Commentary: Kilpatrick saga is nearing an end

By Gary Gosselin Dolan Media Newswires Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but given Kwame Kilpatrick's track record and information that came out of the almost hourly reports about the federal lawsuit, he sure does seem, um, not innocent. OK, guilty, he seems guilty as hell from what I've seen. They are getting ready to finish up closing arguments as I write this and it should now be in the jury's hands. The whole Kilpatrick family --wife, three kids, sister and mom--was in the courtroom during at least one day of closing arguments for the first time. Some cynics--probably reporters--have said it was a calculated move. To which Kilpatrick's attorney James Thomas said: "That's bull_*%#!" Kilpatrick has been convicted of perjury in the whole text message scandal related to retaliating against police officers investigating him. He got jail time and restitution, which still stands at about $800,000. He has repeatedly violated terms of his probation, has received money that he has not reported, claims ignorance when asked about proceeds from sales of his book, and generally tends to blame other people for his problems. And in closing arguments, Kilpatrick's lawyers characterized government witnesses as liars, thieves and felons and hailed Kilpatrick as some sort of savior for city government. Really? It's like bizzaro world. But that's what good lawyers do, I suppose. Given that the feds have video, audio, a dozen witnesses and reams of documentation, I don't see how Kilpatrick is going to wiggle out of this one. But, like I said, I am not on the jury and he's presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Although I must say with his past actions he has made it awfully difficult. Whichever way it goes, I just wish I would never have to hear about Kwame Kilpatrick and his merry band ever again. Despite the fact--or because --it has been a total bonanza for the local media. Raise the DUI limit? October of this year is the sunset of Michigan's 0.08 blood alcohol content limit for drunken driving. Back in 2003 it was lowered from 0.10 to .08 and given a 10-year sunset for some odd reason that I can't really figure out. All other 49 states have a 0.08 BAC. Michigan legislators are working on Bills 4093 and 4131 that would end this sunset, and it's expected to pass easily. But what's up with a 10-year sunset? Did they expect that we'd want to get drunker and drive? Did they think we'd all have automatic flying cars? That's so '50s. MADD said that drunken-driving deaths have dropped 25 percent since 2003 for a number of reasons like stepped-up enforcement, education, and of course the lower level. MADD cites information from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism that says to reach a 0.08 BAC, men must typically consume five or more drinks, and women must typically consume four or more drinks, in about two hours. So if you have a beer or two you should be pretty safe, but if you're going to down four or more, you're probably in for a hazy night and should just arrange alternate transportation. Not a preacher, here, but this one is a no-brainer, and should sail through. But, if someone can explain why there was even a sunset on this law, I'd be all ears. Published: Mon, Feb 25, 2013

––––––––––––––––––––
 Subscribe to the Legal News!
 https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available