Ari's Review
The Secret saved my life!
Please allow me to share with you how "The Secret" changed my life and in a very real and substantive way allowed me to overcome a severe crisis in my personal life. It is well known that the premise of "The Secret" is the science of attracting the things in life that you desire and need and in removing from your life those things that you don't want. Before finding this book, I knew nothing of these principles, the process of positive visualization, and had actually engaged in reckless behaviors to the point of endangering my own life and wellbeing.
At age 36, I found myself in a medium security prison serving 3-5 years for destruction of government property and public intoxication. This was stiff punishment for drunkenly defecating in a mailbox but as the judge pointed out, this was my third conviction for the exact same crime. I obviously had an alcohol problem and a deep and intense disrespect for the postal system, but even more importantly I was ignoring the very fabric of our metaphysical reality and inviting destructive influences into my life.
My fourth day in prison was the first day that I was allowed in general population and while in the recreation yard I was approached by a prisoner named Marcus who calmly informed me that as a new prisoner I had been purchased by him for three packs of Winston cigarettes and 8 ounces of Pruno (prison wine). Marcus elaborated further that I could expect to be raped by him on a daily basis and that I had pretty eyes.
Needless to say, I was deeply shocked that my life had sunk to this level. Although I've never been homophobic I was discovering that I was very rape phobic and dismayed by my overall personal street value of roughly $15. I returned to my cell and sat very quietly, searching myself for answers on how I could improve my life and distance myself from harmful outside influences. At that point, in what I consider to be a miraculous moment, my cell mate Jim Norton informed me that he knew about the Marcus situation and that he had something that could solve my problems. He handed me a copy of "The Secret". Normally I wouldn't have turned to a self help book to resolve such a severe and immediate threat but I literally didn't have any other available alternatives. I immediately opened the book and began to read.
The first few chapters deal with the essence of something called the "Law of Attraction" in which a primal universal force is available to us and can be harnessed for the betterment of our lives. The theoretical nature of the first few chapters wasn't exactly putting me at peace. In fact, I had never meditated and had great difficulty with closing out the chaotic noises of the prison and visualizing the positive changes that I so dearly needed. It was when I reached Chapter 6 "The Secret to Relationships" that I realized how this book could help me distance myself from Marcus and his negative intentions. Starting with chapter six there was a cavity carved into the book and in that cavity was a prison shiv. This particular shiv was a toothbrush with a handle that had been repeatedly melted and ground into a razor sharp point.
The next day in the exercise yard I carried "The Secret" with me and when Marcus approached me I opened the book and stabbed him in the neck. The next eight weeks in solitary confinement provided ample time to practice positive visualization and the 16 hours per day of absolute darkness made visualization about the only thing that I actually could do. I'm not sure that everybody's life will be changed in such a dramatic way by this book but I'm very thankful to have found it and will continue to recommend it heartily.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Lou Pritchett
This is a letter written to President Obama by a recently retired chief officer of Proctor and Gamble. He sent it to the New York Times to be printed and they refused. In fact, they never acknowledged it.
Lou Pritchett's site.
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Lou Pritchett's site.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
C'mon, Mia, Don't stop now....
It's not that I don't get that celebs, with all their money and power, should help folks - it's just that overall, this woman is a completely useless flak.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Perez Hilton is a Bigot - and so are the people that allow this to happen on national TV
Perez Hilton: The Foul Face of ‘Gay’ ActivismFriday, April 24, 2009
By J. Matt Barber, Commentator
Warning: This article contains graphic but accurate material that may be offensive to some readers.
You may have heard. During Sunday’s Miss USA pageant openly “gay” activist and pageant judge Perez Hilton – the self-styled “Queen of Media” – ambushed Carrie Prejean – the openly Christian Miss California – with a politically loaded question on so-called “same-sex marriage.” Prejean’s candid answer – as both Hilton and Miss USA organizer Donald Trump later admitted – likely cost her the crown. From the moment she opened her mouth, Prejean has given liberals a clinic in class. Hilton, on the other hand (a.k.a. Mario Armando Lavandeira), has provided the world a sneak peek into the soul of homosexual activism.
This is one for the up-is-down-black-is-white hall of fame. The media’s fabricated flap over Prejean’s answer – a public defense of legitimate marriage – has a reasonable America scratching its collective noggin in stunned disbelief. Not because of the answer she gave Perez – which was both well received by the pageant audience and overwhelmingly shared by about 70 percent of Americans – but, rather, because of Hilton’s hate-filled, misogynistic response to her answer and the disgraceful, knee-jerk defense of that response by liberals in Hollywood, the media and organized homosexuality. After Hilton asked the lovely and talented Miss California whether “every state” should legalize “same-sex marriage,” Prejean responded: “In my country, in my family … I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.” Oh the humanity!
Evidently this was not the rooty-tooty-fresh-n’-fruity answer Hilton – the creepy valley girl wannabe with a five o’clock shadow – had hoped for. He promptly marked Prejean’s score card with a zero, plopped down in front of the television cameras and began blubbering away like a fussy little snot with a dirty diaper. Having already publicly called Prejean a “dumb b----,” he then yammered to a sympathetic Norah O’Donnell on MSNBC that, not only was he refusing to apologize, he was actually “thinking the C-word.” This, of course, one of the vilest things anyone can call a woman. Yet, rather than taking Hilton to task for the boy lover’s girl-hating poison, O’Donnell joined in on the bash-fest, criticizing Prejean for her traditional view.
But Hilton wasn’t done yet. Ramping up his vicious attack on the Christian California bombshell, our lispy-wispy lil’ cupcake dove headlong into the annals of dirt-baggery lore. He defaced a photo of Prejean on his weblog scribbling, below her chin, a crude depiction of a male phallus ejaculating in her mouth. How did Prejean react? While talking to Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show she said, “I knew at that moment after I answered the question, I knew, I was not going to win because of my answer, because I had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God. … I wouldn't have answered it differently. The way I answered may have been offensive. With that question specifically, it's not about being politically correct. For me it was being biblically correct.”
On the Fox News Channel’s Hannity program, Prejean shared, “You know, I forgive him. I know that he's angry for whatever reason. I know there must be a bigger issue going on in his life.” Like I said – Class. Still, Perez Hilton – Hollywood’s frothy-potty-mouthed little drama queen – isn’t alone in his hatred for Prejean or the three-fourths of Americans who share her opposition to the novel and incongruous concept of “gay marriage.”
For example, Wayne Besen, a prominent leader in the homosexual activist community, unbelievably went on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor to defend Hilton. He picked up Hilton’s anti-Christian torch, incredibly charging that it was Prejean, not Hilton, whose millennia old recognition of biblical marriage “was divisive.” Besen then added insult to injury and revealed his true rainbow colors by tagging the 70 percent of Americans who oppose “gay marriage” as “bigots.”
This whole hateful affair provides the perfect metaphor for the current divide between defenders of traditional sexual morality and the extremist “queer” activist movement. As Congress debates the constructive repeal of both the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of “equal protection under the law” and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion through passage of discriminatory and wholly unnecessary “hate crimes” legislation, this little episode once again reminds us that the self-described champions of “tolerance” and “diversity” are the most intolerant and hateful among us.
How soon we forget. Just hearken back a few months to the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which restored the definition of natural marriage to the Golden State. There we all played witness to “gay” activist calls for church burnings, Mormon Temple vandalism, death threats against Prop 8 supporters and quasi-riotous assaults against peaceful Christian marriage supporters. So, insofar as liberals continue to dig their own hole by defending Hilton and piling on Prejean, I submit they’re doing the other 70 percent of us a favor. In their biting anger, they’ve cast aside the sublime mask of “tolerance,” revealing an ugly, desperate and most intolerant countenance below.
For that, I say thank you. For your treatment of Carrie Prejean, I say shame on you.
By J. Matt Barber, Commentator
Warning: This article contains graphic but accurate material that may be offensive to some readers.
You may have heard. During Sunday’s Miss USA pageant openly “gay” activist and pageant judge Perez Hilton – the self-styled “Queen of Media” – ambushed Carrie Prejean – the openly Christian Miss California – with a politically loaded question on so-called “same-sex marriage.” Prejean’s candid answer – as both Hilton and Miss USA organizer Donald Trump later admitted – likely cost her the crown. From the moment she opened her mouth, Prejean has given liberals a clinic in class. Hilton, on the other hand (a.k.a. Mario Armando Lavandeira), has provided the world a sneak peek into the soul of homosexual activism.
This is one for the up-is-down-black-is-white hall of fame. The media’s fabricated flap over Prejean’s answer – a public defense of legitimate marriage – has a reasonable America scratching its collective noggin in stunned disbelief. Not because of the answer she gave Perez – which was both well received by the pageant audience and overwhelmingly shared by about 70 percent of Americans – but, rather, because of Hilton’s hate-filled, misogynistic response to her answer and the disgraceful, knee-jerk defense of that response by liberals in Hollywood, the media and organized homosexuality. After Hilton asked the lovely and talented Miss California whether “every state” should legalize “same-sex marriage,” Prejean responded: “In my country, in my family … I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.” Oh the humanity!
Evidently this was not the rooty-tooty-fresh-n’-fruity answer Hilton – the creepy valley girl wannabe with a five o’clock shadow – had hoped for. He promptly marked Prejean’s score card with a zero, plopped down in front of the television cameras and began blubbering away like a fussy little snot with a dirty diaper. Having already publicly called Prejean a “dumb b----,” he then yammered to a sympathetic Norah O’Donnell on MSNBC that, not only was he refusing to apologize, he was actually “thinking the C-word.” This, of course, one of the vilest things anyone can call a woman. Yet, rather than taking Hilton to task for the boy lover’s girl-hating poison, O’Donnell joined in on the bash-fest, criticizing Prejean for her traditional view.
But Hilton wasn’t done yet. Ramping up his vicious attack on the Christian California bombshell, our lispy-wispy lil’ cupcake dove headlong into the annals of dirt-baggery lore. He defaced a photo of Prejean on his weblog scribbling, below her chin, a crude depiction of a male phallus ejaculating in her mouth. How did Prejean react? While talking to Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show she said, “I knew at that moment after I answered the question, I knew, I was not going to win because of my answer, because I had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God. … I wouldn't have answered it differently. The way I answered may have been offensive. With that question specifically, it's not about being politically correct. For me it was being biblically correct.”
On the Fox News Channel’s Hannity program, Prejean shared, “You know, I forgive him. I know that he's angry for whatever reason. I know there must be a bigger issue going on in his life.” Like I said – Class. Still, Perez Hilton – Hollywood’s frothy-potty-mouthed little drama queen – isn’t alone in his hatred for Prejean or the three-fourths of Americans who share her opposition to the novel and incongruous concept of “gay marriage.”
For example, Wayne Besen, a prominent leader in the homosexual activist community, unbelievably went on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor to defend Hilton. He picked up Hilton’s anti-Christian torch, incredibly charging that it was Prejean, not Hilton, whose millennia old recognition of biblical marriage “was divisive.” Besen then added insult to injury and revealed his true rainbow colors by tagging the 70 percent of Americans who oppose “gay marriage” as “bigots.”
This whole hateful affair provides the perfect metaphor for the current divide between defenders of traditional sexual morality and the extremist “queer” activist movement. As Congress debates the constructive repeal of both the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of “equal protection under the law” and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion through passage of discriminatory and wholly unnecessary “hate crimes” legislation, this little episode once again reminds us that the self-described champions of “tolerance” and “diversity” are the most intolerant and hateful among us.
How soon we forget. Just hearken back a few months to the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which restored the definition of natural marriage to the Golden State. There we all played witness to “gay” activist calls for church burnings, Mormon Temple vandalism, death threats against Prop 8 supporters and quasi-riotous assaults against peaceful Christian marriage supporters. So, insofar as liberals continue to dig their own hole by defending Hilton and piling on Prejean, I submit they’re doing the other 70 percent of us a favor. In their biting anger, they’ve cast aside the sublime mask of “tolerance,” revealing an ugly, desperate and most intolerant countenance below.
For that, I say thank you. For your treatment of Carrie Prejean, I say shame on you.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Mexican Envoy Defends Claim That Most Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
Mexican Envoy Auturo Sarukhan defended his claim Sunday that 90 percent of the weapons intercepted in Mexico come from the U.S.
FOXNews.com
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the United States, repeated and defended his claim that 90 percent of the weapons intercepted in Mexico come from the U.S.
During an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Sarukhan said on the Arizona and Texas borders with Mexico alone, roughly 7,000 licenses for federal firearms had been granted.
"And a lot of the weapons that are being bought by the drug syndicates, either directly or through proxy purchases, are coming from those gun shops," he said.
Sarukhan isn't the only one to cite this myth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, California Sen. Diane Feinstein and Willliam Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have all said that 90 percent of weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the U.S.
But in fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.
An ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com earlier this month in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director "that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.
"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News earlier this month.
Sarukhan has claimed that Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States, or 730,000 a year. But the official statistic from the Mexico attorney general's office says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.
On "Face the Nation," host Bob Schieffer asked Sarukhan for evidence to support his claim that most of the weapons seized are coming from the United States.
"The data we have is the one that we've been sharing with our counterparts in the U.S. government, ATF and the Justice Department, and other agencies that have been working with us to determine where those guns are coming from," Sarukhan replied.
For example, Sarukhan cited the Mexican border town of Reynosa where he said more than 250 assault weapons and half a million rounds of ammo were seized in November.
"These had just crossed over the border from the United States in Mexico," he said. "By tracing these weapons, by looking at the types of weapons, we're determining that most of these weapons are coming from the United States."
Mexican Envoy Auturo Sarukhan defended his claim Sunday that 90 percent of the weapons intercepted in Mexico come from the U.S.
FOXNews.com
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the United States, repeated and defended his claim that 90 percent of the weapons intercepted in Mexico come from the U.S.
During an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Sarukhan said on the Arizona and Texas borders with Mexico alone, roughly 7,000 licenses for federal firearms had been granted.
"And a lot of the weapons that are being bought by the drug syndicates, either directly or through proxy purchases, are coming from those gun shops," he said.
Sarukhan isn't the only one to cite this myth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, California Sen. Diane Feinstein and Willliam Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have all said that 90 percent of weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the U.S.
But in fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.
An ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com earlier this month in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director "that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.
"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News earlier this month.
Sarukhan has claimed that Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States, or 730,000 a year. But the official statistic from the Mexico attorney general's office says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.
On "Face the Nation," host Bob Schieffer asked Sarukhan for evidence to support his claim that most of the weapons seized are coming from the United States.
"The data we have is the one that we've been sharing with our counterparts in the U.S. government, ATF and the Justice Department, and other agencies that have been working with us to determine where those guns are coming from," Sarukhan replied.
For example, Sarukhan cited the Mexican border town of Reynosa where he said more than 250 assault weapons and half a million rounds of ammo were seized in November.
"These had just crossed over the border from the United States in Mexico," he said. "By tracing these weapons, by looking at the types of weapons, we're determining that most of these weapons are coming from the United States."
Sick as a dog...
I honestly do not know many dogs who have gotten this sick, but I do know I am sick of being sick.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
From the President who thinks an iPod is an appropriate gift for the Queen of England...
... and bowed to a foreign King.
Amusing, embarrassing, amusing, embarrassing... I try to keep my sense of humor.
Amusing, embarrassing, amusing, embarrassing... I try to keep my sense of humor.
Barack Obama, the World's Greatest Orator (™all news organisations), didn't exactly cover himself in glory when the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson asked him a question about who was to blame for the financial crisis. Normally word perfect, Obama ummed, ahed and waffled for the best part of two and a half minutes. Here, John Crace decodes what he was really thinking ...
Nick Robinson: "A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?" Brown immediately swivels to leave Obama in pole position. There is a four-second delay before Obama starts speaking [THANKS FOR NOTHING, GORDY BABY. REMIND ME TO HANG YOU OUT TO DRY ONE DAY.] Barack Obama: "I, I, would say that, er ... pause [I HAVEN'T A CLUE] ... if you look at ... pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] ... the, the sources of this crisis ... pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] ... the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause [I'M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] ... a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system ... pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF SHIT BACK HOME. HELP]. I think what is also true is that ... pause [I WANT NICK ROBINSON TO DISAPPEAR] ... here in Great Britain ... pause [SHIT, GORDY'S THE HOST, DON'T LAND HIM IN IT] ... here in continental Europe ... pause [DAMN IT, BLAME EVERYONE.] ... around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er ... pause [I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AGAIN] ... the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged ... pause [I'M REALLY WINGING IT NOW]. So at this point, I'm less interested in ... pause [YOU] ... identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er ... pause [WHY DIDN'T I QUIT WHILE I WAS AHEAD?] ... drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there's a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what's the risk involved, what's the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think ... pause [FANTASTIC. I'VE LOST EVERYONE, INCLUDING MYSELF] ... there's enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er ... pause [I'M OUTTA HERE. TIME FOR THE USUAL CLOSING BOLLOCKS] ... I'm a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Angie Harmon
She's a whole lot younger and prettier than I, but we do rather agree here.
Angie Harmon is not afraid to come out and say she doesn’t like how President Obama is handling the job — but she’s sick of having to defend herself from being deemed a racist.
"Here's my problem with this, I'm just going to come out and say it. If I have anything to say against Obama it's not because I'm a racist, it's because I don't like what he's doing as President and anybody should be able to feel that way, but what I find now is that if you say anything against him you're called a racist," Harmon told Tarts at Thursday’s Los Angeles launch of the new eyelash-growing formula, Latisse. "But it has nothing to do with it, I don’t care what color he is. I’m just not crazy about what he's doing and I heard all about this, and he’s gonna do that and change and change, so okay … I'm still dressing for a recession over here buddy and we've got unemployment at an all-time high and that was his number one thing and that's the thing I really don't appreciate. If I'm going to disagree with my President, that doesn't make me a racist. If I was to disagree with W, that doesn't make me racist. It has nothing to do with it, it is ridiculous."
Speaking of dislikes, the starlet has also had enough of the double-standards in the media.
"I do think McCain would have done a better job, only because I think he has more experience. I also think if W or John McCain or Reagan would have gone and done a talk show, the backlash would have been so huge and in his face, and ‘What is our president doing? How unclassy!’ But Obama does it and no one says anything," Harmon said.
And in spite of the scornful opinions most of her Tinseltown counterparts have shared on Gov. Sarah Palin, Harmon remains a true fan.
"I admire any kind of woman like her. My whole motto is to know what I stand for and know what I don't stand for and have the courage to live my life accordingly and she does exactly that. The fact that this woman has made the decisions she's made and literally lived her life according to that and takes heat for it is absolutely disgusting to me," she added. "People cannot look at this woman. I really think they're afraid of her and her morals, ethics and values and the fact that she hangs on them. Is she the most experienced person in the world? But she was running to be the Vice President, so we then put the most inexperienced person as the President. That didn't make any sense to me."
However Harmon is definitely in the Hollywood minority when it comes to her criticism of Obama as other lasses at the Latisse party were quick to advocate their unequivocal support.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
That's not funny, that's sick....
Idiot.
DETROIT, March 28 (UPI) -- A lawyer notified a Michigan judge this week that former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick can pay only $6 monthly restitution, not $6,000.
The lawyer, Michael Alan Schwartz, who just joined the ex-mayor's legal team, told the Detroit Free Press he may also try to have Judge David Groner taken off the case. He said Groner has a conflict because his brother-in-law is chief assistant to Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy.
Kilpatrick was allowed to move to Texas after his release from jail and is working there as a salesman for a subsidiary of a Michigan company, Compuware.
In his court filing, Schwartz said Compuware pays Kilpatrick $10,000 a month. He detailed monthly expenses of $9,994, including $2,700 in rent and $900 for lease of a Cadillac Escalade.
"I don't think he was ordered to live a more modest lifestyle," Schwartz said. "Is it better Mr. Kilpatrick drives a beat-up Yugo?"
When he pleaded guilty to perjury, Kilpatrick agreed to pay the city $1 million in restitution. He admitted lying in a deposition about his romantic relationship with his chief of staff and their role in the firing of top police officers.
DETROIT, March 28 (UPI) -- A lawyer notified a Michigan judge this week that former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick can pay only $6 monthly restitution, not $6,000.
The lawyer, Michael Alan Schwartz, who just joined the ex-mayor's legal team, told the Detroit Free Press he may also try to have Judge David Groner taken off the case. He said Groner has a conflict because his brother-in-law is chief assistant to Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy.
Kilpatrick was allowed to move to Texas after his release from jail and is working there as a salesman for a subsidiary of a Michigan company, Compuware.
In his court filing, Schwartz said Compuware pays Kilpatrick $10,000 a month. He detailed monthly expenses of $9,994, including $2,700 in rent and $900 for lease of a Cadillac Escalade.
"I don't think he was ordered to live a more modest lifestyle," Schwartz said. "Is it better Mr. Kilpatrick drives a beat-up Yugo?"
When he pleaded guilty to perjury, Kilpatrick agreed to pay the city $1 million in restitution. He admitted lying in a deposition about his romantic relationship with his chief of staff and their role in the firing of top police officers.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
