FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  »Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: How can Prosecutor also be Corporation Counsel?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Problem:

Corporation Counsel prepares agenda and County Clerks office can only go with what information they are given. This agenda item was published on more than one day. It s incorrect. Gleason's administrative Assistant was nice enough to try and pull up the alleged Muhammed case when I told her it didn't exist in their system either by name or court number. She also tried several variations to no avail. Why weren't the deputies named? Is the Sheriff's office being protected?

Also why is there no details regarding the request for legal opinion?

Only thing correct is the Garant case.
Post Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:11 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Why couldn't Corporation Counsel state this was a US District Court case?
Muhammad v. Skinner - Casetext
https://casetext.com/case/muhammad-v-skinner
Jun 24, 2016 - On June 10, 2014, Plaintiff Jabril Muhammad filed this civil rights action against ten Genesee County Sheriff Deputies: Leon Skinner, Mark ...
Post Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:31 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

In case after case, the minutes of the county commission, they are controlling the office of the Prosecuting Attorney-Civil Division by authorizing that division to seek a settlement and bring it back to the commission.

Example:
resolution 16-109 authorizes the settlement negotiations of office of the Prosecuting Attorney- Civil Division regarding the settlement of Long et al vs Sheriff Pickell USDC 16-10842 and bring back proposed settlement for review and approval.

note how in this resolution they indicate the US District Court.
Post Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:21 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Will taxpayers have to cover $36 million verdict


Newly released video shows jail beating that leads $36 million verdict

By Jessica Dupnack | Posted: Thu 4:21 PM, Nov 03, 2016 | Updated: Tue 5:33 PM, Nov 08, 2016

GENESEE COUNTY (WJRT) - UPDATE: (11/08/16) - Taxpayers in Genesee County could be on the hook for millions.


A $36.6 million verdict was handed down last week in an 'excessive force' case against an inmate at the jail.

Genesee County's insurance carrier will only cover so much of the payout; county officials say it will pay out $20 million.

County Commissioner Jamie Curtis says the taxpayers would have to pay the rest. It would be added on to taxes like a millage.

Surveillance video convinced a federal jury to award William Jennings the damages last week. Five current or former deputies were named in the 'excessive force' suit.

The county and the sheriff's office were not named.

The deputies attorney's are appealing the decision, but Curtis says as it stands right now, taxpayers would have to pay for whatever the county's insurance doesn't cover. He says it's his opinion that this could have been avoided if it was settled before going to trial.

"I was really taken aback after I learned the verdict that was so high and there were multiple offers to settle," Curtis said.


A judge's decision on an appeal in this case could change everything, including the hefty payout.

There is a closed door meeting Thursday with county officials to figure out how to move forward.
Post Fri Nov 25, 2016 9:18 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Quote:


The deputies attorney's are appealing the decision, but Curtis says as it stands right now, taxpayers would have to pay for whatever the county's insurance doesn't cover. He says it's his opinion that this could have been avoided if it was settled before going to trial.

"I was really taken aback after I learned the verdict that was so high and there were multiple offers to settle," Curtis said. End Quote

The question is who refused negotiation for a settlement and was it Leyton instead of taKing this to a closed session of the County Commission for them to decide?
Post Fri Nov 25, 2016 9:21 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Art Busch beat Weiss partly based on "the traveling man" theme. Leyton says Weiss was his mentor and he now is Genesee County's "Traveling Man". Personally I don't believe all they trips he paid for out of his campaign funds were really business related, especially since PAAM is a Michigan Prosecuting Attorney organization and not nationwide. Can someone really pay $1000 to $3,000 off on their credit cards from their PAC funds with nary an explanation?. Word is FBI knows but says this is a state issue.

It seemed like he was never in the office when he ran for Michigan Attorney general.
Post Sat Nov 26, 2016 7:19 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

A new issue has come up for Leyton- His Campaign Finance statements which even the FBI knew was bogus. Only the FBI can't prosecute state offenses.
·
The Young Turks – Medium
https://medium.com/theyoungturks
May 19, 2017 - The Young Turks is the flagship show which includes TYT Politics, TYT ... Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton, who in 2016 began ...

The Young Turks – Medium
TYT Network is the largest online news network in the world, covering politics, pop culture and lifestyle. The Young Turks is the flagship show which includes TYT Politics, TYT Interviews, What the Flick?!, ThinkTank, TYT Sports, Pop Trigger, Nerd Alert, and The Jimmy Dore Show.
MEDIUM.COM


Last edited by untanglingwebs on Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Tue May 30, 2017 3:43 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Inside Genesee
43 mins ·
https://youtu.be/Ih7StkBcP1g


Jordan CharitonFollow
May 30

Flint Water Investigator May Have Lied About Out-Of-State Trips

Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton, who in 2016 began investigating the Flint water crisis, claimed he used campaign funds for a series of out-of-state trips last year for meetings that don’t seem to have existed, TYT Politics has learned while combing through campaign finance records.
First elected as Genesee County Prosecutor in 2004, Leyton was given a $45,000 raise in 2015 to simultaneously serve as Corporation Counsel for the county. In this additional role, Leyton receives and handles complaints about public officials’ campaign finance reports.
But the new questions about his own campaign finance filings are raising concerns about the inherent conflict of interest his dual roles create. In 2016, Leyton filed reports stating he used campaign funds for at least five out-of-state trips between January and June designated as “NDAA-travel.”
Leyton is a board member of the National District Attorneys Association, and told TYT Politics:
“In that capacity, I represent all 83 Michigan prosecuting attorneys. NDAA meets in various locales and I am expected to attend the Board of Directors meetings as well as committee meetings and sub-committee meetings. This requires travel.”
On his campaign finance report, Leyton files that he traveled to:
Chicago, Illinois (two separate charges totaling $1,500)
Washington, D.C. (three separate charges totaling $3,000)
Tucson, Arizona (two separate charges totaling $6,000; $4,000 paid on a Capital One card and $2,000 paid back to himself on the same date)
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida (two separate charges totaling $5,000; $1,000 on a Capital One Card and $4,000 paid to David Leyton)
Boston, Massachusetts (three separate charges totaling $4,500; $1,000 on a Capital One card and $3,500 paid to David Leyton).










It’s not clear from the filings whether he was reporting multiple trips to any of the cities or merely filed multiple expenses for single trips.
But, according to NDAA’s website, there were no board meetings or subcommittee meetings held in Chicago, Washington, D.C., or Ft. Lauderdale during the six-month period Leyton claims to have traveled there. The website does list Boston and Tucson as locations where NDAA had meetings, matching Leyton’s expenditure records.


NDAA Executive Director Kay Chopard told TYT Politics several meetings Leyton claimed travel for did not happen.
“Several of the dates you list are not NDAA meeting dates or places so I don’t know what those might be,” she said via email.
In response to TYT Politics’ original request for comment, Leyton explained the travel expenses: “Many of the destinations are cities where lodging and meals can add up.” He said that Michigan’s campaign finance laws allowed such travel expenditures and “no taxpayer funds are used.”
Leyton can indeed use campaign donations for job-related incidental expenses, according to Eric Doster, an attorney and author of “Michigan Campaign Finance.”
Fraudulent campaign expenses or reporting, however, could run afoul of both campaign finance laws and the IRS.
“If he went on some type of vacation, that is not an incidental expense,” Doster
Post Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:31 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Genesee County commissioner allegedly yelled ethnic slurs from pontoon boat

Print Email Oona Goodin-Smith | ogoodins@mlive.com By Oona Goodin-Smith | ogoodins@mlive.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on June 08, 2017 at 6:34 PM, updated June 09, 2017 at 7:52 AM




FENTON TOWNSHIP, MI -- A Genesee County commissioner woke a Fenton Township resident early on a Saturday morning by driving his pontoon boat back and forth in front of the man's house, yelling ethnic slurs and swearing at him, a police report states.

According to the Genesee County Sheriff's Office report obtained by The Flint Journal through a Freedom of Information Act request, Commissioner Drew Shapiro, R-District 6, was spotted driving a black Remington pontoon boat, honking the horn of the boat and blasting loud music outside the man's house on Silver Lake in Fenton Township around 8 a.m. on Saturday, May 27.

When the man walked out of his house to investigate the noise, a shirtless Shapiro, holding two bottles of liquor and flanked by a friend, began to make rude gestures and swearing at the man, yelling, "F*** you, Arab," the report states.

Shapiro's friend then threatened to urinate on the man's lawn, but stopped once he saw a neighbor approaching, said Genesee County Sheriff Robert J. Pickell.

The man -- who is in a relationship with Shapiro's ex-fiancee - told police the disturbances have been an "on-going issue" with Shapiro and that he did not want the situation to escalate, according to the police report.

By the time police arrived at the scene around 9:16 a.m., Shapiro had left the man's house, Pickell said.

Shapiro, 28, declined to comment on the alleged incident.

Pickell said he has turned the case over to Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton.

This isn't the first time Shapiro's behavior has raised eyebrows in the county.

In March, Undersheriff Chris Swanson drove Shapiro home from a meeting amid concerns that he may have been drinking.

Shapiro, however, said that the situation occurred due to a mix-up in prescription drug dosage.


A county commissioner left a board meeting Monday, March 13, after making some "off" comments and concerns that he was intoxicated.

Commissioners became concerned at the March meeting, according to Board Chair Mark Young, after Shapiro asked a man who spoke during public comments if he ever saw the movie "Die Hard," because the man appeared to have the same name as a character in the film.

Young declined to comment on the most recent allegations involving the county commissioner.

Shapiro was elected to the District 6 Commission seat in November 2016, beating former Commissioner Tony Brown in the Republican primary.
Post Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:45 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

The Count Commissioners gave Leyton $45,000 to also be Corporation Counsel. He represents them and they control his budget. How do you think he will deal with Shapiro?
Post Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:58 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 6906

June 25, 1996

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

Application of 1968 PA 317 to members of county boards of commissioners, city councils and township boards

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

1968 PA 317 as the sole law regarding conflicts of interest arising out of public contracts involving public servants

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The extent to which 1968 PA 317 supersedes sections 30 and 31 of 1851 PA 156

1968 PA 317 applies to members of county boards of commissioners, city councils, township boards, and members of any other public bodies that county boards of commissioners, city councils and township boards may establish by law.

The Legislature intended that 1968 PA 317 constitute the sole law regarding conflicts of interest arising out of public contracts involving public servants.

1968 PA 317 supersedes section 30 of 1851 PA 156 to the extent that section 30 deals with conflicts of interest arising out of public contracts, and 1968 PA 317 only supersedes section 31 of 1851 PA 156 to the extent that section 31 could penalize a county commissioner for a conflict of interest arising out of a public contract.

Honorable Allen Lowe

State Representative

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan 48913

You have asked three questions regarding the statute governing conflicts of interest arising out of contracts between public servants and public entities, 1968 PA 317, MCL 15.321 et seq; MSA 4.1700(51) et seq. Section 2 of 1968 PA 317 generally prohibits public servants from being interested in, soliciting, negotiating or approving contracts with the public entity they serve. Sections 3, 3a and 4 of the statute then create some exceptions to that general rule.

You first ask whether 1968 PA 317 applies to members of county boards of commissioners, city councils, township boards, and members of any other public bodies that county boards of commissioners, city councils and township boards may establish by law. Section 1(a) of 1968 PA 317 defines "public servant" as follows:

"Public servant" includes all persons serving any public entity, except members of the legislature and state officers who are within the provisions of section 10 of article 4 of the state constitution as implemented by legislative act. [Emphasis added.]

Section 1(b) of 1968 PA 317, in turn, defines "public entity" as follows:

"Public entity" means the state including all agencies thereof, any public body corporate within the state, including all agencies thereof, or any non-incorporated public body within the state of whatever nature, including all agencies thereof.

These definitions are very broad, and clearly cover officers and employees of all public bodies, with the exception of members of the Legislature and state officers who fall within the purview of Const 1963, art 4, s 10, and its implementing legislation, 1968 PA 318, MCL 15.301 et seq; MSA 4.1700(21) et seq. Accordingly, both the courts of this state and this office have applied 1968 PA 317 to various local officials. See, e.g., Van Buren Twp v Ackron, 63 Mich App 600; 234 NW2d 722 (1975); OAG, 1979-1980, No 5685, p 703 (April 9, 1980); OAG, 1985-1986, No 6276, p 26 (March 1, 1985); OAG, 1989-1990, No 6563, p 27 (January 26, 1989).

It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your first question, that 1968 PA 317 applies to members of county boards of commissioners, city councils, township boards, and members of any other public bodies that county boards of commissioners, city councils and township boards may establish by law. (1)

You next ask whether the Legislature intended that 1968 PA 317 constitute the sole law regarding conflicts of interest arising out of public contracts involving public servants. The answer to your second question is found in section 8 of 1968 PA 317, which states:

This act shall supersede all local charter provisions, whether incorporated in legislative acts or local charters, which relate to the matter of conflict of interest. It is the intention that this act shall constitute the sole law in this state and shall supersede all other acts in respect to conflicts of interest relative to public contracts, involving public servants other than members of the legislature and state officers, including but not limited to subsection (3) of section 30 of Act No. 156 of the Public Acts of 1851, as amended, being section 46.30 of the Compiled Laws of 1948. [Emphasis added].

Thus, the Legislature has clearly stated its intent that 1968 PA 317 "shall constitute the sole law in this state and shall supersede all other acts in respect to conflicts of interest relative to public contracts involving public servants."

It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your second question, that the Legislature intended that 1968 PA 317 constitute the sole law regarding conflicts of interest arising out of public contracts involving public servants.

Your third question is whether 1968 PA 317 supersedes sections 30 and 31 of the statute governing county boards of commissioners, 1851 PA 156, MCL 46.1 et seq; MSA 5.321 et seq. Since section 30 of 1851 PA 156 is specifically mentioned in section 8 of 1968 PA 317, the effect of that section on section 30 will be addressed first.

As noted above, section 8 of 1968 PA 317 specifies that the act supersedes "subsection (3) of section 30 of Act No. 156 of the Public Acts of 1851." When 1968 PA 317 was enacted, subsection (3) of section 30 of 1851 PA 156 provided:

No member of such [county board of commissioners] shall be interested directly or indirectly in any contract or other business transaction with any such county, or any board, office or commission thereof, during the time for which he is elected or appointed, nor for one year thereafter unless such contract or transaction has been approved by 3/4 of the members of the [county board of commissioners] and so shown on the minutes of the board together with a showing that the board is cognizant of such member's interest. This prohibition is not intended to apply to appointments or employment by the county, or its officers, boards, committees, or other authority, which appointments and employment shall be governed by the provisions of section 30a of this act. [Emphasis added.]

The answer to your question is further complicated, however, by the fact that, seven years after the passage of 1968 PA 317, the Legislature amended section 30 of 1851 PA 156 by 1975 PA 206. By this amendment, the Legislative eliminated every subsection of section 30 except subsection (3), which then became the whole of section 30. Thus, the Legislature rewrote section 30 to include only the language that was supposedly superseded by 1968 PA 317. Arguably, this change may evidence a legislative intent that section 30 be a viable provision as to contractual conflicts of interest involving county commissioners.

Unfortunately, the legislative history of 1975 PA 206 provides little guidance as to the Legislature's intent in eliminating all of section 30 of 1851 PA 156 except that portion already superseded by 1968 PA 317. As 1975 PA 206 was originally introduced (as HB 4811), and as it originally passed the House of Representatives, it only amended section 11 of 1851 PA 156 and added section 11b to that statute. 1975 Journal of the House 844. HB 4811 was amended in the Senate to include language amending section 30. 1975 Journal of the Senate 1777, 1791, 1830. The only legislative analysis of HB 4811 was written prior to the amendments made in the Senate, and merely discusses the addition of section 11b, allowing county boards of commissioners to enter into installment contracts for the purchase of land, property or equipment. House Legislative Analysis, HB 4811, June 5, 1975. Thus, there is insufficient evidence of the Legislature's intent in amending section 30 of 1851 PA 156 to warrant a conclusion that the Legislature intended to render the superseded language of section 30(3) viable, contrary to the clear expression of legislative intent found in section 8 of 1968 PA 317 that there be statewide uniformity in the statutory rules concerning contractual conflicts of interest involving public servants.

In addition, whatever the Legislature's purpose in leaving the language of subsection (3) of section 30 intact while eliminating the remainder of section 30, the fact remains that the Legislature made no changes whatsoever to the language of subsection (3). The Legislature has established numerous rules of statutory construction in MCL 8.3 et seq; MSA 2.212 et seq. In particular, MCL 8.3u; MSA 2.212(21) reads as follows:

The provisions of any law or statute which is re-enacted, amended or revised, so far as they are the same as those of prior laws, shall be construed as a continuation of such laws and not as new enactments.

Thus, since the language of subsection (3) of section 30 of 1851 PA 156 remained unchanged by 1975 PA 206, section 30, as it now exists, should not be considered a new enactment. Since section 30 is merely a continuation of section 30(3) as it existed at the time of the enactment of 1968 PA 317, that statute supersedes section 30 just as it superseded section 30(3).

It should also be noted that, in addition to covering conflicts of interest arising out of public contracts, section 30 of 1851 PA 156 covers conflicts of interest arising out of "other business transaction[s]." In expressly indicating the Legislature's intent that 1968 PA 317 supersede what is now section 30 of 1851 PA 156, section 8 of 1968 PA 317 states generally that the act supersedes "all other acts in respect to conflicts of interest relative to public contracts." (Emphasis added.) Thus, there is a question whether 1968 PA 317 supersedes section 30 completely, or only to the extent that section 30 governs conflicts of interest arising out of contracts.

The rules of statutory construction governing implied repeals of statutes is helpful in analyzing this situation. Generally, the courts of this state are reluctant to find that a statute has been repealed by implication, but will do so in two instances: (1) when a subsequent legislative act conflicts with a prior act; or (2) when a subsequent act is intended to occupy the entire field covered by a prior act. House Speaker v State Administrative Bd, 441 Mich 547, 561-563; 495 NW2d 539 (1993). Applying a similar standard to determine whether the Legislature intended that 1968 PA 317 supersede section 30 of 1851 PA 156 in its entirety requires that we examine whether the two statutes conflict with regard to non-contractual conflicts of interest and whether 1968 PA 317 occupies the entire field covered by section 30 of 1851 PA 156.

As 1968 PA 317 was originally written, it clearly applied only to conflicts of interest arising out of public contracts. Through 1982 PA 207, however, the Legislature added subsection (2) to section 3 of 1968 PA 317 to read, (2) in pertinent part, as follows:

This section and section 2 shall not prevent a public servant from making or participating in making a governmental decision to the extent that the public servant's participation is required by law. ... As used in this subsection, "governmental decision" means a determination, action, vote, or disposition upon a motion, proposal, recommendation, resolution, ordinance, order, or measure on which a vote by members of a local legislative or governing body of a public entity is required and by which a public body effectuates or formulates public policy. [Emphasis added].

In a Letter Opinion of the Attorney General to Senator Robert Young dated August 12, 1982, this office noted that the addition of the reference to "governmental decisions" in section 3(2) might have violated the title-object clause of Const 1963, art 4, s 24, since the title of 1968 PA 317 only referred to contracts and not to other governmental decisions. Subsequently, the Legislature passed 1984 PA 81, which amended the title of 1968 PA 317 to read: "[a]n act relating to the conduct of public servants in respect to governmental decisions and contracts with public entities." (Emphasis added.)

Do these amendments to 1968 PA 317 indicate that the act covers both contractual and non-contractual conflicts of interest? The answer is no, since 1968 PA 317 still contains no language prohibiting conflicts of interest arising out of non-contractual decisions. Since section 30 of 1851 PA 156 does expressly prohibit members of the county board of commissioners from being directly or indirectly interested in "business transactions" other than contracts, the two acts are not really in conflict on this issue.

Thus, 1968 PA 317 conflicts with section 30 of 1851 PA 156 only to the extent that both deal with conflicts of interest arising out of public contracts. In addition, despite the reference to "governmental decisions" in the title and section 3(3) of 1968 PA 317, section 8 of the act contains no reference to "governmental decision" and says only that the act constitutes the sole law of this state with respect to conflicts of interest regarding public contracts. Accordingly, there is no basis to infer a legislative intent that 1968 PA 317 occupy the entire field of non-contractual conflicts of interest. Therefore, 1968 PA 317 does not supersede section 30 of 1851 PA 156 to the extent that section 30 covers non-contractual conflicts of interest.

You have also asked whether 1968 PA 317 supersedes section 31 of 1851 PA 156. Section 31(1) (3) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

[I]f a member of the county board of commissioners neglects or refuses to perform the duties which are required of the member by law, without just cause, the member shall for each offense forfeit $100.00.

Research has failed to reveal any authority applying section 31(1) to violations of the conflict of interest prohibitions of section 30. Nonetheless, section 31(1) could apply to violations of section 30, if section 30 is construed as imposing a duty to avoid conflicts of interest. To the extent that section 31 could penalize a county commissioner for a conflict of interest arising out of a public contract, 1968 PA 317 supersedes section 31. Otherwise, section 31 remains a viable provision unaffected by 1968 PA 317.

It is my opinion, therefore, in answer to your third question, that 1968 PA 317 supersedes section 30 of 1851 PA 156 to the extent that section 30 deals with conflicts of interest arising out of public contracts, and that 1968 PA 317 only supersedes section 31 of 1851 PA 156 to the extent that section 31 could penalize a county commissioner for a conflict of interest arising out of a public contract.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General

(1) Your opinion request refers to other public bodies that county boards of commissioners, city councils and township boards may establish by law. The request does not identify any of these other public bodies. This opinion only concludes that to the extent, if any, that these three local units of government have the authority to create other public bodies with the authority to enter into contacts, then the members of those other public bodies would also be subject to 1968 PA 317.

(2) Under the amendment of 1968 PA 317 by 1984 PA 184, the language of subsection (2) of section 3 was later placed in subsection (3).

(3) The other subsections of section 31 are clearly unaffected by 1968 PA 317, since subsections (2) and (3) specifically address violations of provisions regarding open meetings and public records, not conflicts of interest.
Post Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:46 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

COUNTY CIVIL COUNSEL
Act 15 of 1941
AN ACT to authorize boards of commissioners in certain counties to employ attorneys to represent the
county or county officers in civil matters.
History: 1941, Act 15, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942;Am. 1978, Act 508, Imd. Eff. Dec. 13, 1978.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
49.71 County civil attorney; employment, compensation.
Sec. 1. The board of supervisors of any county by a majority vote of the members-elect may employ an
attorney to represent the county in civil matters, whenever the board determines that the prosecuting attorney
is unable to properly represent the county. Such attorney shall receive such compensation as shall be
determined by the board of supervisors.
History: 1941, Act 15, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942;Am. 1945, Act 18, Eff. Sept. 6, 1945;CL 1948, 49.71;Am. 1952, Act 16, Eff. Sept.
18, 1952;Am. 1957, Act 5, Imd. Eff. Mar. 20, 1957.
49.72 Prosecuting attorney; limitation of action in civil matters.
Sec. 2. In case the board of supervisors of any such county shall employ an attorney under this act to
represent the county in civil matters, the prosecuting attorney of such county shall not act with respect to such
matters, unless requested to do so by the board of supervisors.
History: 1941, Act 15, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942;CL 1948, 49.72.
49.73 Employment of attorney to represent elected county officers; compensation; MCL
691.1408 not superseded.
Sec. 3. The board of commissioners of a county shall employ an attorney to represent elected county
officers, including the sheriff, prosecuting attorney, clerk, treasurer, county surveyor, county executive,
register of deeds, drain commissioner, mine inspector, public works commissioner, and judges of the county
district, probate, and circuit courts in civil matters, as a defendant, when neither the prosecuting attorney or
county corporation counsel is able to represent the particular officer. Legal advice, counsel, or court action
shall be required under this section only in a case which involves an official act or duty of the office of the
county officer. The attorney shall receive reasonable compensation as shall be determined by the board of
commissioners. This section shall not supersede section 8 of Act No. 170 of the Public Acts of 1964, being
section 691.1408 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
Post Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:04 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

So a previous Board of Commissioners determined they needed a Corporation Counsel separate from the Prosecuting Attorney. So this Board of Commissioners decides to give Leyton the title of Corporation Counsel and extra money. They also want to enrich their pockets and that of the Prosecutor and the Sheriff.

Someone needs to have the Attorney General sift through the laws and previous attorney general rulings to determine if there is a conflict of interest or incompatible offices.

Truthfully, I view the county as more corrupt than the City of Flint. But that is my opinion.
Post Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:41 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

I had looked at Leyton's campaign finance reports before but got distracted. I was reminded yesterday and they are worse than I remembered. How does one pay themselves $1,000 to $4,000 dollars for campaign expenses without saying what these expenses are. But since Michigan eliminated all of the ethics rules, what do you expect? I was told the Young Turks came here for one reason and then focused on Leyton as being more corrupt.

Purpose of expenditure must provide a specific use of the funds. Terms such as "expenses" "supplies" "work",
etc. are too generic to provide an adequate description. More specific information is needed as follows:
Page 35 of 56; Expenditures #1, #4, and #5
Page 36 of 56; Expenditures #4
Page 37 of 56; Expenditures #1, #4 and #5
Page 38 of 56; Expenditures #1, #2
Page 39 of 56; Expenditure #1
Page 40 of 56; Expenditure #2, # 4, and #5
Page 41 of 56; Expenditure #1
Page 42 of 56; Expenditure #1
Page 43 of 56; Expenditure #2, #3, and #5
Page 44 of 56; Expenditure #2 and #5
Page 45 of 56; Expenditure #2 and #5
Page 46 of 56; Expenditure #3 and #5
Page 47 of 56; Expenditure #4 and #5
Page 48 of 56; Expenditure #5
Page 49 of 56; Expenditure #2
Page 50 of 56; Expenditure #1, #2 and #3
Page 51 of 56; Expenditure #2, #3, and #5
Page 52 of 56; Expenditure #2 ad #4
Page 53 of 56; Expenditure #5
Page 54 of 56; Expenditure #3 and #4
Page 55 of 56; Expenditure #3
I may be mistaken but I have not seen corrections on any of these items from the campaign's 1B Itemized expenditures.

Last time I looked, the Young Turks video had received over 240,000 views. At one point it was being viewed over 40,000 times per hour. Now many in the viewership know how corrupt Michigan and Genesee County is.

Capitol One credit card bills paid under "campaign expenses" 1-26-16 $1,000; 3-31-16 $1,000; 3-11-16 $4,000; 4-22-16 $1,000; 5-21-16 $1,000; 5-26-16 $1,000; 6-16-16 $1,000

Capitol One credit card bills paid under "campaign expenses" 1-26-16 $1,000; 3-31-16 $1,000; 3-11-16 $4,000; 4-22-16 $1,000; 5-21-16 $1,000; 5-26-16 $1,000; 6-16-16 $1,000

Money paid to David leyton under "campaign expenses" 2-23-16 $2,0000; 3-16-16 $500; 3-15-16 $2,000; 4-29-16 $4,000; 6-23-16 $2,000; 6-29-16 $1,000; 7-19-16 $1,000


Bank of America credit card bills paid under "campaign finances" 3-3-16 $500; 3-15-16 $500; 5-24-16 $103

What I want to know is why hasn't the Secretary of State dealt with this issue? I am told they are aware as well as the FBI, who says this is a state issue. Does the cover-up go up to the Michigan Attorney General who has assigned a number of Special AG Prosecuting Attorneys.to Leytons office. I have not spoken to the FBI, but I am told others have..
The lack of ethics policies for the state and Genesee County allowed Leyton and his wife to accept tickets from Nicholas Singelis for a World Series game, said to be valued over $1,000 each that featured Leyton's home town of Boston. Leyton had to abstain from the Gun Board action triggered by Pickell after Pickell inappropriately used court records under seal by Judge Beagle to take the concealed weapon of Singelis. Pickell insisted he had a right to use these. Some question if this was revenge because Pickell was angry over derogatory comments made by Singelis alleging Pickell was having an affair with an employee under him.
Gutless state officials won't ask for an Attorney General opinion. Someone was said to have asked Phelps but as Phelps Leadership Fund is in Leyton's campaign finance reports, I am not surprise they were turned down.
Post Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:14 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Search Results
Flint Water Investigator May Have Lied About Out-Of-State Trips
https://medium.com/theyoungturks/flint-water-investigator-may-have-lied-about-out-...
May 30, 2017 - Flint Water Investigator May Have Lied About Out-Of-State Trips ... Prosecutor David Leyton, who in 2016 began investigating the Flint water crisis, ... In response to TYT Politics' original request for comment, Leyton explained ...
EXCLUSIVE: More Flint Corruption Exposed - YouTube
Video for the young turks flint david leyton▶ 9:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih7StkBcP1g
Jun 1, 2017 - Uploaded by The Young Turks
EXCLUSIVE: More Flint Corruption Exposed. The Young ... Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, hosts of The ...
EXCLUSIVE: Flint Water Investigator Might've Lied | TYT Network
https://tytnetwork.com/2017/05/31/exclusive-flint-water-investigator-mightve-lied/
May 31, 2017 - EXCLUSIVE: Flint Water Investigator Might've Lied ... into Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton's campaign finance irregularities. Leyton is ...
Post Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:55 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >