crimzy
Active Member
Many of you may be familiar with the trials and tribulations of Kwame Kilpatrick, disgraced former mayor of Detroit. He is currently on day 60 of his federal trial for tax evasion, racketeering, etc. In his previous legal issues, (perjury conviction), Kilpatrick was required to pay significant restitution to the city. He's been playing the game where he lives in a 5000 sq. ft. home but suggests to the judge that he can only afford to pay $1.00 per month or something like that.
Kilpatrick recently wrote a book, and the judge in his criminal case required that all proceeds from the book be turned over to pay the restitution. The proceeds from the book have mysteriously disappeared, and Kilpatrick's attorneys have argued that the judge's decision is unconstitutional and as much as I think Kwame is a piece of trash, I agree with his attorneys on this point.
There are several manners of garnishment, seizures of property, and liens that can be used to properly collect monies due. However I don't believe that a judge can make a blanket order to prevent any acquisition of proceeds from any and all sources. In our society, I don't believe that a trial judge has the right to make an order preventing any person from selling a good or service.
The extension of this principle applies to the despicable killers, mobsters and violent individuals who write books from prison. Should they be able to profit from telling the stories of their crimes? As abhorrent as it seems, I don't think that the government has any right to take away these "opportunities".
What do you think?
Kilpatrick recently wrote a book, and the judge in his criminal case required that all proceeds from the book be turned over to pay the restitution. The proceeds from the book have mysteriously disappeared, and Kilpatrick's attorneys have argued that the judge's decision is unconstitutional and as much as I think Kwame is a piece of trash, I agree with his attorneys on this point.
There are several manners of garnishment, seizures of property, and liens that can be used to properly collect monies due. However I don't believe that a judge can make a blanket order to prevent any acquisition of proceeds from any and all sources. In our society, I don't believe that a trial judge has the right to make an order preventing any person from selling a good or service.
The extension of this principle applies to the despicable killers, mobsters and violent individuals who write books from prison. Should they be able to profit from telling the stories of their crimes? As abhorrent as it seems, I don't think that the government has any right to take away these "opportunities".
What do you think?
