend contingency fees to car accident victims (who cannot afford hourly fees).
That sounds more like a problem with the system being unfair towards those who can’t afford to play in it. In your scenario above, imagine you’re the person accused of stealing 10 million dollars, but you know you didn’t do it. There is insufficient evidence to prosecute you criminally so they sue you civilly and you have to pay them 10 million dollars based on a significantly lower burden of proof. How is that fair? It’s the same situation, just in reverse. How do Blackstone’s formulation, etc. relate here?
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
2,910
523
765
I think someone brought this up before in this thread but why aren't the Nigerians talking to the media? Possible theories:

1. Smollet/FOX/Leftist Activist paid them money to be quiet with NDA type contract.
2. Prosecutor said chill out and you will be free to go and/or threatened to prosecute them.

It's seems like quite the conspiracy possibly because you know one of these talk shows would give them like 200 grand for an interview already.
 

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
2,910
523
765
That sounds more like a problem with the system being unfair towards those who can’t afford to play in it. In your scenario above, imagine you’re the person accused of stealing 10 million dollars, but you know you didn’t do it. There is insufficient evidence to prosecute you criminally so they sue you civilly and you have to pay them 10 million dollars based on a significantly lower burden of proof. How is that fair? It’s the same situation, just in reverse. How do Blackstone’s formulation, etc. relate here?
"Preponderance of evidence" is still a preponderance of evidence. You get a trial and it must be proven that damages occurred and that the accused was responsible for those damages.

Maliciousness is a thing but I don't know how you would fix that. Civil courts are necessary.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
20,553
16,449
685
I think someone brought this up before in this thread but why aren't the Nigerians talking to the media? Possible theories:

1. Smollet/FOX/Leftist Activist paid them money to be quiet with NDA type contract.
2. Prosecutor said chill out and you will be free to go and/or threatened to prosecute them.

It's seems like quite the conspiracy possibly because you know one of these talk shows would give them like 200 grand for an interview already.
If we hear nothing from them in the coming months as you mentioned, there were definitely C&Ds/NDAs put into place.
 

pimentel1

Member
Jul 22, 2018
988
590
340
This is what I’m talking about with Democrats being soft on crime. In relation to the Smollett case being dropped, Chicago Police Union President said:

“We have had problems getting felony charges approved for battery to police officers," Graham said. "I've had officers, in my office, where their kneecaps were broken, where their fingertips were nearly bit off, and we can't get felony charges approved on this."
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-police-union-president-kim-foxx-should-step-down-smollett-case-was-tip-of-the-iceburg

The same thing is happening in California. Things are getting worse because criminals know they can get away with it. This is on Democrats.
 
Last edited:

Cunth

Fingerlickin' Good!
May 22, 2018
3,265
8,196
495
This is what I’m talking about with Democrats being soft on crime. In relation to the Smollett case being dropped, Chicago Police Union President said:



https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-police-union-president-kim-foxx-should-step-down-smollett-case-was-tip-of-the-iceburg

The same thing is happening in California. Things are getting worse because criminals know they can get away with it. This is on Democrats.
I bet they can get charges approved on white people
 

pimentel1

Member
Jul 22, 2018
988
590
340
I bet they can get charges approved on white people
It’s bigger than that. I had said white friend who got his charges dropped by Kamala Harris back in the day. Calls her a cool cat. I say had because I found out the fucker was crazy later on and got the hell out of there after he fucking tried to run over a neighbor and got free again. I’m sorry, he has a two year unsupervised probation period, but you catch my drift.

It’s not a “white” privilege problem. It’s not a “black” or “rich” privilege problem. It’s a Criminal Privilege problem. One where news outlets mourn the deaths of two bit gangsters and those in justice favor leniency.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
20,553
16,449
685
It’s bigger than that. I had said white friend who got his charges dropped by Kamala Harris back in the day. Calls her a cool cat. I say had because I found out the fucker was crazy later on and got the hell out of there after he fucking tried to run over a neighbor and got free again. I’m sorry, he has a two year unsupervised probation period, but you catch my drift.

It’s not a “white” privilege problem. It’s not a “black” or “rich” privilege problem. It’s a Criminal Privilege problem. One where news outlets mourn the deaths of two bit gangsters and those in justice favor leniency.
How else do you establish the big government, authoritarian rule of needing to invest in more policing, unless you let the ilk run free to cause all kinds of mayhem? Create the problem, provide the solution, but at the same time you criticize the solution making for more unrest and people crying for the establishment savior! Major job security for prosecution and elected officials.
 
Last edited:

Boss Mog

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2013
4,243
2,816
540
Also, since the city is pursuing a civil case and not a criminal one, it is legally distinct therefore double jeopardy does not apply. Kinda like what happened with OJ since that comparison is being used a lot.
There's no double jeopardy for a criminal case against him either. The charges were dropped, there was no court ruling of innocence or guilt. Charges can be re-filed against him at any time.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,129
2,807
415
That sounds more like a problem with the system being unfair towards those who can’t afford to play in it. In your scenario above, imagine you’re the person accused of stealing 10 million dollars, but you know you didn’t do it. There is insufficient evidence to prosecute you criminally so they sue you civilly and you have to pay them 10 million dollars based on a significantly lower burden of proof. How is that fair? It’s the same situation, just in reverse. How do Blackstone’s formulation, etc. relate here?
Yes, the system you seem to be proposing would be unfair to anyone but the uber rich. But I'm moving on - it seems you are moving the goal posts to me, so let's just agree to disagree here. I will never support changing the standard of civil cases to match the criminal case standard, because that system would fail probably 90-99.9999% of people harmed by another person or entity. And moving the criminal standard back would be an affront to the criminal justice system.
 
Mar 18, 2018
1,541
1,032
240
I don’t understand. I thought he was guilty, therefor why he left his 10k bail money? So why are his own legal team saying he vehemently denies making false statements? That would make the return letter as nonsense as Smolletts lawyers say the letter from the CPD is...

So double jeopardy wouldn’t hold up as a defence? Denying wrongdoing wouldn’t hold up as a defence? The police would have a legitimate claim to ask for appropriate compensation?

I hope the police department know what they are doing.
Because he and his lawyers are bitch ass motherfuckers trying to save a bitch ass motherfucker’s career.

Bitch ass mother fuckerception going on.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,129
2,807
415
Because he and his lawyers are bitch ass motherfuckers trying to save a bitch ass motherfucker’s career.

Bitch ass mother fuckerception going on.
I think his lawyers did a really good job to be honest. 10k and a few hours of community service and charges dropped? For a guy making that kind of $, that's like asking for 20 in court fees from an average person.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,735
14,519
940
Australia
Yes, the system you seem to be proposing would be unfair to anyone but the uber rich. But I'm moving on - it seems you are moving the goal posts to me, so let's just agree to disagree here. I will never support changing the standard of civil cases to match the criminal case standard, because that system would fail probably 90-99.9999% of people harmed by another person or entity. And moving the criminal standard back would be an affront to the criminal justice system.
Why are you accusing me of shifting goalposts when my argument has been consistent all along? Are we even discussing the same thing? You seem to think my argument is that the civil burden of proof should be the same as the criminal burden of proof. That’s not my argument — my argument is that I don’t like the idea of a criminal prosecution failing then getting a second chance through a civil suit. I have no problem with standalone civil suits.
 

pimentel1

Member
Jul 22, 2018
988
590
340
How else do you establish the big government, authoritarian rule of needing to invest in more policing, unless you let the ilk run free to cause all kinds of mayhem? Create the problem, provide the solution, but at the same time you criticize the solution making for more unrest and people crying for the establishment savior! Major job security for prosecution and elected officials.
We have so many really really bad criminals they can’t lock up the not quite as bad criminals.
 
Last edited: