Wanda’s Words: Detroit You So Crazy!

Homage to the fabulous “Wanda” was inspired by the excellent articles found on Blackline addressing opinions and views on a variety of political topics. One of the funniest is the astute and humorous observation made by Lerone Wilson in the article: Blackout: How the City of Detroit Went Crazy.

Conyers continued her tirade, calling Cockrel “Shrek” (and I admit, there’s a slight resemblance). But the problem there is that we all know from the movies that Shrek’s sidekick is Donkey. Thus, if we accept Monica Conyers’ Shrek world view… well, then that makes her the ass.” ——- Yes we hear you Lerone!


Coincidentally, the WordPress HAWT post of the day today 4/16/08 was (drum roll): THE DEFINITION OF PERJURY.

“If you testify in a court of law in the United States, you have to swear an oath to be honest. This oath requires you to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If you violate this oath in sworn testimony, you’re guilty of the crime of perjury: deliberately giving false or misleading testimony under oath.” – Open Mind Blog


Also check out what OverAnalyze observes regarding the behavior’s of our public officials – two words (link): Just Ig’nant. Yes and we couldn’t agree more! And a new “MONICA CONYERS” video, of when she previously threatened to pull a gun on another city worker fairly recently – also on live news — VIDEO: Girl Be Trippin’


Exhibits: Kilpatrick’s Chief Counsel Colbert-Osamuede Selling Fashizzle to Judge Robert Columbo

More spiel from Kwame Kilpatrick’s legal council at Detroit city offices. Just yesterday, on April 4th, Chief Corporate Council Assistant, Valerie Colbert-Osamuede, sends this fashizzle letter to Judge Robert Columbo about why “she forgot about” approving payment of over 8 million dollars of taxpayer money to keep Mike Stefani (and the fired DCP ) under wraps. Her letter appears an attempt to retract what could be seen as further perjurious statements from the Kilpatrick administration, now spewed under the unconvicing auspice of “gee, so sorry, I just didn’t remember that 8 million dollars“.

Will Judge Robert Columbo actually buy into this as justification? We hope not. Because guess what? She also attempts to mislead by erroneously citing every date EXCEPT… the most relevant one:

… the court asked questions directly of me on the record at the January 25th, 2008 hearing… I have discovered the brief and my answers did not fully reflect all the circumstances…. My memory of the October 17th, 2007 document was refreshed only when that document was produced as an exhibit….” Letter to Judge Columbo – PDF

Um, you mean this document? The one with your signature on it dated OCTOBER 18, 2007 the very next day? The approval document that, so far, you have still failed to own up to and that City Council claims they never saw the “secret agreement” for per your iteration of “confidential attorney client privilege” in the memo (below)? The document with your RECOMMENDATION that paying 8 million dollars was “in the best interest of the city“, which directs the finance department to cut a check, and that bears the additional signature of co-fashizzler John Johnson?

Yeah her answer STILL doesn’t “fully reflect all the circumstances”. In January 2008 Valierie Colbert-Osameude stated on record to the public and the press she “was unaware of any confidential agreements” when queried on this incident. Upon the rigorous pursuit of documentation by the Free Press however, it was found in fact: she not only participated in it, she negotiated it, signed it and recommended it (as above). Yet in her own letter to Judge Robert Columbo she asserts the document sent to her via e-mail from Mike Stefani on October 31st was inadvertently sent so she was “exempt” from knowledge. Is she kidding??? Read her spiel letter carefully (linked below) and note how she spins the events occurring on these the dates; then compare them to the events presented in the above DATED approval memo:

Colbert-Osamuede's April 4th Letter to Judge Robert Columbo

Right! As you can see, there is still absolutely no mention of the the issue at hand, or the facts remaining which are: she in full knowledge willfully and purposefully participated in WRITING OFF 8 MILLION DOLLARS. There is absolutely no mention of the most relevant date, October 18th 2007 in context of it being the date of legal execution committed by her own hand. No, instead she wants to carry on about her “inbox” and a bunch of other convoluted crap to divert everyone’s attention. Another schemer and a lier? Do the math. The article on this subject recently posted by the Free Press can be found here: City Lawyer Now Recalls Signing the “Secret Deal”.

I Can Haz Dictionary?

Kwamenomics shirt by TSHIRTPIMPZ.com
Freep recently posted an article on perjury (definitions) sharing views from expert attorneys regarding Kwame’s defense. The article was also mentioned on C-Span Washington Journal. The article quotes testimony given by both Kilpatric and Beatty regarding their affair. Both were asked specifically if they had sex with one another, and additionally if they had romantic, unprofessional relationships. Both testified “NO”. Kwame surrounded his response with a convoluted litany about how even asking the question was offensive (paraphrased) “…absurd to assert that all professional women must be prostitutes…my mother is a congresswoman…” spiel. Right, doth protest too much.

Experts called upon included Larry Dubin from U-Mercy, and Peter Henning from Wayne State. Both implied there is some ambiguity in the responses which could allow doubt of his guilt. Yet both also called out Beatty’s testimony stating because she was more emphatic in her response, it could be problematic. Another expert Stuart Green from Louisana State seemed to also agree.

My question: How would it be possible the court could find Beatty guilty of lying about sexual relations with Kwame, thereby asserting her guilty of the act itself, but then turn around, and exempt Kwame of guilt, when he was participant in the act? Logic??? That makes absolutely NO sense. Hypothetically, even IF the Mayor was found not to have “perjured” himself via some contrived “technicality” (found not guilty), any fact of Beatty’s guilt would negate it by confirming otherwise. Further, she could also then stand as a new witness to the act itself. In short, no matter how they slice it, they both lied. Someone on this article commented that they felt Dan Webb ($750 dollar an hour lawyer Kwame availed from Chicago) was creative enough to navigate the verbiage loopholes to get Kwame exonerated. But I disagree. I don’t think Webb is all that creative, I think he is doing what a dude getting $750 dollars an hour should be doing: racking up his hourly bill, because the bill is essentially the point in trialing a high profile case with little chance of passing muster. Even if Webb should get Kilpatrick exonerated of perjury by some miracle, it won’t be a lasting victory. There’s more to come.

Even still, how can any sane person look at the text messages,  communications, exchanges and relevant incidents, and come to the conclusion that either of them (Beatty or Kilpatrick) were telling the truth in their testimonies of denial? For example:

Trial Testimony: August 29, 2007 Beatty Questioned by Stefani:

Stefani:During the time period 2001 to 2003, were you and Mayor Kilpatrick either romantically or intimately involved with each other?
Beatty: No. …
Stefani: And did you ever use the text message system to communicate messages of a personal nature to the mayor?
Beatty: No.
Stefani: Did you ever receive messages from the mayor of a personal nature?
Beatty: No.
Stefani: And by personal I mean messages which were not strictly pertaining to city government matters?
Beatty: No.
Stefani: Did you use the message device to arrange social meetings between you and the mayor?
Beatty: No.
Stefani: Did you ever send the mayor or receive from the mayor a text message which was of an intimate or sexual nature?
Beatty: No. …

Communications From City Issued Devices During This Time Period

October 11, 2002 – Beatty to Kilpatrick: …What did you think about me or otherwise after the first time we had sex?
October 7, 2002 – Beatty: OK, I’m feeling like I want another night like the most recent Saturday at the Residence Inn! You made me feel so damn good that night. As you can see I can’t let it go!
Kilpatrick: I feel that we can do that in WV (West Virginia)+ just relax together. I need you soooo bad. I want to wake up in the morning and you are there. Make it happen. Love ya.
October 16, 2002 – Kilpatrick: I’ve been dreaming all day about having you all to myself for 3 days … relaxing, laughing, talking, sleeping and making love.

How can the above be seen in any way as ambiguous???? This sort of dialogue substantiates their engagements, unprofessional relations, sexual relations, and use of city devices for discussing it (non city related purposes). As for meeting at the Resident Inn, good grief, AUDIT records. Yet these indescretions are only a few of the many others Kilpatrick and Beatty passed back and forth. Webb will need to be some spin doctor, because how anyone in these circumstances can go to a court of law and try to defend they did not lie under oath is beyond me. Likewise for the Mayor’s other lies like “I did not fire Gary Brown“… (Contradicted by Kilpatrick’s testimony here). Wow, this logic is almost (but not quite) as idiotic as Examiner Ha and McFail’s redundant objections during Mike Stefani’s deposition. Well, maybe the courts will decide to buy into it, but I don’t think the rest of society does. I truly don’t.