Judge says Levert had drug addiction, untreated high blood pressure
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Nancy Margaret Russo said Sean Levert recently admitted to having a $50-a-day marijuana addiction.
He said the habit began when he was 14.
He also had high blood pressure and wasn’t taking medication for it, Russo said in a telephone interview this morning.
Levert died late Sunday in Lutheran Hospital, where he was taken after he became ill in the Cuyahoga County jail. An autopsy is being conducted today. A spokesman for the coroner’s office said no “foul play or trauma” is suspected in Levert’s death.
Last Monday, Russo sentenced Levert, 39, to 22 months in prison for failing to pay nearly $90,000 to three children. The oldest child, Keith Potts, is an adult and in prison. Potts’ mother, Robbie Cayson, 39, was arrested in February and charged with leading a criminal gang.
Levert told Russo that the only medication he took was an occasional Xanax, which treats insomnia and anxiety.
He tested positive for marijuana while out on bond on the child support charges.
Court records show he had been convicted a half-dozen times of driving with a suspended license. He was convicted of being impaired while driving in 1993 and having an open beer can in his car in 1995, when he was also convicted of drug abuse. He successfully completed a two-year substance abuse treatment program.
Russo declared Levert indigent so that his money would go toward child support instead of fines and court costs, she said.
Cayson-Hutchin’s mother and numerous young relatives gawked from the house next door as police ushered eight people to a paddy wagon on Lenacrave Avenue. Her daughter and grandsons did nothing wrong, she said.
“The police took all my grandkids,” she said through her door. “They ain’t no gang.”
LMFAO - they’re good boys, right granny? Good to hear these thuglets and their skank mother are off the streets. Lock these social diseases up as long as possible.
Tags: levert, shawn
Come on, troll. You can do better than that.
Really? So Bill Clinton wasn’t a Democrat? How about Grover Cleveland? Was he a Democrat? Both were more fiscally conservative than Obama (Cleveland was downright laissez faire capitalist by almost anyones standards). Your definition of Democrat is quite narrow.
Capitalism is horrible, huh? Should we turn it all into a big commune then, with centrally managed industry?
That would only be the biggest scandal since the 2000 election.
Don’t worry, they still don’t belong in the same sentence.
IM IN UR MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETZGIVIN U IDEAZ
perhaps it’s this: Republicans under Bush have completely alienated libertarians. They don’t support personal responsibility for individuals or corporations, nor do they support individual freedom. Telecom amnesty, for example, is an issue that displays exactly how republicans have let down their libertarian constituency.While democrats don’t usually appeal to libertarians, currently, their actions have more in common with libertarians than those of republicans. It’s ironic, but democrats’ support of personal freedom, insofar as they are making feeble attempts to slow the Bush spy machine, are more appealing to libertarians than the republicans’ constant championing of increased federal government power.So, Libertarians who want to at least keep federal infringement on personal freedom in stasis, should vote for democrats. Neither party proposes to do anything about personal responsibility, and republicans are preaching authoritarianism. If we’re to choose between the major parties, libertarians are best represented by democrats.
“There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.” - Ed Howdershelt
They have some crazy theory that all they need is ten percent support to win because they will be the only ones who will vote en masse. I think they’re in for a big shock.
The scream wasn’t what sunk Dean because the momentum was already against him by that point. He needed an early victory or strong second place showing and he didn’t get it. Part of the reason was the behavior of Dean’s supporters in Iowa and NH.Dean, to his credit, attracted a lot of very passionate support. Unfortunately, passionate supporters are sometimes a campaign’s worst enemy, when it comes to converting the population-at-large to your point of view.Dean had a great, sane platform, but the reckless enthusiasm of his supporters made him preceived as rather wild-eyed, and the replay of the scream only reinforced that view.Ron Paul is lucky to have attracted such a strong following and it’s to his credit. But I’ve seen a lot of behavior from those supporters which will doom him in any future election. I wish there was a way to communicate the ideas of restraint and pragmatism to them without stripping the base of their enthusiasm.