[00:03:39]
MM HMM. HMM. HMM. MHM. METRO TV WILL BEGIN IN ONE MINUTE.
[Call to Order]
THIS IS THE JANUARY 24TH 2424 MEETING OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL COURT MEETING IN THE MATTER OF THE REMOVAL CHARGES AGAINST COUNCILMAN ANTHONY P. ARGENTINE E PLEASE COME TO ORDER. THE TIME IS CURRENTLY 5:02 P.M. PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. MY PLEASURE.[00:05:06]
THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO KRS 61.826 AND COUNCIL RULE OF FIVE. A MADAM CLERK A ROLL CALL PLEASE COUNCIL MEMBER, HAWKINS. COUNCIL MEMBER, SHANKLIN WHERE IS IT? COUNCIL MEMBER PARISH, RIGHT. PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER, ARTHUR PRESIDENT, COUNCIL MEMBER PURVIS . PRESENT COUNCIL MEMBER BAKER PRESENT COUNCIL MEMBER MCRANEY COUNCIL MEMBER ARENA. WEBER[Roll Call]
PRESIDENT, COUNCIL MEMBER OWEN HERE, COUNCIL MEMBER MULVIHILL. COUNCIL MEMBER, CRAMER. HERE COUNCIL MEMBER BLACKWELL HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER SIME HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER FOWLER COUNCIL MEMBER CHAPEL. COUNCIL MEMBER READ. HERE. PRESIDENT WINKLER. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER PARKER COUNCIL MEMBER BENSON. COUNCIL MEMBER RUI HERE, COUNCIL MEMBER ENGEL. COUNCIL MEMBER HUDSON.HERE COUNCIL MEMBER FLOOD HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER BET SEAN HERE, COUNCIL MEMBER ACKERSON COUNCIL MEMBER MULVIHILL. COUNCIL MEMBER, FOWLER. IS YOUR WIFE I AX HOLE. COUNTS. I'M SORRY, SIR.
I PROMISE. COUNCIL MEMBER CHAPEL. AND COUNCIL MEMBER ENGEL. MR PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE 22 AND A QUORUM. THANK YOU. PLEASE LET THE RECORD OF FLOOD COUNCILMAN ACTORS AND HAS AN EXCUSED ABSENCE. COLLEAGUES AS WE BEGIN, PLEASE REMEMBER TO SPEAK CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY INTO YOUR MICROPHONE AND SOMETHING FOR COUNCIL INTO YOUR MICROPHONE SO THAT YOUR STATEMENTS CAN ACCURATELY BE HEARD AND RECORDED BY THE COURT REPORTER. WILL COUNSEL FOR BOTH PARTIES. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELVES. WE'LL START WITH MR WICKER. GOOD AFTERNOON. PRESIDENT WINKLER. MY NAME IS KENT WICKER WITH ME AS MY PARTNER, KAYLA CAMPBELL. WE REPRESENT THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. MR SMITH. GOOD AFTERNOON SHARE WINKLER AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT. MY NAME IS BROKEN SMITH AND WITH ME TODAY, SITTING IN THE GALLERY, MICHAEL COUNSEL MICHAEL SWANBERG ON BEHALF OF COUNCILMAN ANTHONY P. ARGENTINE E. THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES TO COURT CONVENES TODAY TO ADDRESS BOTH THE MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS SEVEN AND EIGHT OF THE COMPLAINT AND TO
[2. ID 24-0010 Establishment of Council Court Schedule]
ESTABLISH THE COUNCIL COURT HEARING SCHEDULE. I'M GOING TO TAKE THESE ITEMS IN REVERSE ORDER AND TURNED FIRST TO THE MATTER OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE FIRST REMOVAL HEARING RULE FIVE OF THE LAW. OKAY COUNCILMAN. PRESSURE, RIGHT. COULD YOU TURN YOUR CAMERA ON, PLEASE? THANK YOU. FIVE OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL REMOVAL HEARING. RULES AND PROCEDURES REQUIRES THIS HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE INITIAL COURT CONVENING, MEANING THAT MONDAY MARCH 18TH 2024 IS THE LAST DAY THAT WE MAY START. THE REMOVAL HEARING INQUIRED WITH MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FOR BOTH PARTIES AS THE POTENTIAL DATES FOR THE START OF THE HEARING.I'VE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT FEEDBACK AND ALSO COUNSELS BEST DEBTS, ESTIMATES OF THE TIME THAT THEY WILL NEED TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. NOT SURPRISINGLY, NO DATE WOULD ALLOW FOR EVERY MEMBER OF COUNCIL. UH THE COUNCIL AS WELL AS THE METRO COUNCIL TO ATTEND PERFECTLY, UH, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO FIND A DATE THAT WORKS FOR ALMOST EVERYBODY OR TAKES EVERYBODY'S SCHEDULE INTO ACCOUNT AS SUCH HAVE SELECTED MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26 2024 AT FIVE PM TO BE THE DATE UPON WHICH WE WILL BEGIN THE HEARING WITH THE HEARINGS TO CONTINUE DAY AFTER DAY UNTIL COMPLETE, PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT. WE DO HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING AFTER THE FOURTH DAYS OF THERE MAY NOT BE TOTALLY CONTINUE WITH AT LEAST THREE DAYS AND THEN POTENTIALLY A BREAK FOR A DAY FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING, AND THEN ANOTHER HEARING IF WE NEED IT. OR IT MIGHT GO INTO THE FOLLOWING WEEK. UM IS THIS SCHEDULE STILL AMENABLE FOR BOTH COUNCILS? YES, SIR. IT IS MR CHAIRMAN. I DID HAVE A QUESTION. IS THAT THE INTENTION TO BEGIN EVERY DAY AT FIVE PM OR IS THAT JUST FOR THE FIRST DAY WE'LL PROBABLY BEGIN AT FIVE. POTENTIALLY WE COULD LOOK AT BEGINNING AT FOUR ON ANOTHER DAY. I DON'T THINK WE'LL BEGIN ANY SOONER THAN THAT. JUST GIVEN. UM WE'VE GOT SEVERAL TEACHERS AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS THAT MAKES IT HARD TO BEGIN MUCH EARLIER. JUST SO THAT I CAN ADVISE THE PEOPLE AT HOME. THAT UNDERSTOOD WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST IN THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS COURT WILL ISSUE AN ORDER REFLECTING THE SCHEDULE. THE SCHEDULE WILL ALLOW FOR THE MOST IN PERSON PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS WITHIN THE TIME FRAME REQUIRED BY THE REMOVAL RULES, AS DISCUSSED IN OUR LAST COURT SESSION IF MEMBERS CANNOT BE PRESIDENT PERSON FOR ALL OR PART OF A COURT SESSION, THEY MUST WATCH THE VIDEO OF THE FULL DAY'S PROCEEDINGS AND ATTEST THAT THEY HAVE DONE SO. OUR NEXT ITEM OF
[1. ID 24-0022 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss]
[00:10:06]
BUSINESS IS TO HEAR THE MOTION TO DISMISS. ON DECEMBER 14TH 2023, THE RESPONDENT FILED THE MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT SEVEN MISCONDUCT BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE AND COUNTY MISCONDUCT BY PERJURY ON DECEMBER 29TH 2023 , THE CHARGING COMMITTEE FILED THEIR RESPONSE. ON JANUARY 8TH 2024, THE RESPONDENT FILED THEIR REPLY AND SUPPORTED THEIR MOTION. COUNCIL COURT MEMBERS HAVE RECEIVED COPIES OF THESE PLEADINGS COUNSEL FOR BOTH PARTIES ARE PRESENT TODAY FOR THE HEARING AND THE DECISION ON THIS MOTION PURSUANT TO THE LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL'S REMOVAL, HEARING RULES AND PROCEDURES RULE FOR AND SEVEN EMOTION. DISMISS ANY OF THE REMOVAL CHARGES REQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COUNCIL COURT WITH 25 MEMBERS SERVING ON THE COUNCIL COURT 13 VOTES AS A MAJORITY. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE 13 VOTES REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY HERE, SO IT'S NOT A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE PRESENT.IT IS A MAJORITY OF THE COURT, SO IT WILL ALWAYS BE 13 FOR THE MAJORITY AFTER THE COUNCIL FOR THE PARTIES PRESENT THEIR ARGUMENTS IF MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL FOR EITHER PARTY MAY ASK FOR PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR TO INQUIRE. PLEASE SPEAK CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY INTO YOUR MICROPHONE FOR THE COURT REPORTER. MR SMITH IS THE MOVING PARTY. YOU'RE THE FIRST TO, UH, THAT MAY HAVE THE FLOOR. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU.
CHAIR WINKLER AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT BEFORE I GET INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR MOTION TO DISMISS. I DO HAVE TO STATE AN OBJECTION FOR THE RECORD. AS I SEE AMONG US TODAY ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMIT ER. SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ARE INTERSPERSED AMONGST THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT. UM AND THAT THE CHAIR HAS, UH AND ESSENCE. UH, STATED THE RULES OF THE COUNCIL COURT WITH REGARD TO A MAJORITY FOR EMOTION TO, UM, TO REQUIRE A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL COURTS TO PREVAIL. I WANTED TO BE KNOWN FOR THE RECORD THAT WE HAD FILED A MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE FROM DELIBERATING, PARTICULARLY IN CLOSED SESSION WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT ON ANY MOTIONS THAT MAY BE PRESENTED AND ON THE FINAL CHARGES. WE FURTHER FILED A MOTION. UH. TO EXCLUDE THE MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE FROM BEING PERMITTED TO VOTE ON ANY MOTION THAT MIGHT BE MADE. UM AND THE REASON THAT WE DID SO WAS FIRST BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN THE PAST PRACTICE OF THIS COUNCIL COURT IN PREVIOUS PREVIOUS HEARINGS, THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE WERE NOT PERMITTED TO SIT WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT. IN FACT, THEY WERE SEATED IN THE GALLERY, AND THEY WERE EXCLUDED FROM DELIBERATIONS. SO THAT WAS ONE REASON BUT WE ALSO WE ALSO FILED THAT MOTION BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE TO SEPARATE THE MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE FROM THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT BECAUSE THAT IMPLICATES COUNSELING P ARGENTINE EASE FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO A FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR HEARING. NOW TODAY THIS AFTERNOON, THE CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL COURT ISSUED AN ORDER DENYING OUR MOTION. AND I WOULD AND I WOULD NOTE NOTE UPFRONT THAT THAT ORDER DID NOT ADDRESS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS THAT ALLOWING THE MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE TO DELIBERATE UM, WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT. WOULD CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. NOR DID THEY ORDER ADDRESS OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE OUR ARGUMENT THAT ALLOWING SIX MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE TO HAVE A VOTE ON EVERY MOTION THAT COMES BEFORE THIS BODY IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR TO COUNSELING P AGENT EENY, EVERY MOTION WOULD AUTOMATICALLY HAVE SIX VOTES AGAINST COUNSELING. P ARGENTINE EASE POSITION THOSE ISSUES WERE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE ORDER IN THE ORDER THAT DENIED OUR MOTION. SO I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR AS TO AS TO WHY WE ARE OBJECTING AND WHAT THIS MEANS GOING FORWARD. THIS MEANS THAT WHEN THIS BODY ADJOURNS TO CONSIDER THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND POTENTIALLY ANY OTHER MOTION THAT COMES BEFORE THIS BODY THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT WILL RETIRE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION WERE NEITHER COUNSELING ARGENTINA NOR HIS ATTORNEY WILL BE PRESENT. BUT THE CHARGING COMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL BE ALLOWED TO RETIRE AND BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO PRESS THEIR CASE INTO ADVANCE ARGUMENTS IN CLOSED SESSION THAT WE WILL NEVER HEAR. IN FACT, IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT WE ARE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ARGUMENTS FROM MYSELF ON BEHALF OF COUNSELING P ARGENTINE E AND ON BEHALF OF COUNCIL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE, NO DOUBT IN OPPOSITION TO THOSE IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT WHEN THIS BODY GOES INTO A CLOSED SESSION WHERE THE WHERE THE CAMERAS ARE NOT ON. THAT ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE THAT ARE NEVER RAISED IN OPEN SESSION THAT WE WOULD HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY THE COURTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
[00:15:01]
KENTUCKY HAVE AN UNMISTAKABLE LANGUAGE SAID THAT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE DECISION MAKERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES. BY INTERESTED PARTIES AND MAKE NO MISTAKE THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ARE INTERESTED MEMBERS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION MAKERS ON THE MERITS OF A MATTER OR IMPROPER AND OUR GROUNDS TO AVOID A DECISION BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY. BUT THAT IS THE DOOR THAT HAS BEEN OPENED BY THE DENIAL OF OUR MOTION, AND AS I MENTIONED IT, ALSO ON TOP OF THAT. IT MEANS THAT THERE IS A THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURAL DISADVANTAGE THAT COUNCILMAN ARGENTINA HAS ANY RELIEF THAT HE MIGHT RECEIVE FROM THE COUNCIL COURT. THERE ARE THERE ARE GOING TO BE AUTOMATICALLY SIX VOTES AGAINST THE MOTION TO DISMISS. THAT MEANS THAT IN ORDER FOR THE COUNCIL, THE CHARGING COMMITTEE TO PREVAIL, ALL IT HAS TO DO IS TO GET ANOTHER SEVEN VOTES OR ONE THIRD OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT, WHO HAVE NOT ALREADY JOINED THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. MEANWHILE, COUNSELING P ARGENTINE E WILL HAVE TO GET TWO THIRDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE TO PREVAIL ON EMOTION. NOW TO ME, THAT IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. AND I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY WHO, IF THEY WERE IN COUNCILMAN, P ARGENTINE EASE POSITION WOULD THINK THAT THAT IS A FAIR PROCESS. BUT THAT IS THE DECISION THAT THE CHAIR HAS MADE . BUT I WANT TO NOTE OUR OBJECTION FOR THE RECORD TO THAT RULING. THANK YOU, MR SMITH.YOUR OBJECTION IS NOTED, I DO JUST WANT TO CLARIFY MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMUTER OF THE COUNCIL COURT GENERALLY WILL NOT GET TO DECIDE ON EVERY MOTION THAT WAS FILED. THEY ONLY HAVE A VOTE ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS. WITH THAT ALTERNATIVE BACK OVER TO YOU. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN. SO AS THE CHAIR HAD MENTIONED, WE FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS AND JUST TO SET THE STAGE FOR THIS SO THAT THERE'S NO CONFUSION THE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS LEVIED A CHARGES AGAINST COUNSELING P ARGENTINA'S SEEKING HIS REMOVAL. SIX OF THOSE CHARGES PERTAIN TO, UH, ETHICAL CHARGES THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ETHICS COMMISSION. IT WENT A STEP FURTHER, THOUGH, AND IT ADDED TWO ADDITIONAL NEW CHARGES THAT ARE ACTUALLY ACCUSATIONS THAT COUNCILMAN ARGENTINE E UH, COMMITTED A CRIME. ONE COUNT SEVEN ACCUSES HIM OF HONEST SERVICES FRAUD. WHICH IS A CRIME UNDER THE UNDER THE UNITED STATES, UH, FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE. AND COUNT EIGHT ACCUSES HIM OF PERJURY IN THE FIRST DEGREE IN VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. WE HAVE FOLLOWED OUR MOTION TO DISMISS THOSE. THOSE TWO COUNTS, COUNTS SEVEN COUNTS EIGHT. AND IF YOU WANT TO BOIL IT DOWN. THE REASON THAT WE'VE DONE SO. IS BECAUSE IF THOSE CHARGES ARE ALLOWED TO STAND WHEN COUNSELING P ARGENTINE E HAS NEVER BEEN INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY OF ANY CRIMINAL OFFENSE, MUCH LESS CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW.
ALLOWING THOSE CHARGES TO STAND WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEY WOULD BE UNWISE. AND THEY WILL BE UNNECESSARY. THE FIRST TURN TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THEM. OUR ENTIRE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. IS PREMISED ON THE NOTION THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO ACCUSE AND INDIVIDUAL OF A CRIME THAT THAT MATTER NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED TO A COURT OF LAW. IN FACT, BOTH THINK THAT THE CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY. INCLUDES STRICT SEPARATION OF POWERS PROVISION THAT UH, PROVIDE THE ENTIRETY OF THE JUDICIAL POWER. TO THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. AND IT AND IN FACT, VEST EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. TO THE CIRCUIT COURT TO HEAR FELONIES. IN A SIMILAR FASHION.
A FEDERAL STATUTE 18 U. S. C. AH! 3231 PROVIDES THAT THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS HAVE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO TRY ANY CRIMINAL OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. SO WHAT THIS CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS DONE. BY ACCUSING COUNSELING P ARGENTINE E OF A TWO CRIMINAL OFFENSES. IS TO THE SAME TIME INVADE THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF THE JUDICIARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY. AND OF THE OF THE JUDICIARY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THAT IT CANNOT DO. UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND UNDER THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION SECTIONS 27 AND 28. IN FACT, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY HAVE SAID THAT HAS SAID THAT WHEN THERE HAS BEEN A CHARGE OF CRIMINAL OFFENSE, THE CIRCUIT COURT HAS THE EXCLUSIVE POWER TO PRESIDE OVER THAT CASE. BUT THAT IS DECIDEDLY NOT WHAT IS
[00:20:03]
HAPPENING HERE. AT LEAST IF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ALLOWS THESE COUNTS TO GO FORWARD. NOW I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS NOT AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEPARATION OF PARIS.ALTHOUGH I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT UH, VERY IMPORTANT PART. BUT THE REASON WHY THE CONSTITUTION AND TRUST THE JUDICIARY WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRESIDING OVER CRIMINAL MATTERS IS BECAUSE BOTH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE 5TH AND 6TH AMENDMENTS AND IN THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION SECTIONS 11 AND 12 FOR VERY SPECIFIC FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO A PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF A CRIME. AND THAT BEGINS WITH THE RIGHT TO HAVE THAT CRIMINAL CHARGE ISSUED BY A GRAND JURY. A GRAND JURY IS AN IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED AND INDEPENDENT ENTITY. THAT THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO ENSURE THAT CHARGES ARE NOT BEING BROUGHT ARBITRARILY OR FOR AN IMPROPER PERSON PURPOSE AND THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS CASE. INSTEAD, WE HAVE A COMMITTEE. THAT IS COMPRISED OF SIX INDIVIDUALS WHO APPOINTED THEMSELVES TO SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE AND TO UNILATERALLY ACCUSED COUNCILMAN P. ARGENTINE E OF TWO CRIMINAL OFFENSES. ONCE AN INDICTMENT IS HANDED DOWN. IT ACCUSES OF AFFORDED A NUMBER OF RIGHTS TO ENSURE THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT UNFAIRLY CONVICT THAT PERSON OF A CRIME. AND THAT BEGINS WITH THE RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY.
AS A JURY OF MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE UNBIASED AND IMPARTIAL AND WITH ALL RESPECT TO THIS COURT.
AND THE MEMBERS HERE. THAT ISN'T THIS BODY DOES NOT MEET THAT STANDARD OF CONSTITUTIONAL IMPARTIALITY. EVERY MEMBER WHO IS A MEMBER MEMBER OF THIS COURT KNOWS COUNCILMAN P ARGENTINA PERSONALLY HAS WORKED WITH HIM. SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF HIS OWN POLITICAL PARTY. SOME ARE MEMBERS OF THE OPPOSITE POLITICAL PARTY. SOME I'M SURE LIKE HIM. SOME MAY NOT LIKE HIM.
BUT THAT IS A THAT IS A FAR CRY FROM WHAT IS WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE AN IMPARTIAL JURY IN A COURT OF LAW, SO THAT RIGHT DOES NOT EXIST HERE. BOTH CONSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION REQUIRED GUILT TO BE PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THAT STANDARD OF PROOF DOES NOT APPLY HERE. INSTEAD, WE WILL BE APPLYING A MUCH LOWER STANDARD OF PROOF.
AND THEN FINALLY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION, BOTH UH, PROVIDE AND ACCUSE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY. AGAINST HIMSELF. AND PROVIDED THAT THE FACT THAT HE MAY INVOKE THAT RIGHT CANNOT BE USED AGAINST HIM. AND IT IS FAR FROM CLEAR THAT THAT PROTECTION WOULD APPLY HERE. SO WITH THE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS DONE REALLY IN ONE FELL SWOOP. IS TO TRY TO CONVERT THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS WHERE THERE AREN'T THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES AND WHERE THERE THIS IS A RELATIVELY INFORMAL PROCESS TO TRY TO FORCE COUNSELING PH IN TEENY TO DEFEND HIMSELF FROM ACCUSATIONS THAT HE COMMITTED A CRIME. AND IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO DO SO. IN FACT, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THIS FOR THIS COUNCIL TO DO SO. AND MAKING THAT ARGUMENT. I WANT OUR POSITION TO BE ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAL CLEAR. WE'RE NOT SAYING IS THAT THE COUNCIL COURT CANNOT REMOVE SOMEBODY WHO HAS COMMITTED A CRIME. IT CAN, BUT IT CAN ONLY DO SO AFTER THAT PERSON HAS BEEN DULY INDICTED BY A GRAND JURY AND EITHER TRIED TO A CONVICTION OR HAS ENTERED A PLEA DEAL BY WHICH THAT PERSON HAS HAS ADMITTED TO A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. OTHERWISE WE HAVE JUST TAKEN ALL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PREROGATIVES AND PROTECTIONS AFFORDED TO ACCUSE AND THROWING THEM OUT THE WINDOW. AND THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. SO AGAIN CHARGES SEVEN AND EIGHT SHOULD BE SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY'RE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BUT THEY'RE ALSO PROFOUNDLY UNWISE. F THE CHARGING OF THE COUNCIL COURT.
ALLOWS COUNTS SEVEN AND COUNT EIGHT. TO REMAIN. THEN WHAT IT WILL HAVE SAID IT WILL HAVE SET A PRECEDENT. AND THAT PRECEDENT WILL MEAN ANY FIVE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY. CAN FORM A COMMITTEE AND ACCUSE ANOTHER MEMBER OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND FORCED THAT PERSON TO HAVE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AND THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS WITHOUT AGAIN ANY OF THE PROTECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. THAT IS A RECIPE FOR INVITING PARTISANS TO ABUSE THAT PROCESS TO HARASS.
THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS. AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT WAS SET A VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. FOR THE METRO COUNCIL ITSELF. I THINK WE HAVE SEEN AT LEAST AT A NATIONAL LEVEL. HOW THE ABUSE OF PROCESS
[00:25:05]
CAN BE USED BY PARTISANS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THEIR OPPONENTS. ONE LOOK NO FURTHER THAN WHAT WE SEE HAPPENING ALMOST ON A YEARLY BASIS IN WASHINGTON, D C. WHERE THE PRESIDENT IS IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT BELONGS TO THE POLITICAL PARTY, THE OPPOSITE POLITICAL PARTY. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE ROAD THAT I THINK THAT THE PATH THIS BODY WOULD BE GOING DOWN IF IT ALLOWS SUCH A LOW THRESHOLD OF ACCUSATIONS OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR TO BE USED TO TRY TO SEEK THE REMOVAL. A MEMBER OF THIS BODY. AND I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL COURT. TO ASK YOURSELVES. IS THAT THE EXAMPLE THAT WE WANT TO FOLLOW? AND IF THE. IF THE QUESTIONS RAISED WELL, THAT SURELY COULDN'T HAPPEN HERE THAN WHAT I WOULD SAY IN RESPONSE IS THAT THERE IS ALREADY BEEN EVIDENCE. TESTIMONY AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING. THAT POLITICAL PRESSURE WAS APPLIED TO TRY TO GET SOMEONE TO FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNCILMAN P.ARGENTINE E AND IT WAS DONE EXPRESSLY ON THE BASIS BY APPEAL TO THEIR POLITICAL PARTY. QUOTE YOU'RE NOT A DEMOCRAT IF YOU DON'T FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST COUNSELING PIACENTINI ALLOWING THESE CHARGES TO GO FORWARD WOULD OPEN A PANDORA'S BOX THAT I DON'T BELIEVE WOULD SERVE THIS INSTITUTION WELL IN THE LONG RUN AND MAY VERY WELL COME BACK TO HAUNT IT IN THE LONG RUN. SO IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT'S UNWISE. IT'S ALSO UNNECESSARY AS I MENTIONED EARLIER COUNCILMAN P. ARGENTINA ALREADY FACES SIX CHARGES THAT ARE GROUNDED IN THE ETHICS CODE. AND WE'VE HEARD FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT THESE THESE WERE THE CHARGES THAT THE BIPARTISAN MEMBERS OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY FOUND THAT HE VIOLATED THE ETHICS CODE. WELL THE QUESTION I HAVE IS IF THE CASE AGAINST COUNCILMAN P.
ARGENTINA IS THAT STRONG IF IT'S THAT OPEN AND CLOSED. THEN WHY DOES THE CHARGING COMMITTEE NEED TO GILD THE LILY? WITH TWO CRIMINAL CHARGES. IF THE CASE IS THAT STRONG, GO AHEAD WITH THE SIX CHARGES PROVE IT. I SUBMIT TO THE TO THIS BODY. THAT. ADDING THESE TWO CHARGES WILL DO NOTHING BUT TO PROLONG THESE MATTERS AND WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME. SO AS I WRAP UP MY OPENING OPENING COMMENTS, MR CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT. I JUST INVITE YOU TO PUT YOURSELF IN COUNSELING ARGENTINA'S SHOES. IS THIS A PROCESS THAT YOU THINK IS FAIR THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO BE APPLIED TO YOU IF YOU ARE FACING CHARGES. WOULD YOU WANT TO FACE CHARGES? THAT ARE CRIMINAL IN NATURE WHEN YOU'VE NEVER BEEN INDICTED. FOR A CRIME, MUCH LESS CONVICT BEFORE A COURT OF LAW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR SMITH. MR WICKER. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT WINKLER. LET ME START BY GIVING US ALL A REMINDER OF WHY WE ARE HERE. ON FEBRUARY 15TH OF LAST YEAR, A STORY CAME OUT IN THE MEDIA. AT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENTERED A $240,000 CONSULTING CONTRACT.
WITH LOUISVILLE HEALTHCARE CEO COALITION RIGHT AFTER THIS COUNCIL HAD APPROVED A $40 MILLION GRANT THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN ADVOCATING FOR MOST OF WHICH WENT TO THE CEO COUNCIL. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THIS COUNCIL PASSED AN EMERGENCY RESOLUTION CALLING ON THE ETHICS COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE. THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUOTE AS THOROUGHLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. EVENTUALLY, A COMPLAINT WAS MADE TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, AND IT CONDUCTED A HEARING. UNDER THE ETHICS. ORDINANCE THAT YOU PASSED. THE ETHICS COMMISSION IS A BIPARTISAN GROUP CHOSEN AS A STATUTE SAYS, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR KNOWN AND CONSISTENT REPUTATION FOR INTEGRITY AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS. THEY'RE ALSO ALL REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. HEARING WAS HELD BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSIONER HEARING THAT LASTED OVER FOUR DAYS. THE RESPONDENT WAS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL THE SAME COUNCIL REPRESENTING HIM HERE. AND HIS COUNCIL WAS PERMITTED TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT CLOSING ARGUMENT TO CROSS EXAMINE WITNESSES TO INTRODUCE EXHIBITS AND TO PRESENT HIS OWN WITNESSES. AFTER THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS. BOTH SIDES FILED BRIEFS AND THE TOTAL BRIEFING ON VARIOUS MATTERS BEFORE AND AFTER THE HEARING AMOUNTED TO HUNDREDS OF PAGES. THEN, AFTER THE
[00:30:03]
BRIEFING WAS COMPLETE, THE ETHICS COMMISSION ISSUED A 53 PAGE OPINION. THE UNANIMOUS OPINION. CONSISTING OF 120 PARAGRAPHS OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. IT WROTE UNANIMOUSLY. THAT QUOTE THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE RESPONDENT TOOK ADVANTAGE OF A PERILOUS MOMENT IN GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS IN GOVERNMENT FINANCE AND DID SO WITH THE INTENT TO PERSONALLY ENRICHED HIMSELF. IT WROTE UNANIMOUSLY THAT IT QUOTE STRONGLY RECOMMENDS. THAT THE COUNCIL TAKE THE SWISS THIS ACTION CONSISTENT WITH ITS EXISTING PROCEDURES AND KRS 67 C 1 TO 43 TO REMOVE THE RESPONDENT FROM HIS OFFICE. SO THAT'S WHAT HAS BROUGHT US HERE. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IS GOVERNMENT. BY A STATUTE LAW PASSED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, WHICH IS ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU NOW IT'S KRS 67.1 40 67 C 143. AND THAT'S THE LAW THAT CREATES THE PROCESS FOR REMOVING A MEMBER OF COUNCIL. AND WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE COUNCIL MAY REMOVE A MEMBER FOR QUOTE, MISCONDUCT, INCAPACITY OR WILLFUL NEGLECT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES.SO THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT MISCONDUCT MEANS. WELL, YOU DO. ALL OF YOU TO THAT'S WHAT, YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE ON AFTER THE EVIDENCE IS PREVENTED. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE STATUTE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T REMOVE A MEMBER IF THE MISCONDUCT ALSO HAPPENS TO BE CRIMINAL? NO. THAT WOULD BE ABSURD. BECAUSE THE MORE SERIOUS THAN MISCONDUCT IS THE MORE YOU WANT TO REMOVE. A COUNCILMAN WHO COMMITTED THAT. AND WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO REMOVE THE ABILITY OF THE COUNCIL TO REMOVE A MEMBER FOR SERIOUS MISCONDUCT. AND HERE'S THE IMPORTANT QUESTION. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE STATUTE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL A MEMBER IS CHARGED AND CONVICTED CRIMINALLY BEFORE YOU CAN REMOVE HIM? NO NOTHING AT ALL IN THE STATUTE THAT LIMITS YOUR ABILITY OR PRIVILEGE, YOUR POWER AND THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE A MEMBER WHO IS COMMITTED. MISCONDUCT THAT ALSO HAPPENS TO BE CRIMINAL. MAKES SENSE. BUT SAY, SAY, I'M A MEMBER OF COUNCIL AND I STEAL A MILLION DOLLARS FROM METRO GOVERNMENT BECAUSE I'M FEELING BAD ABOUT IT. I CONFESS HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COUNCIL MEETING AND SAUL CAPTURED ON METRO TV. OKAY? YEAH DO YOU HAVE TO WAIT 23 YEARS UNTIL I'M CHARGED, TRIED CONVICTED AND THE APPEALS RUN. NO. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT. YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS STATUTE, WHICH GIVES YOU THE AUTHORITY TO HOLD A HEARING AND REMOVE A MEMBER AFTER HEARING ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU DECIDE HAS COMMITTED MISCONDUCT. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE THAT LIMITS YOUR ABILITY. IN THAT WAY. THERE'S SOME PARALLEL TO IN THIS CASE TO IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT YOU'VE SEEN, UM IN WASHINGTON AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. PRESIDENT CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. BUT HE WASN'T TRIED CRIMINALLY FOR HE WAS NEVER CHARGED CRIMINALLY FOR IT, BUT HE WAS IMPEACHED FOR IT. PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS IMPEACHED FOR UH, EXTORTING THE GOVERNMENT OF UKRAINE AND FOR MISCONDUCT RELATED TO JANUARY 6TH, BUT HE HADN'T BEEN CHARGED FOR IT, AND HE CERTAINLY HADN'T BEEN CONVICTED OF IT. BUT THE SENATE STILL HAD THE AUTHORITY TO IMPEACH HIM FOR IT IF THEY DECIDED THAT HE COMMITTED THOSE OFFENSES. IT'S THE SAME WAY HERE IF YOU DECIDE AFTER HEARING ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT MISCONDUCT HAS BEEN COMMITTED. THAT WHAT YOU HEAR IS MISCONDUCT. THEN YOU CAN REMOVE THE RESPONDENT FOR COMMITTING THAT MISCONDUCT AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AT ALL. SO. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CHARGES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR IN THIS CASE. THERE'S A SUMMARY OF THEM ON THE BOARD, NOW SIX OF THEM THE FIRST SIX COME OUT OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING THEIR VIOLATIONS OF THE ETHICS CODE. TWO OF THEM ARE NEW, AND THEY'RE THE ONLY SUCK COUNTS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS MOTION TO THIS MESS. SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR DECISION IS ON THE MOTION. WE'RE GOING TO
[00:35:03]
HAVE A HEARING ON THE REMAINING CHARGES. ONE OF THE NEW COUNTS HIS PERJURY AND YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE. THAT THE RESPONDENT MADE FALSE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH AT THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING. CERTAINLY THE ETHICS COMMISSION COULDN'T BRING THAT CHARGE. IT'S NOT WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION, AND IT HADN'T HAPPENED AT THE TIME THAT THEY BROUGHT THEIR CHARGES. SO. THAT IS NEW, AND IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE OTHER CHARGES FRAUD BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE HIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST TO HIS CONSTITUENTS AND HIS FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS. ARE THOSE TWO COUNTS CRIMES. WELL, THEY MIGHT BE. BUT THE QUESTION FOR YOU IS, ARE THEY MISCONDUCT? BECAUSE MISCONDUCT. IS THE ONLY QUESTION THAT IS HERE FOR YOU TO DECIDE. YEAH, THAT'S THE RESPONDING GET THE USUAL PROTECTIONS OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL LIKE TRIAL BY JURY OR CHARGED BY GRAND JURY. NO BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL. YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY. TO IMPRISON HIM OR LEVY A FINE. IF IT WERE A CRIMINAL COURT, HE WOULD GET THOSE PROTECTIONS. BUT THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL COURT. THIS IS A REMOVAL PROCEEDING GOVERNED BY A STATE LAW. THAT STATUTE GIVES YOU THE POWER TO REMOVE A MEMBER WHO COMMITS MISCONDUCT AND IT DOESN'T IMPOSE ANY OF THE LIMITS. THAT THE RESPONDENT WANTS TO PUT ON YOUR AUTHORITY HERE. AND NOTHING THAT YOU WOULD DO HERE WOULD EVER BE ADMISSIBLE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING OR HAVE ANY IMPACT ON WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN THERE. NOW YOU HEARD AN ARGUMENT ABOUT OPENING PANDORA'S BOX. IF WE DO THIS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL SORTS OF REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS HAPPY TO BE HERE. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS TO BE DOING THIS. I KNOW THE CHARGING COMMITTEE DOESN'T WANT TO BE HERE AND I DON'T WANT TO BE HERE EITHER, BUT WE HAVE TO BECAUSE WE HAVE A DUTY. TO RESPOND TO WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING. AND WE KNOW FROM OUR HISTORY. WE'VE NOT BEEN OVERRUN WITH REMOVAL PROCEEDS. LAST ONE WAS 10 YEARS AGO. AND I SUSPECT THAT IT WOULD BE ANOTHER 10 BEFORE WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE. SO THERE'S NO CONCERN. ABOUT. JUST BEING OVERRUN WITH REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU DECIDE THAT BURGLARY AND FRAUD. MIGHT HAPPEN TO BE MISCONDUCT. BUT YOU NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHAT IS MISCONDUCT AFTER YOU HAVE HEARD THE EVIDENCE. THE STATUTE AND THE REMOVAL RULES. GIVE THE RESPONDENT THE RIGHT TO A HEARING. BUT IT ALSO GIVES THAT RIGHT TO THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. THEY ALSO HAVE A RIGHT FOR YOU TO HEAR AND CONSIDER THEIR EVIDENCE AND DECIDE IF MISCONDUCT HAS BEEN COMMITTED. YOU'RE ENTITLED TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU DECIDE WHAT IS MISCONDUCT AND WHAT IS NOT. WHERE WE ARE NOW WE'RE ARGUING A MOTION TO DISMISS A MOTION UNDER THE LAW. AND UNDER KENTUCKY LAW, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE IS ANY SET OF FACTS. ANY SET OF FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE CHARGES. IF YOU CAN IMAGINE ANY SET OF FACTS THAT WOULD MAKE PERJURY EQUATE TO MISCONDUCT. THEN YOU HAVE TO DENY THE MOTION . IF YOU CAN IMAGINE ANY SET OF FACTS. THAT WOULD MAKE FRAUD EQUATE TO MISCONDUCT. THEN YOU HAVE TO DENY THE MOTION. IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE DECIDING TO REMOVE HIM. THAT QUESTION IS NOT GOING TO BE DECIDED TODAY, HOWEVER YOU VOTE ON THIS MOTION. YOU'RE NOT DECIDING HOW YOU'RE GONNA ULTIMATELY VOTE ON THE ULTIMATE QUESTION AFTER THE HEARING. AT THE HEARING WILL PUT ON WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS. THE RESPONDENT WILL PUT OUR WITNESSES EXHIBITS. WE'LL HAVE ARGUMENT AND THEN YOU'LL MAKE YOUR DECISION. NOT NOW. AND YOU CAN MAKE A BETTER DECISION, A MORE REASONED DECISION. AFTER YOU HAVE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE. SO WE ASK YOU TO DENY THE MOTION. AND FULLY CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE. BEFORE VOTING ON THE REMOVED CHARGES. THANK YOU.THANK YOU, MR WICKER. MR. SMITH, DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE? YES, MR CHAIRMAN. THE PURPOSE OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS. IS TO REMOVE THE CHARGES THAT OR NOT LAWFULLY TO BE HEARD BY THE COUNCIL COURT. THAT'S THE ARGUMENTS ARE PRIMARY OR FIRST ARGUMENT. THAT IS A MATTER OF LAW. THESE
[00:40:02]
CHARGES CANNOT BE HEARD BY THE COUNCIL COURT. IF THE COUNCIL COURT CANNOT HEAR THESE ISSUES AS A MATTER OF LAW, THEN IT MAKES NO POINT THAT SERVES NO PURPOSE TO GO THROUGH THE GO THROUGH THE, UH THE TASK OF GOING TO A HEARING AND THEN JUST DECIDING THAT ON THE ON THE TAIL END THAT GETS A COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. THAT'S WHY WE FILE MOTIONS TO DISMISS TO TRY TO NARROW THE ISSUES AS TO WHAT WHAT COUNTS. WHAT CHARGES THE COUNCIL COURT CAN ACTUALLY HERE.NOW MR WICKER HAS HAS PRESENTED THE TEXT OF THE AUTHORIZING STATUTE. CARESS 67 C 143 AND HE'S RIGHT. THERE'S NOTHING ON THE FACE OF THAT STATUTE THAT SAYS THAT UH, YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR A CONVICTION BEFORE YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD TO REMOVE SOMEONE FOR MISCONDUCT. AND THERE'S A GOOD REASON FOR THAT. WHY? IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THE STATUTE DOESN'T HAVE TO SAY IT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION. A STATUTE CANNOT OVERRIDE WHAT IS A CLEAR MANDATE OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE STATUTE NEED NOT SAY THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY THERE IN THE FOUNDATIONAL GOVERNING DOCUMENT. MR WICKER ALSO. UH ALSO COMPARED THIS TO IMPEACHMENT AND RAISED UP AND RAISED THE BILL CLINTON IMPEACHMENT AND THE DONALD TRUMP. IMPEACHMENT. WELL. IN MY VIEW, THAT ONLY REINFORCES THE ARGUMENT THAT THAT THAT I MADE IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, WHICH IS DOES ANYONE THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA BETTER PLACE NOW TODAY? WITH THOSE PRECEDENTS. WHERE IT IS NOW BECOME A TICK FOR TAT POLITICALLY TO USE THE IMPEACHMENT POWER. I WOULD SUBMIT. THE ANSWER IS NO. BUT EVEN MORE FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT MR WICKERS ARGUMENT OVERLOOKS IS THAT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. TO IMPEACH A PRESIDENT. THIS BODY DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. IT IS ONLY BY STATUTE. THAT THIS BODY MAY REMOVE A MEMBER. AND THAT STATUTE, AS I SAID, CANNOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMANDS THAT REQUIRE CRIMINAL CASES TO BE HEARD IN A COURT OF LAW AND A PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED TO BE AFFORDED ALL OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE CHARGING COMMITTEES CHARGING COMMITTEE POINTS TO THE FACT THAT THIS UH, COUNCIL COURT CANNOT IMPRISON COUNSELING P ARGENTINA AND CANNOT IMPOSE A FINE AND THAT IS IN FACT TRUE. BUT THAT MISSES THE POINT ENTIRELY. THE CONDUCT THAT IT IS ACCUSING HIM OF HIS CRIMINAL IN NATURE. IF THE CHARGING COMMITTEES GETS THEIR WAY, IF IT'S IF IT HAS ITS PREFERENCE. THEN WHAT WILL HAVE BECOME OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES TO AN ACCUSED WHAT IS TO PREVENT ANY GOVERNMENT FROM ESTABLISHING AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY. THAT CAN HEAR CRIMINAL CHARGES AND NOT PUT ANYBODY IN PRISON OR IMPOSE A FINE BUT JUST BRAND HIM A CRIMINAL. IF THAT THAT WOULD BE AN ABSURD RESULT. WE'RE ON THE ONE HAND OUR MOST SOLEMN GOVERNING DOCUMENT SAYS. DO SAYS THESE RIGHTS. ARE SO IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE GOING TO.
WE'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN OUR FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT. BUT THEN ANY GOVERNMENT CAN COME ALONG AND CREATE A STAR CHAMBER AND ACCUSE SOMEONE OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND THEY WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS. IN THAT PROCESS. TO ME, THAT IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ABSURD POSITION TO TAKE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR SMITH. MR WICKER. ANY RESPONSE? JUST TWO SMALL POINTS. MR PRESIDENT. I'M GLAD WE AGREE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE THAT LIMITS THE AUTHORITY OF THIS BODY TO HEAR AND DECIDE. MATTERS WHICH MATTERS ARE MISCONDUCT. EVEN IF THE MISCONDUCT HAPPENS TO BE CRIMINAL. THAT'S MY POINT ENTIRELY. SECOND POINT. ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES. HERE.
EVIDENCE MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT CRIMINAL CONDUCT EVERY DAY. I'M A LAWYER. IF I STEAL FROM MY CLIENT THERE WILL BE CHARGES IN THE BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE BAR ASSOCIATION WILL MAKE A DECISION AND REMOVED MY ABILITY TO PRACTICE LAW. EVEN IF THAT'S A CRIME. THEY DON'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THERE'S A CHARGE OR CONVICTION. THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY CAN IMPOSE THE STEP THE PENALTY THAT THEIR STATUTES ALLOW IF I OWN A LIQUOR STORE, AND I STILL TO A TO AN UNDERAGE
[00:45:01]
PERSON WHERE I DON'T DO THE OTHER THINGS THAT LIQUOR STORE OWNERS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO THAT MAYBE A CRIME. BUT I CAN GET MY LICENSE TO SERVE LIQUOR. REVOKED WITHOUT HAVING A CONVICTION. UM.TAKING PLACE BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION. SO THE QUESTION IS. IS THIS MISCONDUCT? IF IT IS, THEN IT'S WITHIN YOUR AUTHORITY TO HEAR IT AND DECIDED AND THAT'S WHAT I ASKED YOU TO DO. THANK YOU, MR WICKER. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COURT COLLEAGUES? YOU CAN USE YOUR Q AND Q N WITH ANY QUESTIONS. I HAVE A QUESTION, SO I WILL START. UM. MY QUESTION IS TO MR SMITH. UH MR SMITH IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT WE COULD NOT BRING CHARGES UNTIL THERE IS A CORRECT ON ANY CRIMINAL MATTER UNTIL IT HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED AND THE DEFENDANT FOUND GUILTY.
THAT IS CORRECT. HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR A LOWER BAR FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING? UH VERSUS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT VERSUS THE HONORS OF EVIDENCE, SO YOU WOULD PRECLUDE ANY CHARGES BEING BROUGHT BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY. UM, IF IT FAILS TO MEET THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD EVEN IF IT MEETS THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE STANDARD. I'M SORRY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. SO THE BURDEN IN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING IS LOWER THAN A CRIMINAL HEARING. CORRECT CORRECT. SO YOU COULD MEET THE ADMINISTRATIVE THRESHOLD AND NOT MEET THE CRIMINAL THRESHOLD. CORRECT. BY DEFINITION, CORRECT, OKAY? BUT YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT YOU COULD NOT PURSUE CHARGES IN THAT MANNER IF THEY DIDN'T RISE TO THE HIGHER STANDARD. IF YOU SAID YOU CANNOT BRING CHARGES THAT WEREN'T ADJUDICATED AND FOUND GUILTY IN A CRIMINAL COURT CAN'T BRING CHARGES THAT SOMEONE HAS COMMITTED A CRIME, WHICH IS WHAT THE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS DONE.
THEY'VE CITED SPECIFIC CRIMINAL OFFENSES. BUT THAT WILL FORM THE ELEMENTS AS TO WHETHER IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO PROCEED AS TO WHETHER, UH WHETHER COUNSELING ARGENTINA COULD BE FOUND GUILTY OF THOSE OF THOSE CHARGES. IT WOULD DO SO IN THIS TRIBUNAL. UNDER THAT LOWER BURDEN OF PROOF. AND WE THINK THAT'S IMPROPER. THANK YOU. SO I'LL TURN MY QUESTION TOO. COUNCIL.
WICKER, UM. MR SMITH MADE THE POINT THAT, UM. ACCUSED WOULD BE BASICALLY DENIED SOME OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BECAUSE ANYBODY COULD BRING ANYBODY, NOT ANYBODY. ANYBODY COULD BRING A CRIMINAL CHARGE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST. YOU SAID THAT NONE OF THE TESTIMONY NONE OF THAT HEARING WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE IN COURT. WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THAT ARGUMENT? UNDER RULE 401 AND THE RULE 403 OF THE FEDERAL RULES IN THE KENTUCKY RULES OF EVIDENCE. ONLY RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED TO BE INTRODUCED. AND EVIDENCE THAT IS UNDULY PREJUDICIAL IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE INTRODUCED. AND I'VE HAD MANY CASES IN WHICH PEOPLE SOUGHT TO BRING IN THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY OR SOME OTHER OR A CIVIL CASE. THOSE ARE ALWAYS EXCLUDED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER TO A CRIMINAL JURY WHAT SOME OTHER BODY DECIDED THAT'S THAT'S NOT. SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULD CONCERN THEMSELVES ABOUT. SO IT IS ALWAYS EXCLUDED, AND THERE WOULD BE NO CRIMINAL CASE IN WHICH THE DECISION OF THIS COUNCIL COURT WOULD BE PERMITTED TO BE PUT IN EVIDENCE. SO IT AGREED THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT MIGHT NOT BE PUT INTO EVIDENCE. BUT COULD THE RESPONDENTS TESTIMONY IN HIS DEFENSE BE PUT INTO EVIDENCE? A PARTY OPPONENTS TESTIMONY. IS IT MISS HERBAL UNDER THE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, SO IF THE RESPONDENT GAVE A STATEMENT ON THE RADIO. OR TO AN INVESTIGATOR. OR IN AN ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING. THOSE WOULD BE ALL BE ADMISSIBLE IN SOME OTHER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. IN THE SAME WAY WITH HIS TESTIMONY HERE, BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF ANY OF THE TRAPPINGS RELATED TO THIS PROCEEDING. IT'S JUST BECAUSE THE STATEMENT OF A PARTY OPPONENT IS ADMISSIBLE IN THE TRIAL. SO CARRYING THAT ARGUMENT FORWARD IF AN INDIVIDUAL WERE
[00:50:03]
ACCUSED BY FIVE MEMBERS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, UH IF I CARRY ARGUMENT FORWARD, THEY EITHER CAN CHOOSE TO SAY NOTHING SO THAT IT'S NOT ADMISSIBLE IF THEY DO IF THEY ARE CRIMINAL CHARGES EVENTUALLY BROUGHT OR THEY CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES, BUT IF THEY DO, THEY RISK WAIVING THEIR RIGHTS TO SELF INCRIMINATION OR THAT TESTIMONY BEING BROUGHT INTO A EVENTUAL CRIMINAL TRIAL. IS THAT CORRECT? A AND ACCUSED OR RESPONDENT ALWAYS HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO SPEAK. SO HE CAN ASSERT HIS FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN THIS PROCEEDING COULD HAVE DONE THAT IN THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING. DIDN'T HAVE TO SPEAK TO THE MEDIA DIDN'T HAVE TO SPEAK TO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE ALWAYS HAS THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT NOT TO SPEAK. BUT IF HE DOES, YES, THANK EVIDENCE CAN BE USED IN WHATEVER OTHER FORUM UM, THAT CAME LATER. CRIMINAL OR CIVIL? THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN HAWKINS. UM. IT'S A SIMILAR QUESTION TO PRESIDENT WINKLER, BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SIMPLIFIED. UM YES, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO VOTE OR REMOVE A MEMBER. UM. BUT, YOU KNOW. THE ETHNICS DIDN'T HAVE THE JURISDICTION.HAMEL IS IT THAT WE HAVE THE JURISDICTION? THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION IS THIS NOT OUTLAYS THOUGHT, AND I AM NEW TO METRO COUNCIL, BUT I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT HE WAS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. NEVER SEEN CHARGES BEING BROUGHT ON SOMEONE. EDIT CHARGES OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE, UH ETHNICS HEAD JURISDICTION TO PLAY SOME SOMEONE IS THAT IS THAT THAT'S MY CONCERN. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. SO I NEED YOU TO SIMPLIFY THAT FOR ME. JUST HOW THAT GLOW SO, UM, YOU HAVE FIVE MEMBERS THAT CAN ADD EXTRA CHARGES. OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE ETHNIC HAD THE JURISDICTION TO DO. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? YES MA'AM. SO THE ETHICS COMMISSION IS CREATED BY BY THE ORDINANCE THAT THE COUNCIL CREATED AND IT HAS JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER VIOLATIONS OF THE ETHICS CODE. BUT YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT AUTHORITY. AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL COURT. YOU'RE NOT RESTRICTED TO JUST THOSE THINGS THAT ARE ETHICAL VIOLATIONS, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER ANY MISCONDUCT. AND THAT'S THAT'S YOUR JURISDICTION. YOUR JURISDICTION IS MORE EXPANSIVE THAN THAN THE ETHICS COMMISSION. UM AND THEN TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT IS HE CONSIDERED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? ABSOLUTELY. IT'S OUR BURDEN. TO PROVE THE CHARGES. SO WE HAVE TO PROVE THIS. NOT IN A CRIMINAL COURT. IT'S NOT BY A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT IT'S BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS OUR BURDEN. AND HE COMES IN HERE WITH A CLEAN SLATE AND YOU AS THE IS THE MEMBER OF THE COURT WILL DECIDE WHETHER WE'VE MET OUR BURDEN AT THE END. IF I MAY JUST ADDRESS THAT VERY QUICKLY, UM THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SAY IN ADDITION TO THAT IS THAT, UH, OF COURSE, THE ETHICS COMMISSION HAD NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR CRIMINAL CASE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS OF ANY NATURE. UH BUT EVEN IF THIS THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL COURT IS LARGER THAN THE ETHICS COMMISSION, IT STILL HAS TO OPERATE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT ON WHAT CAN BE DONE. THAT WOULD APPLY BOTH TO THE COUNCIL COURT AND TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION. SO AND THAT IS THAT IS THOSE ARE THE PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVE RELIED UPON IN SEEKING TO DISMISS COUNT SEVEN AND EIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR ARTHUR. I WOULD DRAW IT WAS JUST ANSWERED. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR MCRANEY. YES THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT. I JUST HAVE A CLARIFICATION QUESTION. IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CHARGING COMMUNITY IS NOT BRINGING CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST COUNCILMAN P. ARGENTINE E. BUT INSTEAD IT IS SIMPLY STATING THAT THE CHARGES FILED ARE CONSIDERED MISCONDUCT. YES THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE THERE IS NO CRIMINAL AUTHORITY IN THIS BODY. THERE IS NO PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY IN THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. THE ONLY QUESTION IS, ARE THE ACTS WHICH WILL BE PROVEN MISCONDUCT. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE CRIMINAL. THE ONLY QUESTION HERE IS ARE THEY MISCONDUCT? IF I MAY RESPOND TO THAT MR CHAIRMAN IN THAT IS JUST SLEIGHT OF HAND. HE'S ACTUALLY
[00:55:06]
BEEN ACCUSED IN THE CHARGING DOCUMENT ITSELF OF VIOLATING SPECIFIC CRIMINAL CODES. THAT IS, IN EFFECT. HE HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF COMMITTING A CRIMINAL OFFENSE AND IT'S JUST THAT THEY ARE USING OR TRYING TO USE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO PROVE GUILT. AND THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN ROOM. THANK YOU, COUNCIL WICKER. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION. ALSO. UM, SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. PLEASE HELP ME OUT THAT THE PERJURY WAS ACTUALLY COMMITTED DURING THE ETHICS HEARING SO THEY COULD NOT HAVE FILED CHARGES AGAINST HIM AT THAT POINT, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WILL HEAR IS THAT THE RESPONDENT LIED IN THE IN THE ETHICS COMMISSION HEARING , SO THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BODY TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE WHETHER THAT'S MISCONDUCT AND THEY CERTAINLY COULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT IT BEFORE IT HAPPENED. ANY RESPONSE, MR SMITH. NO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD ON THAT POINT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, JUST TO POINT OUT IN SORT OF IN LINE WITH MY OBJECTION. WE'VE NOW HAD TWO QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN BEEN ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN QUESTIONING AND THAT IS CERTAINLY, UM. THAT IS CERTAINLY THE REASON WHY WE OBJECTED. COUNCILMAN FLOOD. THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT. MY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. UM SO AFTER WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF MS MARTIN FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YES I SEE YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD, OKAY? YES I'M HOLDING MY QUESTIONS TO TALK TO OUR ATTORNEY. THANK YOU.COUNCILOR BOCIAN. THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. UKRAINE JURY EXCUSE ME. FOR GRAND JURIES COMPARABLE TO A CHARGING COMMITTEE. SORRY JUST AS A FOLLOW UP IS THE GREAT IS A GRAND JURY COMPARABLE TO A CHARGING COMMITTEE. IS THAT MISS MARTIN? WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? OR MAYBE YOU CAN I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO BE HEARD ON THAT QUESTION, MR CHAIRMAN. COUNCIL OF FASHION. NO THE CHARGING COMMITTEE IS NOT COMPARABLE TO A GRAND JURY. UM, AS I MENTIONED IN MY OPENING REMARKS BY LAW, A GRAND JURY IS SWORN TO BE IMPARTIAL AND UNBIASED AND TWO INTO APPROVED CHARGES THAT ARE WARRANTED BY LAW AND EVIDENCE. AND THE GRAND JURY BY LAW. IS AN ENTITY SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE PROSECUTION. ALL OF THOSE THINGS DO NOT EXIST HERE. MR WICKER. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THEY'RE SIMILAR ONLY IN THAT THROUGH THE START OF THE PROCESS. THERE HAS TO BE SOMEONE OR SOME INSTITUTION THAT MAKES THE DECISION TO BRING CHARGES AND IN A CRIMINAL CASE. BECAUSE YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IMPRISONMENT. AND THE OTHER EFFECTS OF A CRIMINAL CONVICTION. THAT'S A GRAND JURY. IN THIS PROCESS. I STATE LAW. THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. IS THE ONE WHO DECIDES WHETHER CHARGES SHOULD BE BROUGHT SO WHENEVER FIVE MEMBERS DECIDED MISCONDUCT HAS OCCURRED. THEY START THE PROCESS . SO THAT'S THE STARTING PROCESS IN THIS REMOVAL PROCEEDING.
OKAY? COUNCILMAN FOWLER. WONDERFUL I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. SORRY COUNCILMAN. APOLOGIES SO.
THEN IF A GRAND JURY MEMBERS SO THEN A GRAND JURY MEMBER COULD BE PERMITTED TO SIT ON A TRIAL JURY IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN A CRIMINAL CASE. THANK YOU.
COUNCILMAN FOWLER. THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT. SO THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME QUESTION ABOUT STATE LAWS.
67 C WHEN, UM. THE LAW WAS CHANGED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO TO ALLOW CHARGING COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO SET AS JURORS IN A REMOVAL PROCEEDING. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT I HAVE MISSED? BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS CLEAR UNDER STATE LAW. COUNCIL I'LL ANSWER THAT QUESTION THAT WAS ADDRESSED IN THE ORDER THAT I ISSUED TODAY. SO STATE LAW WAS CHANGED. COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE ARE FULL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT, AS SUCH ARE GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF THE COUNCIL COURT. AND THAT HAS BEEN SETTLED. WE'VE NOTED THE OBJECTION FROM COUNSEL, BUT THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN DECIDED. BUT I KEEP HEARING THAT WE SH AS CHARGING MEMBERS SHOULD NOT BE THAT WE'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG, BAD
[01:00:05]
QUESTIONING, OR, YOU KNOW PROFITING A QUESTION. I THINK THE DEFENSE HAS THE RIGHT TO NOTE THE OBJECTION, BUT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN THANK YOU. COUNCIL ARENA. WEBER THANK YOU, MR SMITH. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF YOUR OBJECTION. WHAT I HEAR YOU TO BE SAYING, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE THAT YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT THE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONVINCED OF COUNCILMAN THE ARGENTINIANS AND GUILT AS OPPOSED TO BEING CONVINCED THAT THE CHARGES SHOULD BE HEARD. IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE COMPLAINT. ALL SIX MEMBERS OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAVE NOT ONLY SIGN THEIR NAMES TO THE CHARGES AGAINST COUNCIL IN ARGENTINA. THEY IN FACT REQUESTED THE METRO COUNCIL COURT REMOVED COUNSELING P ARGENTINE E FROM THIS BODY, SO YES, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE. THEY HAVE ALREADY DETERMINED THAT HE SHOULD BE REMOVED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M SAYING THAT SO YOU YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT THAT THAT IS, IN FACT, BY PARTICIPATING IN THE CHARGING COMMITTEE THEY ARE, IN FACT, HAVE ALREADY DECIDED HIS GUILT. THAT IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU'RE MAKING. THAT'S THAT'S NOT EXACTLY MY POINT. I THINK I'M NOT SURE THAT I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I'M I'M NOT SURE THAT I FOLLOW THAT SIMPLY BY BEING A MEMBER OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY HAD REACHED A DECISION AS TO GUILT. BUT WHEN ALL SIX OF THEM SIGNED THE COMPLAINT AFTER WHICH THEY SAID WE REQUEST THE LOCAL METRO COUNCIL CONVENED A HEARING AT ITS EARLY EARLIEST CONVENIENCE ON THE PROCEEDING CHARGES THAT ANSWER COUNCILMAN ANTHONY P. ARGENTINA INTENTIONALLY VIOLATED SECTIONS 21 21 02 A 21 0 TO BE 21 0 TO SEE IN 21 03 F OF THE ETHICS CODE AND COMMITTED OTHER ACTS OF MISCONDUCT OR WILLFUL NEGLECT AND THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE. SO THAT THE COUNCIL MAY REMOVE HIM FROM OFFICE PURSUANT TO KRS 67 C 1 43 1 THAT TO ME TELLS ME THAT THEY HAVE MADE A DECISION ON THE ULTIMATE QUESTION. SO THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE HEARING IS THE ELEMENT THAT YOU'RE THAT YOU'RE SAYING THEN SAYS, OKAY, THEY HAVE MADE THIS DECISION ALREADY.THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING. IS THAT CORRECT THE FACT THE FACT THAT THEY SIGNED THE COMPLAINT COUNTS. SORRY YEAH, IT'S NOT GERMANE TO THE QUESTION BEFORE US. OKAY THE ONLY QUESTION WE ARE DECIDING ON IS WHETHER TO DISMISS THESE TWO CHARGES. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNSELOR TIME? HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEYS. UM, IS THERE AN APPEALS PROCESS TO THIS PROCEDURE? YES. UM THERE IS AN APPEAL TO CIRCUIT COURT. UM THAT RESPONDENT MAY TAKE IF HE IS REMOVED. SO THE CIRCUIT COURT WOULD BE INVOLVED. IF THERE WAS AN APPEALS PROCESS. A CIRCUIT COURT COULD HEAR HIS APPEAL AND WOULD MAKE A DECISION JUST LIKE IT HEARS APPEALS OF OTHER MATTERS. OF OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS? MR PRESIDENT. I HAVE A QUESTION. COUNCILMAN PARASITE. APOLOGIES TO MY COLLEAGUES. I'VE JUST GOT BACK FROM FRANKLIN. SO I'M IN MY CAR. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO RAISE MY HAND AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT IN WEBEX TO TELL YOU, BUT, UM, I JUST WANNA FOR ME BEING ONE OF THE NEWEST COUNCIL PERSON . UM I HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS, BUT I AM TRUSTING THE PROCESS AND I WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE'S BEEN ANY PRECEDENTS. UM, I KNOW JUST A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH SHOWS THAT THE LAST TIME THIS PROCESS EVEN HAPPENED WAS IN 2011 WITH FORMER COUNCILWOMAN GREEN WHERE THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION AND A BIPARTISAN CHARGING COMMITTEE, AND SO THERE WAS TWO ETHICS RULINGS. AND THEN THERE'S THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. READY AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO DO THIS, AND THEY ADDED THE ADDITIONAL CHARGES SO THE MAIN QUESTION IS IF WE AGREE WITH THE TWO CHARGES, OR WE AGREED TO AT LEAST HEAR IT OUT AND NOT DISMISS IT IS AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THOSE TWO CHARGES ARE UNDER OUR JURISDICTION OR NOT TO EVALUATE. SO WE'RE NOT EVALUATING WHETHER WE THINK THAT COUNSELING THE ARGENTINE E IS GUILTY OR INNOCENT OF EITHER OF THOSE CHARGES WERE SIMPLY DECIDING ARE THOSE CHARGES UNDER OUR PURVIEW TO DECIDE AS MISCONDUCT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
COUNCILOR BLACKWELL. FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID. SO WHAT ARE WE ARE ONLY DECIDING IF THESE THINGS ARE THIS CONDUCT, NOT IF THEY'RE LEGAL OR ILLEGAL. IT IS NOT OUR
[01:05:01]
PURVIEW TO DECIDE IF MARJORIE IN THIS CASE IF HE'S GUILTY IN TERMS OF LEGAL, IT'S ONLY TO DETERMINE IF HE HAD THE WHAT IS ALLEGED IN TERMS OF PERJURY IS MISCONDUCT. HMM. YEAH. YEAH. MR SMITH. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY WHAT YOUR MOTION SPECIFICALLY IS? SURE. SO, UM I THINK IN ITS, UH, ITS MOST BASIC FORM THE MOTION BY SEEKING DISMISSAL OF COUNTS SEVEN AND EIGHT. OR ARE SAYING THAT THOSE COUNTS SHOULD NOT GO TO A TRIAL BECAUSE THEY ARE THEY ARE LEGALLY DEFECTIVE, AND THEY ARE ALSO AS A PRUDENTIAL MATTERS OF POLICY MATTER, UH, UNWISE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, AND SO THEY SHOULD NOT GO TO. THEY SHOULD NOT BE HEARD AT A HEARING AND THAT THE OTHER SIX CHARGES WOULD BE THE CHARGES THAT THE COUNCIL COURT WOULD HEAR EVIDENCE OF AND ULTIMATELY DECIDE. AND I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT. THE QUESTION ABOUT. I THINK A BETTER WAY TO SAY IT IS THAT DO YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR? CHARGES THAT. ALLEGED PERJURY IS MISCONDUCT AND TO MAKE THAT DECISION AFTER HEARING ALL THE EVIDENCE. THANK YOU. MR SMITH RULES FOR REMOVAL OF A MEMBER ARE GOVERNED BY 67 C. 143 EARLIER WHEN I ASKED YOU COULD WE BRING CHARGES? ONLY THEN THEY WERE ADJUDICATED BY A COURT OF CRIMINAL. COULD WE PROCEED WITH REMOVAL CHARGES ONLY WHEN THEY WERE ADJUDICATED BY A COURT OF LAW. WHERE IN 67 C. DOES IT SAY THAT MISCONDUCT HEARINGS CAN ONLY BE CONDUCTED IF CRIMINAL IF THERE IS A QUESTION OF CRIMINALITY? ONCE THOSE CHARGES HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED, I WITH ALL RESPECT, I THINK I TRIED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN WHEN I RESPONDED TO COUNSEL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. 67 C 143 ON HIS FACE DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BECAUSE BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS THAT WE ARE BRINGING TO THE COUNCIL COURT'S ATTENTION ARE PART OF THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION AND THOSE OVERRIDE. ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE CONTRARY IN A, UH IN A STATUTE OR THE APPLICATION OF A STATUTE IN A WAY THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THAT IS, IN FACT, ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THE APPLICATION OF KRS 67 C 143 IN A WAY THAT CIRCUMVENTS THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CHARGING SOMEONE WITH A CRIME, TRYING TO CONVICT THEM OF A CRIME IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AND HE SHOULD AVOID. YOU SHOULD AVOID APPLYING THE STATUTE. IN A WAY THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THANK YOU, MR WICKER. ANY RESPONSE? YES, SIR, FOLLOWING THE LAW FOLLOWING THE STATUTE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL SIMPLY IS THAT FOLLOWING THE LAW IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. CRIMINAL PROTECTIONS APPLY ONLY IN A CRIMINAL COURT. THAT HAS THE JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO IMPRISON OR FINE OR OTHERWISE PUNISHED. THE DEFENDANT. THEY DON'T APPLY TO REMOVAL HEARINGS, AND IF THEY DID, THEY PUT IT IN THE STATUTE TO TELL YOU THAT THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES YES, YES, COUNCILMAN PARISH RIGHT, ONE LAST THING HAS THERE BEEN A PRESIDENT FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES IN THESE PROCEEDINGS? I KNOW WE HAVEN'T HAD MANY, BUT HAS HAVE WE SEEN THAT HAPPEN BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL ANYBODY. YEAH LOOKING TO COUNTY ATTORNEY.SARAH MARTIN WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. COUNCILWOMAN THEY'VE BEEN. THIS IS THE FOURTH CHARGE OF REMOVAL SINCE THE MERGER OF, UM, CONSULTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE FIRST TO THE ONE AGAINST COUNCILMAN GREEN AND THEN COUNCILWOMAN SHANKLIN ONLY ADDRESSED QUESTIONS FROM OR ONLY INCLUDED CHARGES FROM THE ETHICS COMMISSION. THE NEXT ONE WAS AGAINST DAN JOHNSON. IT DID NOT GO BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMISSION, AND IT ONLY INCLUDED ALLEGATIONS OF CONDUCT UNDER 143. BUT I DON'T RECALL THEM, INCLUDING ANY REFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CHARGE. I CAN VERIFY THAT AND ADVISE IF THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM WHAT MY MEMORY IS. BECAUSE THE WRITER IS THAT GOOD. OH YEAH. I'M SORRY.
THANK YOU. SOMETHING TO THAT? YES AND ON THE THIRD ONE AS I UNDERSTAND IT INVOLVED ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL, UH, UNWARRANTED, TOUCHING ASSAULT, OF COURSE. IS A CRIMINAL VIOLATION AND CRIMINAL ASSAULT. COULD BE MISCONDUCT. THAT WAS THE QUESTION IN THE IN THE THIRD
[01:10:05]
PROCEEDING. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT HE WAS NOT ACTUALLY CHARGED WITH THAT. COUNCILMAN HAWKINS. I GUESS THIS IS FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO UM, BASICALLY PIGGYBACK AFTER COLLEAGUE PARIS, RIGHT? SO, BASICALLY YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. WE ARE LOOKING THAT UP AS WE SPEAK, AND WE CAN. WE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION SHORTLY. WE HAD THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS AGAINST JOHNSON. AND I'M NOT SURE. UM IT DID INCLUDE A NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS. UM, WE CAN VERIFY THAT OKAY? CASTLEMAN CHAPEL. MY QUESTION IS TWO FOLD THE FIRST ONE. IS. TO MR SMITH, WHAT VIOLATIONS OF THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION? ARE YOU CLAIMING HAPPENED? WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IF THE CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST COUNSELING P ARGENTINA ARE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD THAT WILL VIOLATE SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION.THOSE ARE THE SECTIONS THAT DELINEATES SPECIFIC RIGHTS TO PERSONS WHO ARE ACCUSED OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES. I'M ALSO SAYING THAT UH, THAT IT WOULD VIOLATE SECTIONS 27 AND 28 OF THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION, WHICH MANDATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS SECTION 11 12 5 OF THE KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION VEST, THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OVER OVER ESSENTIALLY FELONY FELONY CRIMES. AND, UM. THIS IS JUST A GENERAL QUESTION. UM WE'RE NOT HERE TO DECIDE IF THE COUNCILMAN COMMITTED A CRIME . WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DECIDE IS WHAT HE DID UNETHICAL AND CONSIDERED MISCONDUCT AND POTENTIALLY WARRANTS REMOVAL. WE'RE NOT TREATING HIM AS A CRIMINAL WERE SAYING HIS ACTIONS WERE UNETHICAL, SO IT IS OUR ABILITY TO STAY AS A COUNCIL.
THAT WE THINK THAT PERJURY IS MISCONDUCT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE LYING IS WRONG. BUT YOU'VE CHARGING COMMITTEE HAS ACCUSED EVERYONE BUT PLEASE CHARGING COMMITTEE IN THE COMPLAINT HAS SPECIFICALLY ACCUSED HIM OF PERJURY, WHICH IS A DELINEATED OFFENSE UNDER THE KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES AND HONEST SERVICE FRAUD, WHICH IS A OFFENSE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THOSE ARE SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS WHO THE CHILDREN COMMITTEE HAS, IN FACT.
ACCUSED HIM OF CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES. UNDER THE GUISE OF IT BEING QUOTE UNQUOTE MISCONDUCT. I'M WILLING TO LET ANYONE ELSEWHERE ON THAT. BUT I'M SORRY. MAYBE I JUST TURNED OUT FOR AECOND. THAT'S NOT. OUR JURISDICTION. YOU JUST MENTIONED ANOTHER BODY. THAT'S NOT US, RHT? DID I HEAR THAT RIGHT? UH WELL, I MENTIONED, UH, THE UNITED STATES CRIMINAL CODE, WHICH IS NOT WITHIN THIS BODY'S JURISDICTION. IT'S IN FACT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE US DISTRICT COURTS. BUT IS HE ARE WE DECIDING IF HE IS A CRIMINAL OR NOT? THIS IS AN ETHICS TRIAL. WELL IF YOU'RE ACCUSING SOMEONE OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME IN THE DETERMINED THAT HE DID THE ACTS TO COMMIT THAT CRIME AND HAD THE MENTAL STATE T COMMIT THAT CRIME TN MANSWER IS YES. YOU ARE TRYING Y T T IMOULE AA CRINOUNCILOR BLACKBALLO COUNCIL. WOULD YOUR CONTENTION THAT BE IF WE HAD, LET'S JUST TAKE IT AWAY FROM THIS ONE. IF WE HAD IF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE AT ANY TIME BROUGHT. WHAT ABOUT SOMETHING BEFORE? IF SOMETHING COMES BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMITTEE? AND THE PERSON WHO'S CHARGED, CHARGED AND NOT BEFOR THE ETHICS COMMITTEE. AND WHEN I GO BEFORE THE ETHICS COMMITTEE EVERYTHING THAT I SAY. IS NOT SAYING AGAIN. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. ME. AND THAT'S SAYING THAT JUST TRUE IN THIS CASE, BUT IF IT IS YOUR CONTENTION THAT IF I WOULD GET UP IN FRONT OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION COMMITTEE COMMISSION AND LIVE FROM EVERYTHING THAT CAME OUT OF MY MOUTH THAT THIS BODY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THAT AS MISCONDUCT. IS THAT YOUR CONTENTION? IF YOU'RE ACCUSING HIM OF COMMITTING PERJURY, THEN I BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT HE HAD COMMITTED PERJURY AND SO F AFTER THE AFTER THERE'S BEEN A CONVICTION, THEN YES, ABSOLUTELY. THIS BODY I WOULD CONTEND HAS HAS THE RIGHT TO THEN REMOVE THE MEMBER FOR THAT, UH, FOR THAT OFFENSE BECAUSE YOU
[01:15:04]
WILL ALREADY HAVE AT THAT POINT, ENJOYED ALL THE BENEFITS THAT HE'S ENTITLED TO UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. HMM. OKAY? SO MR SMITH. I'D LIKE TO ASK SPECIFIC TO THE EXAMPLE THAT MR WICKER GAVE IF I'M. SOMEWHAT ADMITS TO STEALING, BUT IT'S FROM GOVERNMENT. MR WICKER HAVE THIS SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY IN GOVERNMENT STEALING RIGHT? AND THEN IT GOING THROUGH THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURES. YOUR CONTENTION IS THAT THEY COULD NOT BE REMOVED DURING THAT TIME PERIOD THAT THAT TRIAL IS PENDING. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. COUNCIL, MARINA WEBER. YOU HAVE A QUESTION, COUNCILMAN HAWKINS. OKAY, UM SO. PERJURY IS LYING, RIGHT? RIGHT? SO I JUST NEED TO GET THE UNDERSTANDING THAT FIVE OF MY COLLEAGUES. KIM BRING CHARGES.OH, ME. FOR MY. IT'S ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THIS. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING BECAUSE WELL, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY RIGHT. PERJURY IS LYING UNDER OATH IF YOU LIE UNDER OATH, WHAT WILL WE TAKE THIS SEAT? YOU KNOW? WE WORRIES ARE HAND GETS WORRIED IN SWORN UNDER OATH RIGHT THERE, RIGHT? WELL I THINK WELL, THERE'S SOME IMMUNITY FOR LEGISLATIVE STATEMENTS, BUT THE POINT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT THIS BODY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THAT LYING UNDER OATH. HE'S SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, AND IT MIGHT BE A BASIS FOR REMOVAL OR CERTAINLY IT SHOULD BE PUT BEFORE THIS COUNCIL COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE A BASIS FOR REMOVAL. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE COLLEAGUES TO DO THAT ALL THE TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN HAWKINS. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN SHANKLIN? OH I JUST WANT TO SAY I WAS ON THAT TRIAL WITH DAN JOHNSON. HE WAS NOT CRIMINALLY CHARGED, AND HE DID DENIED THAT HE DID ANYTHING, BUT HE WASN'T CRIMINALLY CHARGED IN ANY KIND OF WAY. HE WAS REALLY MOVED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE RULES. WE GAVE HIM SOME RULES TO FOLLOW, AND HE COULD NOT COME AROU AND HE DID EXACTLY WHAT WE TOLD HIM NOT TO DO SO HE WASN'T HE WASN'T REMOVED FROM ANY CRIMINAL CHARGES. AND HE DID DID LIE, BUT IT DIDN'T MATTER. WE STILL GAVE HIM SOME RULES THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW, AND HE DIDN'T FOLLOW HIM, AND THAT'S WHY HE WAS REMOTE. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR ANGLE. THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT. I AM. I JUST HAPPENED TO BE OUT OF TOWN RIGHT NOW, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHERE THIS IS HEADED. AS FAR AS TIME WISE, UH, I DO HAVE A COMMITMENT TONIGHT WITH A CLIENT. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE TIMING IS ON THIS THING. I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT WANT TO MISS A VOTE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M ANYTHING SPECIAL . THIS IS MY FOURTH REMOVAL TRIAL SIDE. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE SEVERITY OF IT. BUT SO I'M GONNA LEAVE IT AT THAT AND SEE WHERE THIS GOES, BUT I'M I'M UP AGAINST THE CLOCK. SO THANK YOU, BUT I DO. I REALLY DON'T WANT TO MISS A VOTE. THANKS. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. ANGLE COUNCILMAN TIME. MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE APPEAL PROCESS. IF THE COUNCILMAN WAS TOO IF YOU GOT A DECISION IN THE END TO APPEAL IT AND YOU SAY IT GOES TO THE COURT DOES IT IS HE HAS BECOME A CRIMINAL PROCESS? THERE'S NO SIR . I'M SORRY IF I GAVE THAT IMPRESSION. NO, IT IS NOT A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IF IT'S AN APPEAL COURTS THE CIRCUIT COURT WOULD DECIDE WHETHER HE WAS PROPERLY REMOVED OR NOT, AND THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY DECISION THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE. SO THE CHARGE WILL NOT COME INTO PLAY IN THE APPEAL IN ANY WAY. WELL I'M NOT CERTAIN I AGREE WITH THAT. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COUNTS SEVEN AND EIGHT, IF THIS BODY ALLOWS COUNTS SEVEN AND EIGHT TO GO FORWARD AND WE HAVE A TRIAL ON IT, AND THE COUNCIL COURT MAKES A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER COUNSELING ARGENTINE E COMMITTED HONEST SERVICES, FRAUD OR PERJURY, THEN THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE APPEAL PROCESS.
AND THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED. WELL, IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED. THE APPEAL IS PARDON ME FOR GETTING INTO THE LEGAL WEEDS HERE FOR JUST A SECOND. THE COURT WOULD A APPLY A VERY
[01:20:03]
DEFERENTIAL STANDARD TO THIS BODY. AS TO WHETHER OR NOT BASICALLY THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT TO SUPPORT THAT CHARGE. AGAIN LOWER THAN WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. EVERYTHING IS LOWER IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTEXT, INCLUDING THE APPEALS TO THE COURTS. SO WE'RE NOT TRYING. PERJURY WELL, YOU WOULD BE TRYING PERJURY F IF WE CHARGES GO FORWARD. RIGHT? THANK YOU. YEAH, I THINK COUNCILOR SIMON SARAH QUICKLY FROM WRONG. BUT I BELIEVE THE QUESTION ABOUT THE APPEAL IS THE APPEAL WOULD BE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION TO REMOVE IF WE SORT OF CARRY FORWARD YOUR QUESTION, RIGHT? AND SO THAT WOULD BE. THE THING THAT IS APPEALABLE IS WHETHER THE REMOVAL WAS JUST OR NOT, BUT THESE CHARGES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW SEVEN AND EIGHT CAN CAN THEY IS THIS APPEALABLE? SO DOES IT GO TO COURT DOESN'T BECOME A CRIMINAL CASE BECAUSE PERJURIES INVOLVED NO, SIR. NO SIR. WHEN THIS GOES ON APPEAL, A COURT WILL DECIDE WHETHER HIS REMOVAL WAS PERMISSIBLE OR NOT.THE COURT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONVERT IT INTO A CRIMINAL MATTER AND SAY, WELL COUNTS SEVEN AND EIGHT WERE KIND OF CRIMINAL, SO I'M GOING TO PUT HIM IN JAIL THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBL DOES THAT? ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT. YES, SIR. COUNCILOR MARBLE HILL. THANK YOU. MY QUESTION IS. I HEAR WE SHOULDN'T CONSIDER THIS NOW, BUT AT WHAT POINT DO YOU BECAUSE ONE OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR PERJURY OR FRAUD? AND IF THEY'RE NEVER BROUGHT THAN THIS THEN THIS, UM, COUNCIL DOESN'T HEAR THOSE IN SO, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONDUCT, NOT NECESSARILY AT THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE, BUT I DO WANT TO KNOW WHEN. WHEN BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T CONSIDER IT WHEN WOULD YOU GET TO IF EVER COUNCILMAN FIRST OFF THERE IS NO STATUTE LIMITATIONS ON FELONIES. SO THAT SO IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR A PROSECUTOR TO SEEK AN INDICTMENT. FOR A FELONY AT ANY TIME. AND IS THERE THE POSSIBILITY THEY'LL NEVER SEEK IT AS WELL? WELL, A PROSECUTOR HAS HAS DISCRETION WHETHER OR NOT TO BRING CHARGES. INCLUDING WHETHER YOU KNOW THERE'S NOT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE.
BUT THAT'S ALSO SO IF IT'S NEVER BROUGHT, THEN THIS CAN NEVER BE CONSIDERED. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S OUR POSITION BECAUSE AGAIN AND THIS GETS A LITTLE BIT BACK TO WHAT COUNSEL FOR THE CHARGING COMMITTEE SAID. HE SAID, THE MORE SERIOUS THE OFFENSE, THE MORE YOU WANT TO REMOVE, BUT OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT THAT GETS IT EXACTLY BACKWARDS, THE MORE SERIOUS THE OFFENSE. THE MORE DIFFICULT IT IS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE HOLD THAT PERSON ACCOUNTABLE BECAUSE IT'S CRIMINAL. IT'S CRIMINAL CONDUCT THAT IS BEING CHARGED. MR MCCREADY RESPONSE. I THINK I'VE MADE MY POINT ON THIS SEVERAL TIMES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COLLEAGUES. COUNCIL COURT MEMBERS NOW THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM BOTH PARTIES IN A MOMENT, I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION TO ENTER. CLOSED SESSION TO DELIBERATE. HOWEVER I MUST REMIND YOU YOU'RE NOT TO TALK WITH ANYONE ABOUT ANY ASPECT OF THESE PROCEEDINGS UNTIL THEY ARE FINALLY CONCLUDED. WHILE WE ARE TODAY, HEARING A MOTION DISMISSED TWO OF THE EIGHT COUNTS OF THE COMPLAINT. YOU SHOULD NOT COMMENT ON THE PROCEEDINGS OR THE DELIBERATIONS OR OUTCOME OF THAT MOTION UNTIL AFTER THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCLUDED. WHILE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS TAKE PLACE IN OPEN SESSION DELIBERATIONS AND OTHER PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS WITH LAWYERS FOR THE COUNCIL COURT WILL TAKE PLACE IN CLOSED SESSION. THESE CLOSED SESSIONS MUST REMAIN STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. ONLY COURT MEMBERS AND LAWYERS FOR THE COUNCIL COURT ARE PERMITTED IN CLOSED SESSION. DURING CLOSED SESSION AND SAYING THAT GOES FOR FOLKS ONLINE DURING CLOSED SESSION. YOU'RE NOT TO TEXT OR CALL OR OTHERWISE COMMUNICATE WITH ANYONE OUTSIDE OF THE CLOSED SESSION. THOSE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE RECORDED BY ANY COURT MEMBER. YOU CANNOT COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS IN CLOSED SESSION WITH ANYONE NOT AUTHORIZED TO BE IN CLOSED SESSION. MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL COURT OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE SPECIFICALLY YOU OCCUPY A UNIQUE DUAL ROLE AND MUST BE MINDFUL OF THIS ROLE PURSUANT TO KRS 61 7 C 0.1 43 NO DISCUSSION OF CLOSED SESSION OF COUNCIL COURT MATTERS MAY BE SHARED WITH THE COUNCIL OF THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. WITHOUT UNDERSTOOD PURSUANT TO KISS KRS 61.810 AND RULE 17 OF THE LIBERAL METRO COUNCILS. REMOVING HEARING RULES AND PROCEDURES MAY HAVE EMOTION AND
[01:25:03]
SECOND TO ENTER CLOSED SESSION. EMOTIONAL COUNSELING. SCIENCE SECOND BY COUNCILMAN FOWLER WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE WILL MOVE TO CLOSE SESSION WILL RECONVENE IN SEVEN MINUTES. YES WE'LL RECONVENE AT 630 IN THE THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. YOU GOTTA GET ME.AND COUNCILMAN RIGHT? AND COUNCILMAN SHANKLAND. YOU TWO SHOULD HAVE THE LINK FOR THE CLOSED SESSION. SO YOU HAVE TO SIGN OUT OF THIS. WEBEX SIGNED INTO THE OTHER ONE, AND WE'LL MEET YOU OVER THERE. HMM.
[01:31:01]
. OH,[01:35:46]
MHM . MHM. MM HMM.[01:42:11]
HMM.OK HMM . MM HMM. HMM HMM, HMM. HMM.
[01:46:25]
YEAH.YEAH HMM. HMM. MHM. YEAH. MHM.
[01:50:49]
HMM HMM. HMM.[01:58:29]
HMM.[02:00:19]
HMM.[02:10:27]
YEAH.[02:11:44]
MM. HMM. MM HMM.[02:16:48]
MHM. NO.[02:23:56]
MM HMM.[02:29:06]
MHM.[02:30:31]
HMM.[02:35:25]
HMM. HMM.METRO TV. WE WILL RECONVENE AT 7 45 MINUTES
[02:40:16]
. MHM.OH, 30 SECONDS, METRO TV 30 SECONDS.
WELL, I BETTER SNACKS. COUNCILOR RETAINED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION WITHOUT OBJECTION. WE'RE BACK IN OPEN SESSION PURSUANT TO CARE A 61 AT 815. NO FINAL ACTION WAS TAKEN DURING THE CLOSED SESSION. COLLEAGUES WILL NOW HAVE A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT SEVEN AND THEN A VOTE ON COUNT EIGHT TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. WE WILL VOTE ON EACH COUNT SEPARATELY. AS A REMINDER A YES VOTE IS TO DISMISS THE COUNT. A NO VOTE IS TO RETAIN THE COUNT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? CAN'T YES. SO A YES VOTE. DISMISSES SO COUNT SEVEN. MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU READ COUNT SEVEN. I'M SORRY. YOU DON'T HAVE IT HANDY. SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. CAN I HAVE YOUR. ABSOLUTELY SO. COUNSELOR COUNT SEVEN IS MISCONDUCT BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE OKAY, SO THE FIRST VOTE IS TO DISMISS THAT CHARGE. A YES VOTE, DISMISSES THE CHARGE. A NO VOTE RETAINS THE CHARGE. COUNCILOR BLACKWELL JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. IT NOT ONLY DISMISSES THE COUNT, BUT THEN ELIMINATES THIS GROUP FROM HEARING ANY OF THE TESTIMONY CORRECT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. YES UM, MR PRESIDENT, UM, IN. I'VE NEVER BEEN THROUGH THIS PROCEEDING. DO WE GET TO EXPLAIN OUR VOTE OR IT'S JUST A CLEAR VOTE, AND THAT'S IT. I MEAN, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO WHAT YOU WANT, BUT TYPICALLY, WE'RE JUST VOTE YES OR NO. IN COURT PROCEEDINGS. OKAY? UM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MADAM CLERK PLEASE OPEN THE VOTING. COUNCIL MEMBER PARISH, RIGHT. DO YOU NEED ME TO CALL YOUR FOR YOUR VOTE? YES. WHAT IS YOUR VOTE, MA'AM? MY VOTE IS NO. CAN I JUST SAY ONE THING, PLEASE? YOU MAY. I WATCHED YEARS AGO. UM HOW THIS PROCEEDING SO APART FORMER COUNCILWOMAN GREEN WHEN SHE HAD IN THE NET, UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I WATCHED THE PARTS OF THAT PROCESS, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYBODY THAT HAS TO DEAL WITH THIS GETS DUE PROCESS AND THAT THE COMMUNITY AND THE PUBLIC GETS TO KNOW ALL PARTS OF THIS. I BELIEVE THAT THESE ADDITIONAL CHARGES ARE RELEVANT TO WHAT IS BEFORE US, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT AND THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS COUNCILMAN ARGENTINE T EVEN THROUGH MY APPLICATION PROCESS FOR THE DISTRICT SAID TO ME THAT HE IS A STICKLER ON RULES AND PROCEDURES . AND ROBERTS WAS AN ORDER AND
[02:45:04]
ALL OF THAT, SO HE UNDERSTANDS THIS AND HIS LEGAL TEAM ALSO UNDERSTANDS THE APPEALS PROCESS.SO I AM VOTING? NO BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD STAND IN A LEGAL TEAM SHOULD DO THEIR JOB AND PROVE OTHERWISE. THANK YOU. UM COUNCIL MEMBER, SHANKLIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER, HAWKINS.
COUNCIL MEMBER HUDSON. DID YOU GET YOURS IN THERE? YES, COUNCIL MEMBER HUDSON. YES. SO I'M JUST MAKING SURE I DIDN'T MISS ANYONE. OKAY DID YOU GET THAT CLERK? I DID. SO I'M SORRY, SIR.
THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE SEVEN YEARS VOTES 12. NO VOTES. IN ONE PRESENT VOTE, THE MOTION FAILS AND THE CHARGE REMAINS. UM NOW THE MATTER BEFORE US IS COUNT EIGHT MISCONDUCT BY PERJURY AGAIN. A YES VOTE IS A VOTE TO DISMISS THE CHARGE. A NO VOTE. THE CHARGE REMAINS. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE OPEN THE VOTING. COUNCIL MEMBER, HAWKINS. COUNCIL MEMBER, SHANKLIN YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PARISH, RIGHT. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER HUDSON. YES. MR PRESIDENT , YOU HAVE EIGHT YES. VOTES 11. NO VOTE IN ONE PRESENT VOTE. THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED BOTH MOTIONS. BOTH CHARGES REMAIN. MR WICKER. MR SMITH AT THIS TIME DO EITHER OF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO THE COURT OR THE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY? WE'LL START WITH MR WICKER. THANK YOU, SIR. MR SMITH. I DID HAVE ONE MATTER THAT I WANTED TO BRIEFLY DISCUSS WITH THE COUNCIL COURT.
IF I MAY. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS WILL BE A VERY LENGTHY ISSUE. IT HAS TO DEAL WITH THE SUBPOENAS.
IN THIS CASE, UM THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF SUBPOENAS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED. I'M AWARE OF AT LEAST ONE THAT HAS ALREADY HAD THE COMPLIANCE DATE HAS ALREADY OCCURRED, AND PRESUMABLY, DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE CHARGING COMMITTEE. IN RESPONSE TO THAT SUBPOENA, UM AS AN AS AN ORDINARY PRACTICE IN IN COURT WHEN A PARTY USES A OFFICIAL COMPULSORY PROCESS TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS FOR A THIRD PARTY IS USUALLY REQUIRED FOR THE PARTY WHO RECEIVES THOSE DOCUMENTS TO FURNISH COPIES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS TO THE OTHER PARTY TO DATE. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY DOCUMENTS FROM THE CHARGING COMMITTEES COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO ANY DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAVE SUBPOENAED. I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE CHARGING COMMITTEE BE REQUIRED TO SHARE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS THAT IT RECEIVES PURSUANT TO A SUBPOENA ISSUED IN THIS MATTER. THANK YOU, MISTER WORKER. HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY DOCUMENTS RECEIVED ONE SET. I THOUGHT YOU'D RECEIVED A COPY. YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING TO ME, BUT I'LL MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET A COPY, OF COURSE, AND IF WE COULD ENSURE THAT ANY FUTURE, OF COURSE IS SHARED QUICKLY. THANK YOU. I DO NOT THINK WE DO? I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. UH MR SMITH, MR WICKER? MY YEAH. SO TODAY WE SET THE TRIAL DATE FOR FEBRUARY. 26TH PRIOR TO THE TRIAL. THERE WILL BE A TREE PRETRIAL HEARING.
UM THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT. SO YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO COME BUT FOR UH, MR SMITH, MR WICKER, MY OFFICE WILL BE IN CONTACT TO FIND A DATE THAT WE CAN, UM, HAVE THAT PRETRIAL MEETING. IS THERE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COURT HEARING? NONE WITHOUT OBJECTION. WE STAND ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.