Table of Contents
Kim Foxx used her high office as a prosecutor to get the charges dropped so long as Smollett did some work for Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Push Coalition and forfeited $10 thousand in bail money after Smollett orchestrated the whole thing. Her actions in assisting Smollett to hide his crime could invoke civil rights laws against Smollett, as will be discussed.
New Chicago prosecutors charged Smollett and secured a verdict for the People on 5 of 6 felony count charges, including a charge for filing a false police report at the Leighton Criminal Court Building, according to the Chicago Tribune statements over the alleged hate crime.
Smollett’s attorneys argued that the additional charges violated the principle of double jeopardy. Still, Judge James Linn ruled against their motions to dismiss the felony disorderly conduct and other costs over filing a false police report.
After Smollett paid Abimbola and Olabingo Osundairo, the brothers testified that he gave them $3,500 to assist him with his hoax; Smollett’s legal team says they will appeal the convictions.
When sentenced, Smollett faces three years imprisonment because he misled the public and police. Smollett also faces a hefty bill from the City of Chicago after being convicted on all but one charge.
He may also face civil rights claims civilly and even defamation claims from ex-president Donald Trump. Potentially every MAGA hat-wearing white person is a civil rights victim, as will be discussed.
Most republicans say what Smollett attempted could have never been ignored if a Trump supporter had done it, so why the double standard for black, gay democrats?
Many Democrats say he should have been acquitted, and the case isn’t over. Democrats and the View hosts appear to think Smollett is a good person who stands up against racism, so he should get a pass.
“At least his career won’t be ruined. He can always get a job as a CNN news anchor to keep up his fight against parents and conservatives,” says Floyd M. of Las Vegas, Nevada.
The State’s attorney’s office isn’t happy over the major shaming of our criminal justice system. The initial handling of the former “Empire” actor’s case over a staged attack displayed a “major failure of operations.”
The operations conducted by Foxx and her team sparked a special prosecutor’s investigation, regardless of whether Smollett pleaded guilty or not over the false police report.
This is based upon statements by a lawyer appointed to review the Foxx-Smollett case.
A special prosecutor was assigned to the case, who referred it to a grand jury before bringing back the charges against Smollett.
Special prosecutor Dan Webb looked into the State’s Attorney’s Office to see if Foxx had committed a crime while prosecuting or, in the case’s ultimate resolution of the alleged attack, warranting a grand jury inquiry, said the special prosecutor.
THAT IS 100% TRUE! The 68-page report released Monday detailed multiple instances of false statements by State’s Attorney Kim Foxx:
It also discussed others in her office in 2019 who assisted her in covering up and dropping criminal charges. (View the Special Prosecutor Report Here.)
Although the primary goal was to investigate whether any of her office’s actions may be unethical or illegal, special prosecutor Dan Webb determined that nothing criminal was discovered during his inquiry. Sounds fair, right?
So far, no major news outlet has retracted their statements that Smollett had no prior convictions. It’s no wonder the press tries to blame Russia whenever they get caught lying and covering for political allies, right?
For their part, Smollett’s lawyers assert that:
“Jussie was attacked by two people he could not identify on January 29. He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public, causing an inappropriate rush to judgment.”
One important thing to remember is that we fought a civil war and battled for important rights so everyone would be treated equally and neutrally under the law. No one ever expected the pendulum to swing so far left that people would be judged based on the color of their skin or political affiliation.
Recently, a political movement started in universities is afoot. It’s called Critical Race Theory (CRT), taught in many public schools and campuses as “intersectionalism,’ etc. (News commentators correctly assert that CRT is mostly not taught in public schools but fail to inform parents the same principles are introduced under other names with the same effect of segregating students by race, and “race shaming.”)
True, this is the theory. “If they can shame people over the color of their skin, that will prompt them to be anti-Trump, anti-white, and anti-racist,” says Tom Cloud, a resident of Santa Ana, California, and former United States Marine.
According to ANTIFA and BLM, the idea is that equality is not enough and that white people are all “racist,” and black people and other minorities are systemic, permanent victims.
If that is true, non-anecdotal evidence would readily reveal itself. So far, say conservatives, the only racism out there comes from the left.
For Jussie Smollett and a slew of fake hate crime perpetrators since the George Floyd BLM riots, the absence of direct evidence that all Trump supporters are racist wasn’t a good thing. He had to make these political charges stick (anti-white theories must be proven accurate!)
Indeed, no one expected prosecutors to become willing political accomplices with race-baiting snake oil, right?
Maybe not. The rise of the fake hate self-hate crime sanctioned by state actors coincided with the Trump presidency and led to the office of the newly elected first female Vice President of the United States, as will be detailed below.
Sadly, the backlash, especially many working-class white people angered for being called “racist,” is not having the desired effect many democratic politicians had been hoping for in their “mostly peaceful” “defund the police” riots/protests.
I am Los Angeles civil rights attorney Michael Ehline. We have seen a rash in reports of hate crimes with zero legal evidence and, instead, proof that celebrities and politicians have been acting in unison with major (political) media outlets reporting false offenses.
These people are asserting that “white” persons (primarily cops and republican voters) are committing mass “hate crimes” against gay people and blacks (but not Asians anymore, as that was also exposed as PATENTLY false.)
Related STORY: Hate Crime Hoaxer Smollett Faces Chicago’s Revenge
We saw the stop Asian hate campaign fail after videos, arrest reports, and news clips showed black males committing most attacks against Asian females. This is what started many Americans beginning to feel there is a concerted effort by politicians and celebrities to try and divide America by race and sexual preference by blaming former president Trump.
We have also seen a rise in local prosecutors (especially in the Golden State), elected primarily due to funding from billionaire businessman George Soros.
As people flee California to live in safer communities elsewhere, these same terrified people face allegations from so-called “trusted media sources” they are “racist,” etc.
But what happens when the media, Silicon Valley, and other non-profit organizations and foundations conspire with elected officials to target political opponents and others using the State’s authority to jail or slight them? Let’s find out. Enter Chicago prosecutor, Kim Foxx
Jussie Smollett went to trial in Chicago more than two years after claiming he was assaulted by two white males wearing Trump MAGA hats. Immediately, Vice President Kamala Harris, part Indian and part Jamaican, Tweeted (now scrubbed from the interwebs) it was a “lynching” inspired by racist, homophobic, white, Trump supporters, etc.
Jesse Jackson and other Democrat activists working for CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and other corporate-funded media blamed Trump and inferred a racism problem with white people is “systemic.”
All this happened in real-time as BLM activists were burning down U.S. cities. CNN told citizens and their allies in congress it was “mostly peaceful protests.” Newscasters like Don Lemon and now disgraced fired CNN news anchor Chris Cuomo said the billions in uninsured damages to small businesses was not a “thing.”
Those George Floyd riots were sparked when corporate media (with no evidence again) asserted that now-convicted murderer, police officer Derek Chauvin was a white racist after he killed a violent felon and black man George Floyd who was trying to drive off into traffic, obviously high of a delay cocktail of Fentanyl and other illegal substances.
Although no one will deny it was murder and unacceptable, so far, zero evidence has EVER been produced that racism had ANY role in the Floyd killing.
Now it turns out that prosecutor and democrat activist Kim Foxx acted in a conspiracy with Smollett, his sister, and others to promulgate a fake hate crime when Foxx knew he was guilty and helped get criminal charges against him dismissed!
Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie Johnson declared, “Bogus police reports cause real harm.” When police investigate a high-profile case, especially one that could make a DA famous for a higher office run, significant police resources are pulled from real crimes involving honest, good citizens.
On the 13 days following his assault, there were five reports of aggravated assault, seven reports of aggravated battery, five reports of criminal sexual assault, four robberies, 21 incidents of simple assault, and 52 incidents of simple battery in police data. The statistic covers the 13 days following Smollett’s allegation, not the entire 22 days between his claim and arrest. Smollett’s false allegations had a devastating impact on others.
It’s possible that a great civil rights lawyer could argue on behalf of a crime victim that Kim Foxx did this on purpose, and hence she was a state actor, along with Smollett, depriving others of their civil rights. But we’ll cover that later, as there could be other victims.
The Democratic State’s Attorney for Cook County, Illinois, Kim Foxx, informed the public that she had terminated contact with Jussie Smollett’s sister when she was told that she had been identified as a suspect. THAT WAS A LIE.
According to the special prosecutor’s report, Foxx communicated with her for several days.
According to the Webb report, published Monday, Foxx repeatedly made false statements to the press in late March and early May 2019 regarding her contact with Smollett’s sister.
However, she sent five text messages to her and spoke with her three times by phone throughout February 132019, five days after claiming she had ended contact.
These are the underpinnings leading to now-convicted liar Smollet’s case. Here are the answers to your most pressing questions about the issue, Smollett’s February 2020 indictment and 2021 conviction.
Back on March 262019, at the request of the Chicago District Attorney, Kim Foxx, herself an African American female prosecutor in the case, abruptly dropped all charges of disorderly against Smollett.
Police unions and conservative Republicans were outraged. Liberals buried the story and would not speak of the six counts of disorderly conduct of politically connected crime charge dismissals.
With the lone exception of BLM (who did not care if Smollet lied because (“We can never believe the police“), pretty much everyone scrubbed Tweets and stopped talking about it. Only Fox News covered the story at all. This led to many questions and prompted a new investigation without prosecutor Kim Fox there to hamstring the case. After that, Smollett was indicted for a second time.
Below, we’ve answered some of the biggest questions about why the case was reopened and whether Smollett could face jail time if convicted of several new felonies, alleging basically that Smollett is a liar.
It all began on January 29, 2019, the night Smollett claims he was assaulted in Chicago. The then-36-year-old claimed that he was assaulted outside the Loews Hotel by two white men wearing ski masks who yelled racial and homophobic insults while supporting “MAGA country,” in which they tied a rope around his neck, cursed, and beat him.
The Chicago police launched an investigation into the event as a possible hate crime following the allegations’ severity, said the Chicago Tribune. They even connected a menacing letter sent to the actor before the alleged assault to the probe, which included anti-gay language and an unidentified White substance.
Following the fake anti-gay / anti-black attack, several celebrities and public officials rushed to Smollet’s defense in the media and on social media. “A modern-day lynching,” former presidential hopeful Kamala Harris termed it, while Smollett appeared on ABC with Robin Roberts to reiterate his patently false account of what occurred.
The media did everything it could to bury and mitigate the story. No one tried holding Smollett truly accountable in the major outlets.
The case took a very unexpected turn in February 2019 when investigators discovered a fuzzy video of two black guys strolling near the supposed crime scene. According to the Chicago Tribune, this prompted them to suspect the star himself.
A Cook County, Illinois, grand jury on February 20etermined that there was probable cause to believe that Smollett staged the attack. Before being written off of Empire, Smollet was arrested and charged with felony disorderly conduct.
After deceiving cops about the alleged bias crime, Smollett was also charged with additional felonies and convicted.
We learned Kim Foxx led the charge, even when she knew Smollett was perjuring himself. Here, the message was political. If you’re white and support Trump, you are a racist homophobe.
“This is the recipe for a race riot and conducts unbecoming a patriotic American,” says Robert Hammond, a pastor in Santa Ana.
But Laquifa Mustafa, a single mom from Compton, CA, says all police are “liars,” guided by a systemic racist past. So “it doesn’t matter what Smollett did or said because his skin color and sexual status make him a permanent victim.”
This is the background. However, besides violating her oath of office, could Kim Foxx be sued by any victims she created by upholding known lies (Smollett had been charged with lying to police previously), knowing it could lead to killings and attacks against white Trump supporters?
Most importantly, prosecutors and judges can violate your rights and not face many repercussions.
Although the Thirteenth Amendment bans private slavery, the individual liberties guaranteed under the United States Constitution only protect against actions by a public servant, not deprivation actions by private individuals or private entities. But what about private people who use the State to do their evil bidding in a conspiracy to deprive people of their civil rights?
Civil rights suits seeking to protect federal constitutional rights are only helpful in cases where there is a plausible claim of civil rights violation caused by “state action.”
The term state action is used to describe the action of government officials exercising their governmental power. Nonetheless, in many instances, people can be victims of civil-rights violations caused by government officials and private actors using that authority on their behalf against others.
This led to the creation of a legal theory known as “state actor” or “hybrid” liability, which allows people harmed by civil-rights abuses to sue private actors when their conduct is sufficiently linked to state action.
To establish Smollet has state actor liability, there must be a victim whose civil rights were violated. Since the Supreme Court has rules, police generally have no duty to protect people. A plaintiff must show the police assumed responsibility or directly violated a right to sue the police. In other words, if there is a victim out there, they must prove that Smollett initiated state action and that state action violated their civil rights.
If the alleged civil rights victims can prove, for example, police deliberately stayed away from areas with minorities, flowing resources to more affluent locations, they may have a case. (Source) But it’s pretty attenuated.
Let’s have a look at what else we can learn. In the 1960s, the United States Supreme Court took an expansive view of state action, allowing broad civil-rights litigation against private actors. The Court has subsequently narrowed the circumstances in which nongovernmental activities can be characterized as state action.
The Supreme Court has extended constitutional rights to individuals. Still, the cases of two recent judgments by the Eighth Circuit and the Southern District of New York illustrate a more nuanced approach to extending constitutional obligations to private actors.
One of the most critical developments in the extension of civil liberties in the 1960s was when the Supreme Court extended constitutional obligations to private actors by broadening the state action concept.
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority challenged the segregation of blacks seeking to enjoy a meal at a private restaurant. This is what started it all.
The business in Burton was the Eagle Coffee Shoppe, which was located in Wilmington, Delaware. It operated in a commercial space built and leased by a government agency, the Wilmington Parking Authority.
A black individual, William Burton, attempted to eat in a coffee shop after parking his vehicle in the garage. But the store owner refused him service. He subsequently filed suit against the parking authority and the coffeehouse for violating his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In that case, since the parking garage Burton parked in was government property used for the diner, there was a government connection.
The problem before the Supreme Court was whether the coffee shop was a “state actor” for purposes of the Constitution. The Court readily determined that it was.
The Court looked to the connection between the coffee shop and the parking authority, as well as their commercial relationship, in support of its decision.
The evidence shows that the coffee shop was physically connected to the parking garage, thus “indicates that degree of state participation and involvement in discriminatory action which it was the design of the Fourteenth Amendment to condemn.”
A single building, erected and maintained with public funds by an agency of the State to serve a public purpose, gave all persons equal rights. In contrast, another portion disallowing requests to all but one person is offensive, just because of race.
But things are changing. In general, the Court has moved to a position that requires the government to have had a significant role in any particular policy or action at issue, regardless of its overall economic or operational relationship with the private entity.
The Court has referred to this shift as a compromise between imposing constitutional obligations on state actors while preserving freedom for private individuals and businesses.
As a result, in one of its most recent state-action rulings, the Supreme Court stated that newer cases should attempt to distinguish between state action subject to the Fourteenth Amendment and private conduct (however objectionable).
The judicial duty is not only to protect an individual’s right to freedom by restricting the reach of federal law and avoiding a State being held responsible for actions it could not control but also to preserve the integrity of our system.
However, they must also ensure that constitutional criteria are followed when shown that the State is responsible for the specific conduct at issue.
The plaintiffs’ allegations establish several facts that bear on the fairness of such an attribution. When a challenged unlawful activity results from the State’s exercise of coercive power, when the State gives significant encouragement, either overt or covert, or when a private actor acts as a willing participant in joint action with the State or its agents, it may be state action.
The narrowing of the state action theory to allow for a showing that the government is a driving force behind the challenged policy or act has made it much more difficult to hold private actors accountable for constitutional breaches.
Under this standard, Smollett wins; no property was involved, and he was denied a right. But still, a criminal defendant in another similar case could argue “disparate treatment,” using Kim Foxx to get off. In contrast, other similarly situated criminals had the book thrown at them at the Leighton Criminal Court Building.
In two recent instances, however, courts have classified private organizations as state actors in conjunction with police actions taken against people engaging in First Amendment expression, even though the government had no hand in the policies or activities of the corporate.
These examples illustrate the potential for using constitutional rights against non-state actors.
Violating Speech Rights at a Private Air Show
Wickersham v. City of Columbia is a 2008 case from the Eighth Circuit involving an annual air show held at a municipal airport by a private veterans’ organization authorized to use the facility for the event by Columbia, Missouri’s city council.
Columbia police officers were stationed at the airport throughout the event, which was free to attend.
The veterans’ association ran the air show, and among the rules it imposed on attendees was a ban on political expression. It also banned leafleting, petitioning, political campaigning, and “unauthorized” signage. During the 2004 air show, a woman attempted to distribute anti-war leaflets, and a man sought to collect signatures for an energy initiative.
A Columbia police officer threatened to jail the woman after repeatedly asking him if he required assistance. The cops approached the guy and gave him a ticket when he refused to cease petitioning.
The two veterans sued the City and the veterans’ organization, claiming that since the group was “a state actor in its imposition of restrictions on a free speech given the degree of joint participation between [the organization] and the city is staging the air show and enforcing the restrictions,” hence, it unlawfully restricted free speech rights.
The District Court agreed and enjoined both from interfering with specific First Amendment activity at the air show.
The veterans’ group filed the appeal, and the critical question before the Eighth Circuit was whether a private organization would qualify as a state actor.
The Court observed that “[t]he one unyielding requirement is that there be a ‘close nexus’ not merely between the State and the private party, but between the State and the alleged deprivation itself.”
The first and most important requirement is that the State and the claimed violation have a “close connection.” The court ruled that the veterans’ group was a state actor because police enforcement of the policy was sufficient to convert it into one.
“The direct role of the Columbia police in enforcing [the private organization’s] speech restrictions provided the critical nexus between the challenged conduct and the exercise of state authority.”
Although the Court agreed that “the City’s position on a security fence around the airport is not unlawful,” it found that it “transformed the airport into its temporary private property over which it had the right to decide who was welcome and who was not and after that to seek police assistance in ejecting trespassers.”
The Court distinguished situations where private parties merely request police assistance from those the authorities are called upon to protect individuals.
The Columbia police’s efforts extend beyond the legal protections provided to private individuals in enforcing criminal trespass laws.
Here, the police department’s security plan directed officers to enforce [the private organization’s] rules rather than city laws. The police took an active role in identifying and suppressing protestors at the air show.
When a private entity has acted in collaboration with the police as part of a regular plan, it may be held responsible for the consequences it aided in creating.
On the other hand, last August’s ruling by Southern District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald went a step further. Forbes v. City of New York was filed after a person attending an Arlo Guthrie concert in a Lincoln Center amphitheater was arrested and taken into custody by the parks department. According to his viewpoint, the Constitution is more essential than grass.
The concert took place the week before the start of the 2004 Republican National Convention, during a public argument over New York City’s refusal to allow protestors to hold a rally on Central Park’s Great Lawn.
According to Judge Buchwald’s ruling, the event’s atmosphere was political. During a pause between songs, one audience member, Daniel Forbes, yelled out, “Central Park is not a grass museum. Open the Park. The Constitution is more important than grass “… open the park.”
A security guard at Lincoln Center approached Mr. Forbes, speaking with another man, and asked if he was OK and whether he required help. Four cops from the NYPD arrested Lincoln Center trustee and member of the Chorus Line Board, Stephen Forbes, and transported him to a local precinct for minor violations.
He then sued the NYPD and Lincoln Center, claiming that they had infringed on his First Amendment rights by singling him out because of what he was saying.
In defense of his position, he stated that Lincoln Center had a vested interest in the City’s ordinances regulating the Great Lawn since they permitted it to utilize the area for individual performances.
When it came to whether private Lincoln Center could be characterized as a state actor for Mr. Forbes’ First Amendment claims, the Court ruled against arguments that the facility was a state actor because of its lease arrangement with New York City or because it was performing a state function by employing private security guards.
The Court observed, however, that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that “based on an agreement between the City and Lincoln Center to chill speech urging greater access to the Great Lawn, the police would arrest those who advocated greater access to the Great Lawn and were identified by the Lincoln Center Defendants.”
Although she was “skeptical that plaintiffs will ultimately be able to prove this conspiracy,” she found the notion that Lincoln Center is a state actor concerning the First Amendment convincing.
To do so, the Court sought to underscore – as had the Eighth Circuit in Wickersham – that this case was not one in which a private entity merely requested the assistance of the police to handle a trespasser, which happens regularly.
Nonetheless, she understood that this instance was distinct from Wickersham in that the police at the air show were an essential element of the event. In contrast, there was no evidence of police involvement in the Lincoln Center concert beyond being alerted by the Lincoln Center to arrest Mr. Forbes.
Sadly, there are many victims, including innocent people who voted for Trump, white people being vilified by corporate media, and so on. Whether Smollett could be classified as a state actor is not at issue. He used the power of the State and his political connections as shiny objects to evade justice and woo his political allies in the press.
All Trump supporters may also be a potential defamation claim against Smollett for his inference and innuendos attempting to paint good people as evil. Suppose someone had been beaten or killed in a riot due to Smollet’s lie. In that case, they likely have zero recourse but to stop watching corporate news and start cleaning houses at the highly political “journalism schools” across the United States.
As he left the Leighton Criminal Court Building in Chicago, Smollett probably didn’t realize how much damage he and Kim Foxx had done, including to our offices of public trust and the appearance of propriety in our justice system generally.
The Supreme Court has narrowed the circumstances in which private actors are considered state actors, making it more difficult to blame nongovernmental organizations for constitutional infractions.
Nonetheless, civil-rights groups may still pursue private actors, as these two most recent instances under civil rights law illustrate. Whether or not civil rights victims exist to file a case at the courthouse remains to be seen.
We review journalists and politicians with suspicion as our founding fathers did. So we are tasked with the job of non-partisan reporting, which may seem impossible.
Have a correction or update to this article? We believe in honesty and transparency in citizen journalism in your town. We want to hear your courtroom story about the Jussie Smollet case with your help.
Perhaps you witnessed an attacker besides the two black men who allegedly poured bleach on Smollett. We want to hear your response today. Call us for a free legal consultation at (833) LETS-SUE!
Michael is a managing partner at the nationwide Ehline Law Firm, Personal Injury Attorneys, APLC. He’s an inactive Marine and became a lawyer in the California State Bar Law Office Study Program, later receiving his J.D. from UWLA School of Law. Michael has won some of the world’s largest motorcycle accident settlements.