R. Kelly Is Charged With Using Bribes to Marry Aaliyah at Age 15

[Pressure]

All enforcement is selective and that will continue for your entire lifetime, so what's your game plan? Just to be a cynic and bytch?

How am I cynic?

I dont give a fukk about R Kelly he's going to jail. But asong as people who are being paid off, pressuring people to turn a blind eye, and skew "selective enforcement" for unjust reasons emcontinue to escape consequences then we're no better off.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

That society makes their own laws. It's straight forward.

If the laws are flawed then it's on society to fix them.

But the laws aren't flawed. YOU are the one who suggested we should leave kels alone cause some people decided "cash was enough". That ain't the fukking law.

You're a pedo, but it's no on US law enforcement to enforce laws outside of their jurisdiction. There's a reason for this. And it's pretty sound.

I dont care if the girl is black or whatever btw, that really has no baring here.

Breh, you don't know much about the law. It is a federal offense to travel to another country for the purposes of participating in child sex even if the child sex itself takes place in a different country.

And the jurisdiction is irrelevant anyway because you were claiming that if the victims' families decide cash is enough, then no one should prosecute the rapist. That's sick.

 

[re'up]

Also, the idea that the evidence was laying around is just manufactured from nowhere. Where does that kind of conclusion come from? What is more likely is co defendants, or cooperating witnesses, other methods of investigation revealed this further crime, that further explains how the first crime took place, and prosecutors added it to the indictment. There wasn't even a presser on it, as far as I saw. No promo, no publicity, just a superseding indictment, standard in federal cases. I guess a lot of people, understandably have no idea how AUSA's put together cases and indictments, and have these just delusional ideas about things.

 

[Pressure]

But the laws aren't flawed. YOU are the one who suggested we should leave kels alone cause some people decided "cash was enough". That ain't the fukking law.

If it's outside the statute of limitations it is.

Illinois

• Has this state eliminated the statute of limitations for all felony sex crimes? No. Illinois has a statute of limitations for its most serious felony sex crime.

• Does this state reduce a statute of limitations if a victim chooses not report? Yes. For certain sex crimes, a 10 year statute of limitations only applies if the victim reports the crime to law enforcement within three years after its occurrence. Otherwise, the statute of limitations is three years.

• Does this state have exceptions to statutes of limitations for DNA evidence? Yes. If the victim reports within three years of the crime, and the perpetrator's DNA evidence is entered into the database within 10 years of the crime, and that DNA evidence does not identify the perpetrator, then there is no statute of limitations.
• What is the state's statute of limitations for its most serious felony sex crimes? 10 years or less

This thread is talking abut something 20 years ago. You missed your shot, go find something recent and charge him and keep it moving.

Breh, you don't know much about the law. It is a federal offense to travel to another country for the purposes of participating in child sex even if the child sex itself takes place in a different country.

But that's not what happened here. That's something you injected that has no relevance to this case or the scenario. That's a red herring.

And the jurisdiction is irrelevant anyway because you were claiming that if the victims' families decide cash is enough, then no one should prosecute the rapist. That's sick.

I'm talking about families who took money to cover up or allow their children to be assaulted. I really don't want to hear from them talking about how they're outraged and victims.

They sold their moral high ground long ago. No do overs because it's the thing to do now.


Law enforcement is going to do what law enforcement is going to do. Like charge him with related crimes to the initial allegations because they allowed him to run around as a pedo for 30 years. I'm not applauding them for saving face even though R Kelly deserves what he gets.

 

[re'up]

Why do people think the same people were running all branches of law enforcement in three different arenas? Brooklyn, Chicago USAO, and DA's Office. The prosecutors handling the case are probably my age, 34, and thus were all of 10 years old in 1995. The US Attorney in Brooklyn was just appointed last year during the Chapo Guzman trial. He was probably a line prosecutor 30 years ago. Dude probably heard about R Kelly when they brought the case.

Why are people saying these things? I truly don't understand. The shot wasn't missed, this is a shot they can take now. I don't understand this in the least.

Edit the AUSA in the BK case, graduated college in 1997

 

[Pressure]

Why do people think the same people were running all branches of law enforcement in three different arenas? Brooklyn, Chicago USAO, and DA's Office. The prosecutors handling the case are probably my age, 34, and thus were all of 10 years old in 1995. The US Attorney in Brooklyn was just appointed last year during the Chapo Guzman trial. He was probably a line prosecutor 30 years ago. Dude probably heard about R Kelly when they brought the case.

Why are people saying these things? I truly don't understand. The shot wasn't missed, this is a shot they can take now. I don't understand this in the least.

No one is making this argument. Please stop repeating it.

 

[re'up]

No one is making this argument. Please stop repeating it.

Then where does the idea come from that because he wasn't charged in 1997, he shouldn't be now? What is the logic? This is how RICO prosecutions works. Is it the statute or the application of it that bothers people? I don't get it at all.

In the Chapo Guzman case, they charged him with a CCE (Continuing Criminal Enterprise, which is like the DEA version of a RICO) dating back to like 1992.

 

[Pressure]

Then where does the idea come from that because he wasn't charged in 1997, he shouldn't be now? What is the logic? This is how RICO prosecutions works. Is it the statute or the application of it that bothers people? I don't get it at all.

In the Chapo Guzman case, they charged him with a CCE dating back to like 1992.

Because we don't simply compartmentalize work by law enforcement based on whose working there.

For example, everyone knew Aaliyah was underage when the rumor came out that they were married.

People can ask, why law enforcement never charged him back then. And if it's because of malfeasance then why aren't other people being charged?

That said, people in general are opposed to RICO prosecutions. Especially since it's strayed so far away from its original intent to combat Organized Crime. To be Blount, this shouldn't be a Rico case.

 

[re'up]

I just have to add, who is everyone? What does that mean? Because they "missed their shot" back in 1997, it's just over? How do we qualify law enforcement? A federal case for sex trafficking was almost unheard of in the 90's, from what I understand. As society's progress, or regress, laws are changed to reflect that. I strong agree with the federal application of human trafficking. I grew up in a human trafficking hub in San Diego. I've been around it since I was in middle school.

Which other people would you want charged?

I truly think it's people's affinity for Kelly, and contempt for victims of sexual abuse, rather than a concern for a broad application of RICO cases.

This is just so entirely bizarre to me, but I'll probably just leave the convo here.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

If it's outside the statute of limitations it is.

You're quoting state law. He's being charged with federal crimes.

Guess what, there is an OBVIOUS precedent for the feds stepping in and stretching federal crimes to make up for the states not doing their job and enforcing the law. You should know that precedent.

This thread is talking abut something 20 years ago. You missed your shot, go find something recent and charge him and keep it moving.

Who is "you"?

I'm talking about families who took money to cover up or allow their children to be assaulted. I really don't want to hear from them talking about how they're outraged and victims.

That has nothing to do with anything. I didn't see a single one of those families quoted here.

This is personal for me. My foster daughter was raped repeatedly over a four-year period. My wife and I were her escorts at trial where we had to sit OPPOSITE her family who were doing everything possible to destroy her to save their own asses. I have dozens of days in the court building to sit and consider how bad a job some families can do of protecting their daughter. That has NOTHING to do with whether the rapist should be let off.

They sold their moral high ground long ago. No do overs because it's the thing to do now.

fukk yourself.

 

[Pressure]

ou're quoting state law. He's being charged with federal crimes.

Guess what, there is an OBVIOUS precedent for the feds stepping in and stretching federal crimes to make up for the states not doing their job and enforcing the law. You should know that precedent.

I disagree with Feds using RICO laws outside of their intended purposes to Trump up charges. That's not justice.

Further many of the child porn cases were a part of the initial 33 he was indicted and tried for 13 years ago.

He was found not guilty of those charges. I wholeheartedly disagree, as a matter of principle, that we should use the federal government as a do over where the state failed.

Anything after that point within the statute of limitations should be handled by the appropriate jurisdiction. Which in this case, is being handled by invistigators in Illinois.

This is personal for me. My foster daughter was raped repeatedly over a four-year period. My wife and I were her escorts at trial where we had to sit OPPOSITE her family who were doing everything possible to destroy her to save their own asses. I have dozens of days in the court building to sit and consider how bad a job some families can do of protecting their daughter. That has NOTHING to do with whether the rapist should be let off.

Clearly you lack the ability to be objective. That's not my problem.

But I won't harp on it. I was emotional with regard to gun ownership, gun violence, and having a gun saving my life which you summarily disregarded for your own moral reason.

I guess we're all human at the end of the day no matter how we sell ourselves.

fukk yourself

I was a guardian ad litem. A lot family ain't shyt. But I think you know this.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Clearly you lack the ability to be objective. That's not my problem.

Having personal experience which refutes your subjective claims does not mean I'm not being objective.

Whether or not a family member took money should have ZERO bearing on whether he faces justice. It was a dumbass thing for you to say. Half your arguments are hiding behind "the intent of the law" and then you pull out a statement like that that disregards the law entirely.

 

[re'up]

Using the "states rights" thing is an interesting angle, but it's federal oversight that often steps in, in the case of Ferguson, where the Justice Department issued a consent decree, to change the state of the corrupt police department. Some of the accusations of racial bias and corruption stretched back over a decade.

So, is it only in sexual based crimes, where there should be no "do overs"? Because of all the reasons, corruption, cronyism, old boy networks, the federal law enforcement often is the right agency to charge.

The whole position people have taken on this is like Twitter talking points. It's like Dj Akademiks shyt.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Using the "states rights" thing is an interesting angle, but it's federal oversight that often steps in, in the case of Ferguson, where the Justice Department issued a consent decree, to change the state of the corrupt police department. Some of the accusations of racial bias and corruption stretched back over a decade.

So, is it only in sexual based crimes, where there should be no "do overs"? Because of all the reasons, corruption, cronyism, old boy networks, the federal law enforcement often is the right agency to charge.

The whole position people have taken on this is like Twitter talking points. It's like Dj Akademiks shyt.

On the money


What about Maritime Law

 

[mastermind]

Epstein and Cosby both made national news with this shyt over a decade ago. No one "needed a whistleblower." The only reason they got less public attention was because they didn't have a tape, but every relevant enforcement official already knew.

Cosby had allegations in 2005. No one followed up on that until the Hannibal Burress joke. That’s what happened. What makes this different is that it was the original allegation, RICO wasn’t needed.

Epstein got convicted of his crime and was facing another one. RICO wasn’t needed. In fact in Epstein’s case, this was new allegations.

R.Kelly is already facing life in prison, so they decide now is the time to get justice for Aaliyah after all this attention? It’s BS. If they want to pursue a RICO on R. Kelly, go after the prosecutors at the time who don’t pursue this, go after Aaliyah’s family who stayed quiet, go after everyone. That’s not what they did here. It’s a clout move. I’m sorry. And it ain’t about R. Kelly but what happens in other instances like this going forward.