Rra, from a lawyer's perspective
 

Intriguing article, I picked it up from the NPHC Topica list.
Real Talk with John Fagerholm: R. Kelly And The Court Of Public
Opinion
written by John W. Fagerholm, Esq.
Friday - June 7, 2002

Another talented and successful brother bites the dust. I was never a big R. Kelly fan, but I hate to see anyone who works his way up from the bottom take a fall. (At least we now know where his inspiration for all those raunchy ballads came from.)

I don't fault R. Kelly for having some freak in him, but sex with underage girls is illegal. And just as Paul Reubens (Pee Wee Herman) and several Catholic Priests should be punished if they are found guilty for sex acts with little boys, R. Kelly should also be punished when he is found guilty of committing sex acts with little girls.

R. Kelly is in the fight of his life to stay out of jail. But regardless of
the outcome, I don't think he will ever recover from the bad publicity that has been generated. A long standing tenet of our judicial system is "a person is innocent until proven guilty." But in the court of public opinion the inference is always that you are guilty until you can prove your innocence beyond an absolute doubt and even then there will still be doubters of your innocence. In R. Kelly's case, he made it very easy for us
all to infer his guilt by videotaping the whole dirty deed.

There have been several other artists who have been part of similar scandals and have recovered or even gained more notoriety because of the scandal. Most notably, Michael Jackson was accused several years ago of inappropriate behavior with young boys and he is still going strong as ever. The distinction between R. Kelly and Michael Jackson is that there was not any
real proof that Michael Jackson acted inappropriately with any children. The only evidence was the accusations of a father who lost credibility by demanding money for keeping quiet. There was never any proof of molestation and the police dropped all criminal charges for lack of evidence.

There is no doubt in my mind that R. Kelly will be convicted of the crimes he is charged with. The video clearly depicts him having sex. (Note to criminals: Do not record your crimes under any circumstances). The only question remaining is whether the females that are engaging in sex with him are of legal consenting age.

I don't think the video is proof in itself of the age of the females because it is very difficult to determine age just by looking. However, I am sure that the prosecutors and investigators in this case have located the females depicted in the video and determined their ages at the time the video was
made. In a high-profile case where the accused has the money to fight his conviction, the prosecutors would not have brought an indictment unless they had the proof needed to make it stick.

Even if R. Kelly is not convicted and he continues to make music, I do not think the music industry will be quick to forgive his misdeeds. R. Kelly is going to find it very difficult to find any players in the industry that will back any of his projects. My guess is that R. Kelly will be black-balled from the industry in the same way that Rob Lowe was black-balled from the film and television industry for nearly a decade.

For those of you who don't know the story, during the Republican National Convention in the early nineties, Rob Lowe met a girl at a bar for persons 21 and older. All the evidence showed that Rob Lowe did not have knowledge that the girl was only sixteen, but it took nearly a decade for him to be accepted back into the folds of the industry because he videotaped himself having sex with a girl who was later discovered to be underage.

If I were R. Kelly, I would have fled to Brazil. There is no extradition treaty with the US, the exchange rate is favorable and the legal age of consent is 14.

John W. Fagerholm, Esq. is a music attorney based in the Los Angeles area. He represents several multi-platinum artists and producers and a grammy nominated artist. Mr. Fagerholm also represents several successful independent record labels, radio personalities, and management and booking agencies. For his clients, he negotiates and drafts recording, producing, and distribution agreements, among others; administrates publishing; forms entertainment companies; registers trademarks and copyrights; and litigates disputes. Contact him at johnfag-@aol.com.

R. Kelly's Kindergarten Concert
by Marcus Errico
Jun 10, 2002, 4:00 PM PT

R. Kelly's first post-arrest concert might get him in a heap of trouble.

Just hours after the singer was arrested by Chicago police, rung up on child-pornography charges and released on bail, he reportedly performed with a group of kindergarten students--seemingly a violation of a judge's order barring Kelly from coming into contact with any unrelated minor.

Kelly, 35, was booked Friday in his hometown on 21 counts of child pornography stemming from a much-bootlegged underground videotape purportedly showing him having sex with a 14-year-old. The Grammy winner faces up to 15 years in prison and a $100,000 fine if convicted. Kelly has repeatedly proclaimed his innocence.

Following his processing at a police station, according to the Chicago Tribune, Kelly was accompanied by his lawyer, Ed Genson, and spiritual adviser, the Reverend James Meeks, to Meeks' parish, the Salem Baptist Church, where a group had gathered to sing a Kelly composition with the beleagured songsmith.

Included in the group of about 1,000 people were two dozen kindergarteners. Kelly led the group in the performance.

Apparently, the mini-concert isn't sitting too well with Chicago prosecutors. After Kelly was arrested at his home in Florida last week, he appeared before a local judge to post bond so he could return to Chicago to face the charges. At that hearing, Polk County Judge Karla Wright set the terms of the bond, one of which called for Kelly to stay away from underage children not related by blood or marriage.

The Chicago-based prosecutors in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office tells the Tribune they had been notified of Kelly's appearance with the children and that prosecutors will in turn bring it up before a judge to determine whether Kelly has violated the order.

But Kelly's lawyer Genson says his client did nothing wrong. Genson tells the paper that the order only applied to the Florida bond. "When he surrendered in Chicago, the Florida bond was no longer valid," he tells the Tribune. "There were no conditions on the Illinois bond."

Kelly, who paid $75,000 in cash to make his $750,000 bond, is scheduled to be back in court on June 26.

Jaysis
 

Who is stupider -- Mike Tyson or Rra? My vote is Rra.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
http://216.40.249.192/mysmilies/cont...inkai/tool.gif

Rra...

I just heard the latest in this drama . . .

The young girl's parents are going to be charged along with Rra. The prosecution is saying that they knew what was going on, agreed to it, and even helped it to happen. (In what ways? I really don't know).

You know what, this really explains a lot for me. I kept wondering why in the world Sparkle, the aunt, was the only one saying something. I just figured that the parents got paid before Sparkle could get to them. Come to find out, they were in on it from jump.

rkelly...
 

As I peruse thru the many opinions written about Kelly I ponder the question is a man guilty when he is misled? I teach 13-14+ year olds ;many of which look older than I do! I have seen girls actually flirting with the men in my building (and getting rejection but they still persist might I add). They wear halter tops, tight skirts, daisy dukes...you name it they wear it. Keep in mind they bring extra clothing to school to change without the parents knowledge. Some parents mind you don't care and buy the clothes for them! I digress..... I feel that some men are doomed from the beginning. Some tell them no and some of the girls are so trifling that they lie just to get even. Others truly don't know these girls ages. You have your dirty old men but let's keep it real. If a man asks how old are you and you say 18 and you look like you are 18 some men are not smart enough to conversate first then get the "draws" second. I digress..... In his case, I think it is a case of revenge. C'mon suing for $50,000? Does that really make sense? Where were the parents when this child dropped her panties? Where is the moral value of teaching a girl how to be a lady? :confused: I didn't hear of her resisting any sexual advances either? We have a lot of GROWN women caught up with the idea of "I slept with a celebrity" so what makes us think that this girl or any cheez-chaser is any different. I am not saying he doesn't have a fetish for young girls,I'm saying that with his popularity comes the price of fame. Whatcha think?:) :mad: :mad: :mad:

See, this is the ridiculousness I'm talkin about....
 

BOO!!! I'm sorry, but BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Why was this newsworthy? Out of A THOUSAND people, there were 24 kindergarteners????? SO WHAT?

geesh... get a real story.

Re: rkelly...
 

I think that blaming a CHILD for thinking and acting like a CHILD is kind of pointless.

You have a real point here- where were these girls parents? Why were they not raised to value themselves and their bodies? Why on earth would you let a fourteen year old walk around butt nekkid?

But at the same time, I think you are blaming those girls, and that is unfair. They are CHILDREN. The responsibility for acting with restraint and care lies with the ADULT men.

I don't care how big her chest is, the moment a fourteen or fifteen year old open their mouth, you know that they are not full-grown, mature adults. Their thoughts and attitudes are mostly immature and/or unformed and you can SEE that. Any man who says he did not is lying, or has blinded himself to his own moral culpability in the situation.

It is up to grown ass people to act like it, and sometimes that means taking RESPONSIBILITY for the harm that you do, no matter how many millions of records you have sold.

Re: Re: rkelly...
 

It all dependes. Now while talking to a 14 year old may be obvious. If a child is btwn 16 and 17, maybe 15 and has a body and LOOKS grown, it may be hard to tell how old they really are. I work in an adolescent clinic for ages 12-24 and I have been wrong on several occasions on both ends. There are some 20 year olds who I swore were in their teens based on body type AND the way they talked. Conversation is not always a good indicator. I am sure some of you know some teens that when they open their mouth you think, they are very mature for their age. These are usually the ones who can pass for being older.

And I said it before, the young girls (boys if applicable) and their parents should undergo some type of counseling/education as part of the whole outcome of the trial. Just b/c you want to press charges against this man for "violating" your daughter, remember she did spread her legs. :eek: (I had to be blunt). Some girls will only get "involved" with older men. What will you teach them, or will just get mad at the 22 year old man who got your 16 year old pregnant, b/c this is an everyday occurance.

No doubt, the parents do have some part in this whole fiasco. Parents are responsible for their children's actions until they are 18 years of age...then they must fend for themselves. Up to that time, it is crucial that parents instill in their child a sense of self: having goals, respect for others, self esteem, self identity, etc. Today, young people receive such visual stimulation in the classroom and through various media that serve as interference in the parents instructional plan (for those who are trying to parent). Destiny's Child, Brittany Spears, MTV, their peers are influencing them in a different direction. (Let me digress for a sec and say: THIS IS NOT NEW...it was going on when I was a teenager...the era of the "daisy dukes" and "poom-poom shots"--not shorts)

What is critical to remember is that kids are influenced...and even if they dress a certain way...and try to act grown...the foundation laid by their parents and their own moral development will keep them from doing "the dirty" and other misdeeds. Do I believe that the kids are wrong? Its not an easy issue...because as the old saying goes...CHILDREN LEARN WHAT THEY LIVE. And, at the pre-teen and teenage years...they are still learning and are still living. Who's job is it to ensure that they make good decisions?Everyone.

The African Proverb is so true: it takes a village to raise a child. And, as much as Hillary may have overused my ancestors saying...it is a true statement. Grandma, grandpa, "Uncle" Joe, Sister Smith....er'body must be involved. And, guess what? The "adult" men must help out...teach these young ladies that their value is not in externalities...but their value is in their hearts and minds....that their instruments are not to be misused and widely exposed.

We all have a job to play....its about holistic responsibility. When I see problems such as these arising...it troubles me...not from a "they" standpoint, but a "we" one. I think of where did WE go wrong. How can I work to ensure that young ladies under my influence don't fall into such sex traps? I think about these young boys. I want them to become responsible MEN. I want to see men of their community and home step in and help direct them toward the meaning of TRUE manhood.

You know, I'm thinking about Rra's baby girls. I think about his children and the kind of message they are receiving about Black manhood by watching their dad. Yes, yes, the momma and R. should have thought about them long ago..but they didn't and now what? Who's going to get them going in the right direction?

See, it is my belief that we have to step around this whole accusatory slant that many have been taking here...and find something to do so that cycles of behavior are not repeated. Any suggestions? What are YOU going to do?

I generally do not get so disgusted, but with a couple of the last posts, I cannot hide my disdain. Are you people serious? Am I hearing what I think I am hearing?
Sometimes, the greatest enemy of black people are we we black people ourselves. We sometimes find away to make excuses for our famous people. There is no way to justify a superstar sleeping with a kid. None. The argument about mature looking children is weak and irresponsible, and borders on a criminal. I cannot say it any better than Lovelyivy.
So what if they "spread their legs"? So would a 2yr-old. I know that is extreme, but the responsibility lies with the adult male. Period. As a man, I have a responsibility to ensure that I am not taking advantage of a child. If I cannot be sure of whom I am sleeping with, then I need to keep my pants on. It is ridiculous to remove blame from who and where it is due.
I agree that some kids are physically misleading. I coach middle school kids, so I've seen grown men fall prey to children. I also agree with Miss priss in that I believe that the parents are almost as guilty as R Kelly. They should be prosecuted. However, to suggest that these supposedly "fast" girls are more to blame than a man with a track record of luring underaged girls to have illicit sexual relations is preposterous.
Sometimes, as men, we need to stop pointing fingers. There are worse things than a "fast" child. I do not mean to sound moralistic, but if we gave in to anything that wore a skirt, we do not deserve the respect and love we demand from our women. We need to quit coddling celebrities, and call a spade a "spade". I agree, Riley, these girls need some good teaching, but the responsibility ultimately lies with the adult. Fair or not, that's how it is, and it is not that hard to uphold.

Perspective on R
 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/...s-kelly09.html


http://www.suntimes.com/output/mitch...s-mitch11.html


http://www.suntimes.com/output/dyson...t-dyson11.html

I totally agree with you. R. Kelly and others like him must understand that age isn't simply a number...but that as adults, there is some shouldering that must be done. Adult men and women have to carry the burden of girls and boys and help guide them along the way toward morally based and intellectually driven decisions.

I've approached this topic today from a standpoint of R. Kelly is wrong. He placed an adult decision in child hands and that is something that he should not have done under ANY circumstances. However, how can we push the dialogue further? Do we keep talking about this gross wrong, or do we use it as a catalyst for other discussion?

This brings me back to my question, what are WE going to do (assuming that like me, you have an Afro or God-centric world view that the problems of girls and boys is a WE issue)?

Maybe you misunderstood me. IF Rra is guilty then he should be prosecuted. I am not taking any blame of the gulty men who may or not prey on young girls. These are some of the same men who get these young girls pregnant and say it ain't mine. Yes prosecute!

On the other side a two year-old is not going to lie ans say she is 18 or 19 and I want to have sex with you. If a teenager thinks it is cool to do so, and lets keep it real some of us have lied about our ages for many differnt reasons, they need to be educated as to why is it not cool. The repecussions that can happen. When I was a teenager many of my peers knew what satuatory (sp?) rape was but didn't care b/c they didnt get caught.

What I say is once we prosecute and punish the criminal then what??

First of all, TLAW, you are absolutely on point.

You have sort of sideswiped the issue. You are correct that these girls need to be educated. But they cannot educate themselves. Therefore the responsibility lies with parents, teachers, and indeed, the men they come on to.