Browse: Home / / Lawmaker wants Detroit mayor party rumor probe

Lawmaker wants Detroit mayor party rumor probe

By The Admin on August 20, 2008

AP

- A state representative wants Michigan State Police to reopen an investigation into a rumored wild party that reportedly took place in 2002 at Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick’s home.

Southfield Democrat Paul Condino tells WWJ-AM, The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press on Tuesday that recent revelations from possible witnesses to a party at the Manoogian Mansion deserve further inquiry.

Following a state police investigation, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox cleared the Democratic mayor in 2003. The Republican said he found no evidence of such a party at Kilpatrick’s official residence.

Kilpatrick spokesman James Canning says in a statement Condino shouldn’t waste taxpayer money to “grandstand on an issue that the attorney general already investigated.”

Share

Related Posts

Posted in | Tagged , , ,

  • http://www.scribd.com/people/view/102440-dougdante Doug Dante

    Judiciary Committee Chair Paul Condino was instrumental in the unconstitutional handling of Rep. Stahl's motion to discharge HJR-NN, a joint resolution to put before the voters a parent's rights amendment.

    Rather than putting the motion before the entire House, as required by the Michigan Constitution, Dillon allowed the Judiciary committee to kill Representative Stahl's motion to discharge HJR-NN, violating both Michigan's Constitution and Michigan House Rules.

    ” Rep. Stahl moved that the Committee on Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of House Joint Resolution NN.”

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/.....-20…

    Michigan's constitution, covering motions to discharge from committee, reads in part:

    “Each house, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall choose its own officers and determine the rules of its proceedings, but shall not adopt any rule that will prevent a majority of the members elected thereto and serving therein from discharging a committee from the further consideration of any measure …”

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/.....e=g…

    Michigan House Rules are constitutionally appropriate, providing under Rule 42 for a vote to discharge among “a majority of the Members elected to and serving in the House”:

    “(3) Nothing in these rules shall prevent a majority of the Members elected to and
    serving in the House from discharging a committee from further consideration of any measure.
    (See Const 1963, Art 4 § 16) A notice of one session day shall be given of a motion to
    discharge any such committee, the notice to be in writing and entered upon the House Journal. If
    a committee of the House is discharged from further consideration of a bill, the bill shall be
    placed on the order of Second Reading.”

    And further for motions to discharge must be handled each session under Rule 58:

    “Always in Order; Not Debatable.
    Rule 58. (1) The following motions are not debatable:
    (a) Adjourn;
    (b) Call of the House;
    …..
    (b) Discharge a committee;
    ….”

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/.....ica…

    Yet the only responsive action was a vote in the committee that is being discharged to postpone action within that committee itself for one day.

    “9/9/2008 HJ 72 Pg. 2115 motion to discharge committee postponed for day”

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/.....e=g…

    The vote on the motion to discharge within the Judiciary Committee itself was irrelevant to the motion to discharge, and it violated both Michigan House Rules and Michigan's Constitution.

  • http://www.scribd.com/people/view/102440-dougdante Doug Dante

    Judiciary Committee Chair Paul Condino was instrumental in the unconstitutional handling of Rep. Stahl's motion to discharge HJR-NN, a joint resolution to put before the voters a parent's rights amendment.

    Rather than putting the motion before the entire House, as required by the Michigan Constitution, Dillon allowed the Judiciary committee to kill Representative Stahl's motion to discharge HJR-NN, violating both Michigan's Constitution and Michigan House Rules.

    ” Rep. Stahl moved that the Committee on Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of House Joint Resolution NN.”

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/.....-20…

    Michigan's constitution, covering motions to discharge from committee, reads in part:

    “Each house, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall choose its own officers and determine the rules of its proceedings, but shall not adopt any rule that will prevent a majority of the members elected thereto and serving therein from discharging a committee from the further consideration of any measure …”

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/.....e=g…

    Michigan House Rules are constitutionally appropriate, providing under Rule 42 for a vote to discharge among “a majority of the Members elected to and serving in the House”:

    “(3) Nothing in these rules shall prevent a majority of the Members elected to and
    serving in the House from discharging a committee from further consideration of any measure.
    (See Const 1963, Art 4 § 16) A notice of one session day shall be given of a motion to
    discharge any such committee, the notice to be in writing and entered upon the House Journal. If
    a committee of the House is discharged from further consideration of a bill, the bill shall be
    placed on the order of Second Reading.”

    And further for motions to discharge must be handled each session under Rule 58:

    “Always in Order; Not Debatable.
    Rule 58. (1) The following motions are not debatable:
    (a) Adjourn;
    (b) Call of the House;
    …..
    (b) Discharge a committee;
    ….”

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/.....ica…

    Yet the only responsive action was a vote in the committee that is being discharged to postpone action within that committee itself for one day.

    “9/9/2008 HJ 72 Pg. 2115 motion to discharge committee postponed for day”

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/.....e=g…

    The vote on the motion to discharge within the Judiciary Committee itself was irrelevant to the motion to discharge, and it violated both Michigan House Rules and Michigan's Constitution.

Switch to our mobile site