The Mo’Kelly Report

I will only say this one time…and one time only. This is not a democracy and I moderate all comments. If you’d like to enter into discussion/debate about the issues set forth, you are welcome to do so. If you’d like to complain about the wallpaper or whether certain pictures meet your fancy, that along with your “personal” remarks will be deleted.

Your choice. Either way, I will continue to follow the story. That would be true irrespective of the organization involved.

You can say whatever you want about me wherever else you like…but it won’t be here. My hate club is huge and always has room for more members to join.

The same people who are complaining today were cheering when I took Zeta Phi Beta to task. So your collective inconsistency is duly noted.

I am the king, the sultan, the president the prime minister and chairman of the board.

If you don’t like it…don’t read it and don’t contribute to the explosion of the story. We can do this all day. If there’s something of a more sensitive nature you’d like to discuss hit me in email and we can communicate accordingly.

But don’t get it twisted.

There are only three ways I obtain access to this information. Either the lawyer sends it to me, a member of the Board of Directors for AKA or Shackelford herself.

No other way. It’s not a private document in any way. So for the rest of you “dissenters” let this be my form response. If you keep it up, you might mess around and go the way of the Zetas and REALLY inspire Mo’Kelly to dig. You don’t want that. If I’m willing to take on my AME church, I think I can withstand AKA.

Absolutely…I fully agree. That’s why I phrased them as allegations and alleged financial malfeasance. If you’re new to my blog I only post documentation. It doesn’t make it “true” but it does make it a “record.” From there people are welcome to respond with their own documentation to either prove or disprove what has been said.

But I will say this. Is it “reasonable” to assume that 100% of what Ms. Shackelford has alleged is untrue? I don’t think so. If McKinzie “only” stole $50,000 instead of $500,000…does that make her less culpable? If her salary is only $133,000 instead of $375,000 when the charter is clear it should be zero…does that somehow make McKinzie less culpable or more “sympathetic?”

Let’s be very clear.

The amount of EMBEZZLEMENT here could run into 7 figures if true. Does this make it less of a tragedy if the amount of embezzlement is only in the low 6 figures?

ALL of what Shackelford alleges has to be untrue, not a portion or percentage of it…ALL of it.

Is that reasonable? From what I personally know of the situation having nothing to do with this letter, I would say not.

The misgivings about McKinzie and her “leadership” was a well-known fact and there was reticence about her becoming Supreme Basileus because her reputation already preceded her.

I say that to say, it’s fine to come in and say that a letter is not “proof”…and you would be correct. But we should also be intellectually honest enough to ALSO say…if ALL of it can’t be disproven, then some of it is in fact true.

The letter was very specific from a person who handled the processing of the transactions and alluded to specific charges on specific statements. There’s no gray area about a $6500 watch…either there’s a money trail or not.

There’s no gray area about diamonds and other jewels. They are NEVER a part of sorority “business”…credit card statements don’t lie.

Meaning…there’s likely other paperwork to back up Shackelford’s assertions. You don’t send a letter from a law office with such assertions unless you’re also ready to back them up.

Duh!

Again, let’s use common sense here. This is not some random person with no connection to the money trail. She was involved in the process and obviously keeping records was part of her job.

And to answer your last question. I ENCOURAGE a rebuttal from Ms. McKinzie and would post it in a heartbeat, without complaint. In fact, I ENCOURAGE her going on the record in the form of an interview. All sides are ALWAYS allowed a voice and editorial space. Anyone accused is ALWAYS allowed to respond.

But if she doesn’t…it’s not my job to somehow silence those who stand in opposition to her. My email is always available. If she has something to say, then she should come with it.

If she doesn’t…excuses are what?

Lynn, I appreciate that. You of all people, I appreciate that and appreciate your understanding of why “we” do what we do. It’s never personal. It’s our work.

No, just an employee in their corporate office.