Your Thread – July 30

Here’s a new one. We’ll have an update ASAP about Drew Peterson’s court hearing, which has been rescheduled for 9:30 a.m. Judge Richard Schoenstedt is expected to rule on Joel Brodsky’s motion to dismiss two felony weapons charges.

~By posting on this blog you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog and by our Terms of Use. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to reportabuse@mysuburbanlife.com.

Advertisements

69 thoughts on “Your Thread – July 30

  1. Did everyone call the Govenors office about the Hearsay Bill!?!?

    If you didnt called yesterday, call today!

    Stacy and Kathleen need to be heard!

  2. http://www.nbc5.com/news/17036876/detail.html?dl=mainclick

    Back To Court For Drew Peterson
    Gun Charges Still Hold

    POSTED: 9:34 am CDT July 30, 2008
    UPDATED: 9:58 am CDT July 30, 2008

    JOLIET, Ill. — Gun charges still hold for former Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson after an appearance in court Wednesday. A Will County judge refused to throw out the gun charges against him.

    A grand jury indicted Peterson on two felonies related to a semiautomatic rifle seized by authorities investigating the disappearance of his wife, Stacy. Authorities contend Peterson possessed an assault rifle with a barrel shorter than allowed by law.

    Speaking to reporters as he left his house on his way to court, Peterson said he had the weapon in question for one reason: “To protect the people of Bolingbrook.”

    NBC5’s Kim Vatis said Peterson referred to the criminal charges as “kind of sad,” convinced that they are “an attempt by state police to rattle me.”

    Peterson said that if he ultimately wins in court and gets the sawed-off semi-automatic assault rifle back, he will give it to his son, Steve, “like all the other guns. ”

    He said if he loses, he said he will take it to trial, where “I’m sure I will prevail.”

    Defense attorney Joel Brodsky argues that his client is immune from prosecution for the gun charges because he was still a police officer when authorities seized the weapon.

    Peterson has been named a suspect in his wife’s disappearance but hasn’t been charged.

    Investigators have also exhumed the body of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen, and ruled her death a homicide.

    Vatis asked Peterson if he feels pressure from all the recent activity.

    “I just have to maintain, and not let them push me into something stupid,” he said.

    VIDEO:
    http://video.nbc5.com/player/?id=280873

    Copyright 2008 by NBC5.com The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  3. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1081664,boling30.article

    Former cop, a suspect in wife Stacy
    Peterson’s diseappearance, couldn’t get felony weapons charge dismissed

    July 30, 2008

    By DANIEL ROZEK Staff Reporter

    A Will County judge refused today to throw out a felony weapons charge that was filed in May against former Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson.

    Judge Richard Schoenstedt rejected an argument by Peterson’s attorneys that federal law allows the retired cop to own the assault rifle that prompted his arrest.

    The ruling means Will County prosecutors can proceed with their criminal case against Peterson, who faces a maximum five-year prison sentence if he’s convicted of possessing an AR-15 rifle with an illegally short barrel.

    After Peterson’s arrest, Will County prosecutors filed a second weapons charge against him, alleging he illegally transferred the assault rifle to his adult son, Steve. Schoenstedt’s ruling means that charge also will proceed against Peterson.

    Those are the only charges that have been filed against the 54-year-old Peterson, but authorities have called him a suspect in the October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy.

    Authorities also have reopened their investigation into the 2004 drowning death of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio. Her death, which initially was ruled an accident, was reclassified a murder following Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

    As a result of those investigations, the Illinois State Police seized the assault rifle last November during a search of Peterson’s Bolingbrook home. But it wasn’t until May that prosecutors filed the felony weapons charge against Peterson, contending the barrel of the AR-15 is shorter than the 16-inch limit set by law.

    Peterson attorneys Joel Brodsky and Andrew Abood, argued earlier that a federal law allows police officers across the nation to own and carry such weapons, if state laws don’t. Prosecutors disputed that, arguing that the federal law only allows police officers to carry concealed handguns.

  4. I must say, it’s nice to see that Brodsky’s arrogant and obnoxious defense got knocked down a few pegs.

    Peterson will get his day in Court, so maybe now they can STFU and try their case where it should be!

  5. “I just have to maintain, and not let them push me into something stupid,” he said.

    Maintain = Keep lying!

    As for the being pushed into something stupid? Nobody pushed you Drew. You did lots of stupid things, all by yourself.

  6. thinkaboutit2 // July 30, 2008 at 10:55 am

    LOL – I guess Drew doesn’t think he’s done anything stupid yet.
    ________________
    And yet he continues to chat with women he does not know … even after Paula “came out” as Katie.

    So we need to know what Drew defines as “stupid” …

  7. I believe most of the pretrial process has to do with the evidence that may eventually be presented at trial. There are motions for discovery – so the defense gets to see the cards in the prosecution’s hands. There are fights over what should be admissable and what should not. This happens before a jury is selected. Sometimes when the defense lawyer sees that the evidence against his client is bigger than they can overcome they start the process of plea-bargaining. Sometimes the prosecution realizes that the main evidence they wanted to present won’t be accepted and they may drop the charges. And I think sometimes the judge can rule that there isn’t enough evidence to proceed. (This is my understanding and not necessarily the true facts.)

    http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/The-Pretrial-Process.topicArticleId-10065,articleId-10002.html

  8. Noway-The one thing I’ve learned is that everything is relative to the person’s life experiences. This is a constant moving bar – as we age and have new experiences our relative position is altered.

    Example: When I was younger I would consider 6 beers a lot to drink, 2am going to bed early, and having cramps as major pain. Now I consider 3 drinks a lot, 11pm as going to bed early, and delivering a child major pain.

    I know people who consider 3 beers just a warm-up or the “hair of the dog”.

    So maybe Drew has done other things in life that he considers much more stupid than things he’s publicly done since he came under the media spotlight.

  9. 😀 thinkaboutit2

    That’s why I wanted Drew’s definition of stupid. He must not think it’s stupid to continue to chat with women he does not know.

    Because as of at least of two days ago he was still chatting with females he did not know, and it was only today that he said, ““I just have to maintain, and not let them push me into something stupid” …

    I just wondered if “something stupid” meant “gave himself away.” 😉

  10. That’s the way I read it, too, Noway… ‘maintain’ the lies and don’t be pushed into any slip-ups…

  11. Something stupid?

    >Lose his temper and/or say/do something that someone will be able to use against him if this comes to trial.

    > Revisit the “site” to reveal where Stacy is.

    >Take hostages and do the suicide by cop.

    It could mean ANYTHING.

    Chatting with women is something millions of men do, and is not illegal. Not necessarily smart, but not illegal.

  12. Chatting with women AFTER finding out two of the women you’d been chatting with were really Lenny and Paula ?

    Not illegal but definitely STUPID.

    The two I know of who have chatted with him in the last couple of days are not men, nor do I think they ever have been. They are women, but are not women who know Drew at all.

    But it does make ME wonder who else Drew has been chatting with that he thinks are okay … and makes ME wonder who these “women” really are. 😀

  13. I thought the ‘do somthing stupid’ remark was possibly a reference to a situation like Lenny trying to provoke him into a fight.

  14. Here’s the motion that was unsuccessfully filed by Le Brodsque and subsequently denied.

    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS
    People Of The State Of Illinois Petitioner vs. Drew Peterson Respondent

    No. 08 CF 1169

    MOTION TO DISMISS
    Now comes the Defendant Drew Peterson, by and through his attorneys Joel A. Brodsky and Reem Odeh of the law firm of Brodsky & Odeh and Andrew Abood of the Abood Law Firm and pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/114-1, and the inherent authority granted under People v. Newberry, 166 Ill. 2d 310 (1995) moves this Court to enter an order dismissing the above referenced charge. In support of this motion the Defendant states: 1. Defendant is charged with Unlawful Use Of A Weapon under 720 ILCS/24(a)(7)(ii), to wit: having possession of a rifle, a Colt Sporter Lightweight AR-15 .223 Caliber Serial# SL025365, with a barrel length less than 16 inches in length on November 1, 2007. 2. On November 1, 2008, there was in full force and effect a law enacted by the

    Congress of the United States of America which states at 18 USCS 926B: (Exhibit “A”) “§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that–(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who–(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any

    person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.(e) As used in this section, the term “firearm” does not include–(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act [26 USCS § 5845]);(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title [18 USCS § 921]); and (3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title [18 USCS § 921]).” 3. This statute, known as the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, exempts qualified law enforcement officers from the application of state laws regarding the carrying of concealed firearms. 4. Defendant Drew Peterson was a “qualified law enforcement officer” within the meaning of 18 USC 926B on November 1, 2007. (Exhibit “B”) 5. On November 1, 2007, Defendant Drew Peterson had the photographic identification issued by the Village Of Bolingbrook Police Department required by 18 USC 926B. 6. The firearm identified in the complaint filed in the above referenced case is not any type excluded by 18 USC 926B(e). It is not a machinegun, does not have a silencer, and is not a destructive device as defined by 18 USC 921. 7. The firearm identified in the complaint filed in the above referenced case has been shipped or transported in interstate commerce since its manufacture at Colt’s factory in Hartford, Connecticut and its seizure by the Illinois State Police in Will County, Illinois on November 2, 2007. 8. The firearm identified in the complaint filed in the above referenced case has is capable of being carried in a concealed manner. 9. That since the enactment of this statute on July 22, 2004, the United States Congress has preempted the laws of the individual states and their political subdivisions, on the issue of law enforcement officers accountability to state and local firearms laws.

    10. The United States Congress has made it legal for qualified law enforcement officers to conceal and carry any weapon, (other than a machine gun, a silencer equipped gun, or destructive devise), despite any state or local law to the contrary, preempting and superceding all such state and local laws. 11. As a direct and necessary corollary of the right of qualified law enforcement officers to carry in a concealed manner any such weapon is the necessary right of the said officers to reveal, possess, transport, and store the said firearms while they are not carrying them. (Obviously Congress did not intend that the qualified law enforcement officer sleep, bath, conceal, and carry his weapons 24 hours a day 7 days a week, nor that he would be limited in ownership to only the number of firearms he or she could carry at one time.) 12. Therefore, Defendant Drew Peterson was entitled by Federal law to carry, possess, transport and store the subject Colt Sporter Lightweight AR-15 .223 Caliber Serial# SL025365, with a barrel length less than 16 inches, on November 1, 2007, despite any law of the State of Illinois to the contrary. 13. Because of this exemption granted by the United States Congress Drew Peterson is immune from prosecution for Unlawful Use Of A Weapon under 720 ILCS/24(a)(7)(ii) under the laws of the State of Illinois on November 1, 2007, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to prosecute Drew Peterson for the state offence of Unlawful Use Of A Weapon under 720 ILCS/24(a)(7)(ii) under the laws of the State of Illinois, nor does the complaint against him state an offence for which he can be charged and convicted. WHEREFORE, Defendant Drew Peterson prays that this Court enter an order dismissing the above entitled case and charge against him with prejudice and discharge his bond without further delay.

    _____________________________ Joel A. Brodsky

    Joel A. Brodsky Reem H. Odeh BRODSKY & ODEH Attorneys for Defendant 8 S. Michigan Ave. Suite 3200 Chicago Illinois 60603 (312) 701-3000 Andrew Abood Abood Law Firm Pro Hac Vice for Defendant 264 E. Saginaw St East Lansing MI 48823 (517) 332-5900

  15. WHEREFORE, Defendant Drew Peterson prays that this Court enter an order dismissing the above entitled case and charge against him with prejudice and discharge his bond without further delay.
    Since when does praying have to do with law?
    Drew praying?
    That’s got to be a joke. ROTFFL

  16. zbunny – believe it or not, “pray” and “praying” are commonly used in legal briefs. It’s not a joke. However, in this case, he needs to do all the praying he can, but that, obviously, isn’t something Drew Peterson is probably not real familiar with.

  17. Good thing I wasn’t holding my breath until August 8.

    Why August 8 … what is the significance of that? I thought it was already “on his desk” …

  18. I’m not sure of the significance of that date but I thought I read somewhere that the gov was going to concentrate on the budget before looking at the bill.

  19. Pick me, I know, I know.

    Not really. But, my guess would be he’s checking to see if Madigan agrees with the bill or not. If he agrees with the bill, he’ll either let it sit until he’s good and ready, or he’ll chuck the thing altogether. Haven’t you noticed that’s why nothing gets done lately, and everything that comes up before the Gov is stalled???? Two headstrong people, and no one is working together to solve anything!

  20. Lenny’s post (Ashley) on the blog @ 5:18.
    *************************
    That was sweet. They certainly did appear nervous didn’t they?

  21. ciao51 – Haven’t you learned by now you can’t take what Brodsky says seriously? You’ll probably be seeing him on Fox more than ever!!! He says exactly the opposite of what makes sense.

    🙂

  22. Can someone point me to the chatroom that they set up when they closed the findstacy peterson forum? I was in the chat room once as anon11 and would like to go back.

  23. I know rescue, I wish it was true but I know better.

    I can’t stand to see his or DP’s face on TV – they make me sick!

  24. ciao – hopefully, the talking news heads will finally realize that they make them sick too and keep them off tv!

  25. yis – I thought Noway was looking for you the other night. She said she was chatting with someone by the nic of anon11.

    Noway posts here.

  26. I’m not sure we won’t be seeing them back on FOX, but what I found even funnier was that they didn’t know Lenny was going to be on (see Ashlen July 30, 2008 5:33 PM).

    When Joel said something like “I don’t know. You’d have to ask Len that.” … Mike said “Joining us live from Bolingbrook, Illinois, is Len Wawczak.”

    Ambushed. by. Len. again. on. national. TV.

    But this time, no cops involved. 😀

  27. Len posted on his blog what the fee arrangement is between Peterson and Brodsky.

    “I know this much Joel has not been paid by Drew yet – the deal was that Joel could go on any show he wanted and could talk about whatever he wanted for the publicity and Drew couldnt say anything .. buncha idiots”

    Ah, ha, so that explains it. 😳

  28. lugnut96 // July 30, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,394424,00.html

    JUDGE WILL NOT DISMISS GUN CHARGES.

    CHICAGO — A Will County judge refused Wednesday to dismiss gun charges against former Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson.

    Judge Richard Schoenstedt said he couldn’t find any case law that would justify dropping the charges, even though Peterson was an officer at the time he had the guns.

    A grand jury indicted Peterson on two felonies related to a semiautomatic rifle seized by authorities investigating the disappearance of his wife, Stacy. Authorities contend Peterson possessed an assault rifle with a barrel shorter than allowed by law.

    Peterson has been named a suspect in Stacy’s disappearance but hasn’t been charged.

    Defense attorney Joel Brodsky argues his client is immune from prosecution for the gun charges because he was still a police officer when authorities seized the weapon.
    ————————-

    I brought this over from the 29th thread

  29. rescueapet // July 30, 2008 at 7:23 pm
    __

    That is hilarious. So, the legal profession has been laughing at him for thinking he was a bafoon, NOW its definitely confirmed. 😆

  30. LOL. I saw that Rescue. I think it is great that they did not know Lenny was going to be on. When I watched the M&J interview and they said “Here is Lenny ….” or something to that effect, I was surprised. I was hoping they were surprised too! 😀

  31. I think the hand flapping must have meant:

    The deal was you don’t talk! Did you hear me … I’m the one who gets to talk! Drew! Look at me! Drew … 😀

  32. Gawd, I wish it was possible to hear the Phelps interview! That’s not part of LE’s investigation, so I don’t get why it’s not released.

  33. LOL, liar, liar. Drew’s going to give his side of the story regarding the Lenny & Paula tapes on Fox News/On the Record. Get your rain gear and boot ready.

  34. Come on ISP, FBI, arrest Drew Peterson already! Many of us, the thinking logical public, understand that he is guilty of double (if not more) homicide. This charade has gone on far too long.

  35. 58 – I believe and always have, that the police and prosecutors are 10 steps in front of any of these fools. I have faith, that they are building this case – Brick, by brick, by brick – until they have the entire house built. Nobody is going rush it. They will do what they have been doing and justice WILL be served.

    Maybe I am naive…. But I do believe.

    😉

Comments are closed.