Detroit Mayor Faces Felony Charges
Ethics
DETROIT, Michigan -- Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and an ex-aide were charged Monday with perjury and obstruction of justice after prosecutors said sexually explicit text messages between the two contradicted their sworn court testimony.
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick reportedly sent romantic texts to his chief of staff, contradicting earlier testimony.
Kilpatrick defiantly declared his innocence just an hour after the charges were announced.
"This has been a very flawed process from the beginning," said Kilpatrick at a press conference Monday. "I look forward to complete exoneration."
Kilpatrick, who is married, has been snarled in a well-publicized sex scandal since January after The Detroit Free Press reported he exchanged romantic text messages with his then-chief of staff, Christine Beatty.
The paper reported in January that in an analysis of nearly 14,000 text messages on Beatty's city-issued pager, it found some from 2002 and 2003 that indicated the two were having a romantic affair.
The newspaper report contradicted testimony Kilpatrick gave last August in a court case brought by police officers against the mayor and the city of Detroit alleging the mayor retaliated against the officers for their role in investigating his office. Critics alleged that Kilpatrick committed perjury in the case and called for his resignation.
Related listings
-
Assembly begins pushing legislative ethics reforms
Ethics 03/06/2008Lawmakers would be barred from accepting more than one taxpayer-paid health insurance plan and from taking campaign donations from their aides under measures pushed forward Thursday by Assembly legislators. The measures released by the Assembly State...
-
Web Page Disclaimers in New Hampshire
Ethics 02/29/2008Effective January 1, 2008, New Hampshireadopted a rule that clearly protects persons who, in good faith, e-mailconfidential information to a lawyer from having the lawyer use theinformation against the prospective client. The comments to NewHam...
-
Qualcomm v. Broadcom Confidentiality Hurts
Ethics 02/26/2008A blockbuster decision was issued in the notorious “take no prisoners,” “bet the company,” Qualcomm v. Broadcom, Case No. 05cv1958-B, in San Diego. In a heart-wrenching decision, the lawyers are being prevented from disclosing what really occurred, b...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.