Printable View
Stefani testifies he gave text messages to Free Press for 'safekeeping'
This is headline of moments ago. my apologies to Kraig who has said this nearly from the beginning. I dismissed it as a rant. Kraig was correct, it seems.
I do believe most of what he says however, especially about the Council candidates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWMAP
See. I to--------. Forget any I told you so's. I wonder if this is going to hurt Gary Brown in any way. I hope not. He's been one of the few candidates that has actually been campaigning on issues instead of simply campaigning on the public's dislike of the current council.
I'm glad Stefani gave the messages to the Freepress and I hope he isn't charged with perjury.
Perjury charges are the least of his concerns. He may end up facing extortion charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by exdetroiter
i thought that this was old news...
With all these lawyers being sanctioned for one thing or another, I'm wondering about thug KK's chance of getting his conviction thrown out of court on a technicality.
Ltdave, I'm with you, I thought this was old news as well. I was surprised when I saw it on the news. I guess I thought "everyone" already knew Stefani was the delivery guy! Hmmm.
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. No one could prove it. But now that he's admitted to it, he may be in a lot of trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by agirlintheD
As far as I'm concerned, Stefani may be taking quite a personal hit, but what he did for the city is a pretty good thing. Would we know all this information without the texts? Would it be further speculation? This information [[along with so much more) got Kwame out of office. Yes, we have a long road ahead of us as a city, but for what it's worth, he's gone. I applaud Stefani for what he did [[even if he has dug himself quite a hole). I also applaud the Free Press writers who diligently pursued the "rumors" and found facts. Is it something I'd want to do, probably not, but my hat's off to them for getting the job done.
The Free Press has a lot to answer for, and I'm shocked that nobody has brought this up here.
First of all, they've been exposed as frauds. They made out like this whole thing started with a FOIA. I distinctly remember their chest-thumping special section they put out, and one of the stories was titled "The FOIA that started it all." Now, we find out that Stefani simply handed Jim Shaefer a CD with the text messages on them.
That's not exactly the way the Freep portrayed it. If you read the crap they put out, you'd think Elrick and Shaefer spent hours in City Hall, poring through dusty records like Woodward and Bernstein. Of course, it's not quite as good a story to just say "someone handed us the text messages, so we knew exactly what to FOIA beforehand to make it look like we'd forced the city's hand."
Aside from their sanctimony, though, the more important issue is: Why did the Free Press hold onto these messages for 3 months? Did they cut some kind of deal with Stefani? It sure appears to be the case, and that's unethical as hell. Holding onto those messages also may have cost the city of Detroit a lot of money [[when, ironically, the Freep painted themselves as heroes who brought down the mayor whose lies cost the city millions).
If Stefani gave the messages to the Freep when he says they did, and the Freep editors determined that they were newsworthy, it's completely unethical to hold onto them until the attorney uses them as a bargaining chip to basically blackmail Kwame into settling the case.
If the Free Press had printed those text messages when they got them, then Stefani doesn't have that bargaining chip, since the toothpaste would've already been out of the tube. If I have dirty pictures of you and I tell you to pay up or I'll spread them all over town, if someone else spreads them all over town first, then there's no reason for you to pay me, is there?
I don't know if it can ever be proven in a court of law that the Freep unethically cut a deal with Stefani to hold onto those messages until he got his settlement. But the curtain certainly has been pulled back, exposing them for the sanctimonious frauds they are. Of course, to anyone who has been paying attention to the way that paper handles All Things Mitch, that's old news.
And why are Elrick and Shaefer still covering this story? How can you have reporters reporting on what THEY'D done???? That, too, is unethical as hell.
One last thing: The Free Press's contention that it may not have been the Stefani messages they'd printed makes them look like complete fools -- and, even worse, assumes their readers must be a bunch of idiots. What, did Miguel Cabrera also drop off a copy of the text messages on his way to the Townsend Hotel? Seriously.
The Freep got caught with their pants down, big-time.
Joel Thurtell's take on this, from his "Joel on the Road" blog:
By Joel Thurtell
During the McCarthy period, spy-hunting journalist Whittaker Chambers hid rolls of film in a pumpkin.
In the most amazing Detroit Free Press story I’ve ever read, I learned today, October 8, 2009, how the two top sleuths at the Free Press, each owning a quarter of a Pulitzer Prize, got their big scoop that ousted Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and sent him to prison.
They were pumpkins!
In the weird Free Press story by M.L. Elrick and Jim Schaefer, we learn that attorney Mike Stefani gave the text messages that wound up making political mincemeat of Kwame to the two Freepsters writing today’s very story!
Like Chambers putting film in the pumpkin, apparently Stefani thought the two Freepsters were a sort of journalistic safe deposit box.
In spycraft, it’s called a “dead-drop” — a place where contraband can be put so giver and taker don’t have to be in the same place at the same time.
Stefani, defending his law license before the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board, said he gave the papers to the reporters for “safekeeping.”
So Stefani was the Free Press “deep throat.”
And the paper was his dead-drop.
Maybe the Freepsters were supposed to hold the text messages for somebody else. Stefani gives the text messages to Elrick/Schaefer to keep safe for…
Well, for what?
Did Stefani have some third party for whom the Freepsters were acting as a pipeline?
Not very journalistic of them, if so.
Did Stefani know his partners in subterfuge were going to put the messages on newsprint?
What kind of promises did they make in return for “safekeeping” those lurid texts?
Elrick, covering the hearing, declined to answer reporters’ questions, even though he was a subject of the hearing. Cute.
I’ve known people who honestly trusted media people with confidential information. That’s because there are reporters who are willing to keep such things to themselves. Others will out the facts.
Ethics?
As I say, depends partly on what the agreement was between Stefani and the Pulitzer-totin’ reporters.
Depends also on how forthcoming they are about how they got their Pulitzer-making transcripts.
I’m telling you, it does matter how they got this story.
Isn’t this interesting?
A couple times on JOTR I wondered how the Free Press got those text messages and I suggested it would make interesting reading. I found it hypocritical of the newspaper to go into court — and into print — claiming to be this great representative of the public good, insisting that courts and lawyers and public officials open their records to the Free Press, even while the newspaper contends it’s not subject to the same kind of scrutiny.
Why, the Free Press claims its employees don’t even enjoy First Amendment rights!
Now with this Discipline Board hearing, we’re starting to get somewhere.
But there’s more to know.
Problem is, the demi-Pulitzers have been entrusted by their editors with reporting their own story.
Note that the questions I’ve raised were not even mentioned by the reporters in their Free Press story.
Isn’t it curious that there was no comment from the bosses?
And isn’t it weird that the the Kwame-beaters are the ones asking their editors to comment on a story that has the Free Press and its two award-bedecked heroes as central characters, all of whom are keeping mum?
Doubly cute.
Time was when covering a story about yourself would have been a big no-no.
But now we know that what underlay the Free Press’s deflated Pulitzer was not gumshoe work, just a lucky connection.
And yet, maybe not. Maybe there was more to it.
If so, let’s hear about it!
Come on, you palladins of the people, tell us the whole story.
What’s this about editors having no comment?
Actually, that’s just what the reporter did, isn’t it?
But hey, drag those editors out of their holes!
Let’s hear from those creatures.
There has to be more to this yarn.
Has it occurred to anyone that these reporters might be called as witnesses?
Would they still cover themselves?
Time to yank those pumpkins off the story.
Drop me a line at joelthurtelL@gmail.com
http://joelontheroad.com/?p=2782
I think Bloomfield Pills is too quick to attack the messenger. The idea that once Elrick and Schaefer got the messages, they would dump those into the paper the next day is preposterous. Stefani gave them a gift. But the reporters then had to find out whether those were the real deal. Three months to track down all of the details and getting them confirmed doesn't seem unreasonable at all especially when you're target is the sitting Mayor of Detroit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
You offer me a false choice: Either sit on them for an entire fiscal quarter or print them the very next day.
Besides, you mean to tell me Stefani would give these messages to the Freep without having brokered a deal beforehand that they wouldn't print them until after he'd used them as leverage in the court case? Seriously?
Stefani is a smart lawyer. He knows if he gave those messages to the Freep in the absence of any kind of deal, they'd probably print them as soon as they could, thus removing his main bargaining chip in the Kwame case. And Stefani's job is to get the most money for his clients [[and himself).
Any honest appraisal of this situation leads to the logical conclusion that some kind of deal must have been cut; Stefani wouldn't have provided them to the Freep otherwise. And that is highly unethical on the paper's part -- especially when the result of their deal with Stefani was the $8 million cost to the taxpayers the Freep pretends to champion.
and i thought that THIS was old news as well...Quote:
The Free Press has a lot to answer for...they've been exposed as frauds.
there isnt much integrity in anything anymore...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ltdave
Sigh. Unfortunately, you're right.
Bloomfield Pills and Lt. Dave. The two of you do realize that the reporters could have received the text messages from more than one source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraig
Sure. And I believe there's a slight possibility that OJ didn't do it.
This seems to be the plausible deniabilty the Freep is throwing out there. But while that may protect them [[or their source) in a court of law, in the real world it's absurd on its face.
Here's the Free Press party line: Stefani gave the messages to the Freep for "safekeeping." But neither Stefani nor the paper intended for the messages to be exposed. Instead, the Freep got the texts from another source; only THEN did they print them.
Come on. Go yank someone else's Johnson; mine's long enough.
How is it again that Messrs. Elrick and Schaefer should now be condemned as frauds? Simply because Stefani gave them the text messages in mid-October and they were not immediately published? Where do the laws of journalism require a headlong dash to immediately publish in all circumstances? What is wrong with taking the time necessary to get as much corroboration as possible.
In fact, in this situation even if there was some kind of agreement with Mr. Stefani to delay publishing the messages, the delay actually worked to the benefit of the City. Had the mid-October 2007 attorney fee facilitation ended with no agreement and Mr. Stefani filed his motion that included the text messages, there is every possibility that Judge Callahan would have vacated the jury's damages award and re-opened the case to allow evidence of the romantic relationship that was the root cause of the two wrongful terminations. He has stated as much on more than one occasion. In such an event, Mr. Stefani and his clients would have secured an even higher verdict. Mr. Stefani did not get any kind of quid pro quo. He lost several hundred thousand dollars by settling the case in the manner he did.
Moreover, the "outing" of the relationship was only part of the story and the Freep realized this. It was good journalism to wait and see to what lengths a corrupt mayor would go to bury the truth from the City Council and the citizens. Again, it didn't cost the City any extra money.
Elrick and Schaefer deserve the positive recognition generated by this story. Their journalism exposed the frightening depths of Mr. Kilpatrick's corruption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swingline
First of all, they're frauds because they pretended that there was a "FOIA That Started It All." That literally was the title of one of their stories explaining how they'd exposed Kwame. Rather than just saying, "we got ahold of the text messages from a source," which would have been honest, they went around doing radio interviews talking about how they had a hunch to check the text messages because they'd noticed how often he spent on his Blackberry. So right there, it's fraudulent.
What's wrong with just saying "a source gave us the messages"? Well, for one, that likely wouldn't have netted them a Pulizter. They had to pretend it was gumshoe investigation work that netted those; now we find out that someone literally handed them a CD.
Also, you have to use common sense: Would Stefani have handed over his bargaining chip to a newspaper without having ensured they wouldn't print them before he had a chance to use that leverage? Come on.
So the attorney wasn't interested in making the most money possible out of this case? Again, that defies common sense.Quote:
In fact, in this situation even if there was some kind of agreement with Mr. Stefani to delay publishing the messages, the delay actually worked to the benefit of the City. Had the mid-October 2007 attorney fee facilitation ended with no agreement and Mr. Stefani filed his motion that included the text messages, there is every possibility that Judge Callahan would have vacated the jury's damages award and re-opened the case to allow evidence of the romantic relationship that was the root cause of the two wrongful terminations. He has stated as much on more than one occasion. In such an event, Mr. Stefani and his clients would have secured an even higher verdict. Mr. Stefani did not get any kind of quid pro quo. He lost several hundred thousand dollars by settling the case in the manner he did.
Horseshit.Quote:
Moreover, the "outing" of the relationship was only part of the story and the Freep realized this. It was good journalism to wait and see to what lengths a corrupt mayor would go to bury the truth from the City Council and the citizens. Again, it didn't cost the City any extra money.
I'm guessing your initials are either M.L.E. or J.S. Or else you work for the Free Press in some other capacity. Well, you got caught with your pants down, and now you're running around doing damage control, to the point where you're even making the ridiculous claim that the the text messages you printed came from a source other than Stefani.
Horseshit. It doesn't pass the smell test. And, as I said in the beginning, we're talking about a newspaper that allowed its columnist to make shit up, and quashed a negative review of his namby-pamby book. So there's a pattern.
The reporters from the Free Press received information from a credible source. The reporters then took the time needed to confirm the information they received [[there's no way you're going to go through that many text messages in a short period of time). The reporters then reported on the information that was received.
Bloomfield Pills, isn't that how reporting works? What's so fraudulent about what was done?
B. Pills, there's a lot of latent hostility in your posts. You should talk that out with somebody. None of us needs unnecessary stress.
The Freep special section I'm familiar with [[published right after Mr. Kilpatrick's guilty plea) never claimed that everything started with the FOIA request. It merely had a story that reviewed the FOIA lawsuit timeline. The story was buried near the end of the section. Nothing fraudulent there.
Further, according to Mr. Stefani, he received the text messages on October 5, 2007 and gave a copy to the Freep "a few days later." The attorney fee facilitation meeting as well as the unexpected global settlement of all the cases occurred on October 17, 2007. The settlement was announced publicly the next day. On October 19, 2007, the Freep filed its first FOIA request. You apparently claim fraud because the Freep did not publish the text messages in the brief week or so it possessed the messages prior to the settlement. First, during that week, the Freep had no way to know that the case would settle on October 17. Second, once the settlement was announced, Elrick and Schaefer then knew that a coverup might be occurring. The possible coverup expanded the story exponentially. Third, of course, the City resisted and delayed on responding to the FOIA request which pushed things back a few weeks. Fourth, it seems highly likely that the Freep at least attempted to corroborate the authenticity of the text messages. [[What do the journalists on here think?) I suspect that Mr. Stefani's contact who was the former Skytel employee was able to confidentially confirm for the Freep that the text messages were authentic. This likely took some time to accomplish though. Under all these circumstances there was no "fraud" in delaying in publishing the text messages.
As for the "common sense" that supposedly demands that Mr. Stefani got some sort of unethical agreement from the Freep to delay publication of the text messages, well, it's just not that simple. As of the date of the facilitation, the verdict plus interest in the Brown/Nelthrope case was already worth $7.9 million. Under the whistleblower law, the City was also liable for Mr. Stefani's attorney fees. He was seeking $1million. Common sense actually suggests that if the Freep publishes quickly, Mr. Stefani wins. Undoubtedly the court would have resolved any lingering attorney fee dispute in Mr. Stefani's favor if, in the interim, the text messages became public. Mr. Stefani did not need them to remain unpublished for leverage purposes as B. Pills claims.
Another bit of logic that suggests the absence of some sort of unsavory agreement between Mr. Stefani and the Freep is the fact that the settlement occurred unexpectedly at the attorney fee facilitation meeting on October 17. Yes, Mr. Stefani clearly intended to use the text messages to support his $1 million fee request. But coming to an agreement on the attorney fees was not going to end the case. The City had made it plain that it was going to appeal the jury verdicts. There was absolutely no certainty at all that the disclosure of the text messages at the attorney fee facilitation meeting would result in a determination by the City to drop its intent to appeal and agree to a final settlement of the cases.
Different journalists and a different news organization might have handled this situation differently. Sure, no question. But these scandals are complicated and the journalistic handling of them is not always black and white. Under the circumstances of the Mayoral Mess, it's not justified to slander Elrick, Shaefer and the Freep as frauds. They did fine work to flush out and expose the true extent of Mr. Kilpatrick’s hubris and corruption.
Well done, Swingline. I will always be thankful that the Free Press published that story and revealed the corruption under the happy talk that the City was engaging in. As for Stefani, I believe him when he says that he was afraid that the texts would be "buried" - there are too many of Mayor Kilpatricks and Bernard Kilpatrick's friends and lovers in the local courts right now - many appointed by Jennifer Granholm originally [[the same one who appointed Art Blackwell). It will be years before the Kilpatricks are really gone.
Stefani may probably lose his law license for doing what he did, but not unlike a conscientious objector, he was maybe serving the spirit of the law but not the letter.