Issues: Divorce; Motion to terminate spousal support;
________
GOOD MORNING FLINT!
BY Terry Bankert 3/22/08
http://attorneybankert.com/
You are invited to join me at Face Book http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry_Bankert/645845362
___________________________
Full article at http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/
SUMMARY ON Flint Talk http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=26379#26379
_____
The following is a recent Court of Appeals case that I will present on WFLT 1420 A.M. radio Flint MI Saturday 3/22/08 9:00 am until 9:30 am. It is a call in program. Questions will be fielded by calling 810-239-5733
____________________________
In the case we will talk about today the issues are.
WHAT IS COHABITATION
Whether the trial court properly interpreted the term "cohabitation" as used in the judgment of divorce; Beason v. Beason; Birthelmer v. Birthelmer (Unpub. Ohio App.);
Whether the defendant-wife and her boyfriend were cohabiting; In re BZ; Attorney fees and costs under MCR 3.206(C); Gates v. Gates; Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co.; Reed v. Reed;
Whether the trial court properly relied on the "American rule" in denying defendant's request for attorney fees; Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights
THE CASE REVIEWED
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
WILLIAM JEFFREY SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
FOR PUBLICATION
March 18, 2008
9:05 a.m.
v No. 273547
Kent Circuit Court
BETTY LEE SMITH, a/k/a BETTY LEE
JENKINS,
LC No. 98-004557-DM
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-
Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Meter and Beckering JJ.
BECKERING, J.
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Published)
Case Name: Smith v. Smith
e-Journal Number: 38794
Judge(s): Beckering, Bandstra, and Meter
MULTI FACTOR TEST
The court held the trial court properly employed a multiple-factor test in determining whether the defendant-wife and her boyfriend were cohabitating and properly denied the plaintiff-husband's motion to terminate spousal support, finding defendant and her boyfriend were not cohabitating.
17 YEAR MARRAIGE
The parties were divorced following a 17-year marriage during which they had 5 children.
$3,500 PER MONTH IN SPOUSAL SUPPORT
The judgment of divorce required plaintiff to pay defendant $3,500 per month in spousal support, but provided his obligation to pay spousal support would terminate "upon such time as the Defendant cohabitates with a non-related male."
COHABITATE AND YOU GET NO SUPPORT.
Cohabitation requires more than briefly living together or regularly engaging in sexual activity. Whether cohabitation exists is a factual determination based on the totality of the circumstances. No one factor defining a couple's relationship is dispositive on the question of cohabitation.
LONG-DISTANCE RELATIONSHIP
Defendant's relationship with her boyfriend was more accurately characterized as a committed, long-distance relationship, involving regular overnights together, than as two people "living together . . . as partners in life," or "dwelling together . . . in the manner of husband and wife."
THE BOYFRIEND HAD HISOWN HOME
The boyfriend maintains a separate residence in Georgia, does not keep personal items at defendant's house, does not regularly receive mail there, the couple does not share personal property, they do not hold themselves out as living together, and they are not financially interdependent. Affirmed.
—
PROCEDURE
Plaintiff appeals by leave granted the trial court order denying his motion to terminate
spousal support. Defendant cross-appeals the trial court’s denial of her request for attorney fees
and costs. We affirm.
=
DIVORCED 1999 AFTER 17 YEARS
The parties were divorced in June of 1999, following a seventeen-year marriage during
which they had five children. The judgment of divorce required plaintiff to pay defendant
$3,500 per month in spousal support, but provided that plaintiff’s obligation to pay spousal
support would terminate "upon such time as the Defendant cohabitates with a non-related male."
SHES LIVING WITH A GUY I WANT SUPPORT STOPPED...NOW!
In January of 2005, plaintiff moved to terminate spousal support, asserting that defendant was
cohabitating with her boyfriend, Philip J. Walsh II. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial
court denied plaintiff’s motion to terminate spousal support, finding that defendant and Walsh
were not cohabitating.
I THINK THE COURT MESSED UP
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the term
"cohabitation," as used in the parties’ judgment of divorce. A judgment of divorce is to be
construed in light of the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Beason v Beason,
435 Mich 791, 798-799 n 3; 460 NW2d 207 (1990). A trial court generally interprets the terms
of a divorce judgment, such as the term "cohabitation," in the same manner that it interprets a
contract. Id. If the term’s meaning is unclear or it is equally susceptible to more than one
meaning, as is the case here, interpretation is a question of fact, and the trial court may consider
extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties. Id.; Brucker v McKinlay Transport, Inc (On Remand), 225 Mich App 442, 448; 571 NW2d 548 (1997). A trial court commits legal error
when it incorrectly chooses, interprets, or applies the law. Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871,
881; 526 NW2d 889 (1994).1
THE JUDGEMENT DID NOT SAY WHAT COHABITATION MENT
The parties’ judgment of divorce did not define the term "cohabitation," and there are no
authoritative Michigan cases that define the term in the context of terminating an award of
spousal support.2
Therefore, it was appropriate for the trial court to consider the dictionary
definition of the term "cohabitation" and case law from other jurisdictions that have interpreted
the term in a similar context. See Henderson v State Farm Fire & Cas Co, 225 Mich App 703,
710; 572 NW2d 216 (1997), rev’d on other grounds 460 Mich 348 (1999) (where no Michigan
cases are directly on point regarding the meaning of a phrase, it is appropriate to turn to
dictionary definitions and case law from other jurisdictions).
THE DICTIONARY SAID
In making its findings, the trial court referenced Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed) which
defines "cohabitation" as "[t]he fact or state of living together, esp. as partners in life, usu. with
the suggestion of sexual relations." Similarly, Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (3rd ed) defines
"cohabitation" as "[a] dwelling together of man and woman in the same place in the manner of
husband and wife." After considering the dictionary definition of "cohabitation," the trial court
adopted the definition for the term articulated in Birthelmer v Birthelmer, unpublished opinion
OF the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Sixth District, issued July 15, 1983 (Docket No. L-83-046),
1 Defendant argues that the term "cohabitation" should be construed against plaintiff, as the
drafter of the judgment of divorce. Our Supreme Court has held, however, that the rule of contra proferentem, i.e., that ambiguities are to be construed against the drafter of the contract, should
only be applied if all conventional means of contract interpretation, including the consideration
of relevant extrinsic evidence, have left the finder of fact unable to determine what the parties
intended their contract to mean. Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459, 470-471, 474; 663 NW2d 447 (2003). Because the trial court relied on conventional rules of contract
interpretation, construing the term "cohabitation" against plaintiff as the drafter of the judgment was unnecessary.
2 In Passwaters v Passwaters, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued
September 3, 1999 (Docket Nos. 204310, 204311), slip op p 6, this Court found no error in the
trial court’s interpretation of the term "cohabitation" in the parties’ judgment of divorce. The
divorce judgment in that case specifically adopted the definition of "cohabitation" in Black’s
Law Dictionary (5th ed). Id., slip op p 5.
WHY DO WE HAVE SPOUSAL SUPPORT
The trial court explained that the purpose of spousal
support was to allow a spouse in need of support to continue to receive support after a divorce,
and that, if the recipient spouse cohabited with another person, such as her mother, the payor’s
responsibility to pay spousal support would not be abrogated. Id., slip op p 6.
COHABITATION MORE THAN LIVING TOGETHER?
That is, "merely
sharing a home and expenses with another person without romantic involvement does not
mandate termination of spousal support." Id. On appeal, this Court found that the trial court’s
reasoning was supported by the dictionary definition of cohabitation, which likens cohabitation
to a marriage relationship. Id.
This Court also pointed out that the term "cohabitation" as used
in Ianitelli v Ianitelli, 199 Mich App 641, 644-645; 502 NW2d 691 (1993), and Petish v Petish,
144 Mich App 319, 321; 375 NW2d 432 (1985), involved situations where the recipient former
spouse admitted to living with another person in an apparently romantic manner. Passwaters,
supra, slip op p 6. as affirmed and applied in Dickerson v Dickerson, 87 Ohio App 3d 848; 623 NE2d 237 (1993) and Moell v Moell, 98 Ohio App 3d 748; 649 NE2d 880 (1994).
THREE ELEMENTS OF COHABITATION
In Birthelmer, supra, the Ohio Court of Appeals set out three elements distinguishing genuine cohabitation relationships from those which are not:
First, there must be an actual living together, that is, the man and woman
must reside together in the same home or apartment.
Secondly, such a living
together must be of a sustained duration.
Thirdly, shared expenses with respect to
financing the residence (i.e., rent or mortgage payments) and incidental day-today
expenses (e.g., groceries) are the principal relevant considerations.
The trial court noted that, in adopting the Birthelmer test, it gave consideration to the fact
that Ohio is geographically proximate to Michigan, the case provided a well-reasoned decision
for selecting the three factors, and it has since been followed by other Court of Appeals decisions
in Ohio that have adopted the three factors and added to them.
OTHER FACTORS IN DETERMINING COHABITATION
In addition to the three elements set out in Birthelmer, supra, the trial court considered
the following factors:
whether defendant and Walsh intended to cohabitate;
whether they held
themselves out as living together;
whether they assumed obligations generally arising from
ceremonial marriage;
whether a sexual relationship existed;
whether marriage was contemplated;
whether they used one another’s addresses;
whether they kept joint accounts;
whether they were
economically interdependent;
and whether defendant used her spousal support to subsidize the
alleged cohabitation.
We find that the trial court properly employed this multiple-factor test in determining
whether defendant and Walsh were cohabitating. Cohabitation requires more than briefly living
together or regularly engaging in sexual activity. Pursuant to the dictionary definition of
cohabitation, the couple must be "living together . . . as partners in life," or "dwelling together . .
. in the manner of husband and wife." As 6 Am Jur Proof of Facts 3d 765, § 2 states,
"[g]enerally, it can be said that courts consider cohabitation to mean a relationship between two
persons of the opposite sex who reside together in the manner of husband and wife, mutually
assuming those rights and duties usually attendant upon the marriage relationship."
Accordingly,
courts in other jurisdictions have considered a number of evidentiary factors in determining
whether a couple is cohabitating. See, e.g., Rose v Csapo, 359 NJ Super 53, 60-61; 818 A2d 340
(2002); Sanders v Burgard, 715 So 2d 808, 811 (Ala Civ App, 1998); Baker v Baker, 1997 ND
135; 566 NW2d 806, 811-812 (1997); Moell, supra at 752-753; In re Marriage of Herrin, 262 Ill
App 3d 573, 577; 634 NE2d 1168 (1994); McCarty v McCarty, 29 Pa D & C3d 687, 692 (1984);
Quisenberry v Quisenberry, 449 A2d 274, 276-277 (Del Fam Ct, 1982).
Whether cohabitation exists is a factual determination based on the totality of the
circumstances. In making a finding on cohabitation, courts should consider many factors. The
following are examples:
First, courts may consider the living arrangements of the couple and the
extent to which they shared a common residence.
Did they both keep personal items such as
clothing and toiletries at the residence?
Did they both have keys to the residence?
What mailing
address did each party use?
Did they share automobiles, or other personal property?
Were
household duties shared?
How long did such arrangements exist?
Second, courts may consider
the couple’s personal relationship and whether it appeared relatively permanent.
Did they
engage in sexual relations?
Was their relationship monogamous?
Was marriage contemplated?
Did they spend vacations and holidays together?
How did the couple represent their relationship
to their family, friends, and acquaintances, and how did those people view the relationship?
Third, courts may inquire into the couple’s financial arrangements.
Did they share expenses?
Did they maintain joint accounts?
Did they jointly own real or personal property?
Did one party
support the other?
Whether cohabitation exists is a question for the finder of fact. Because no
one factor defining a couple’s relationship is dispositive on the question of cohabitation, the factfinder
should consider the totality of the circumstances in each particular case.
II
Next, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in finding that defendant and Walsh were
not cohabitating. We disagree. We review a trial court’s factual findings for clear error. MCR
2.613(C); Brucker, supra at 448. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, although there is
evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made, giving due regard to the trial court’s special opportunity to observe the
witnesses. In re BZ, 264 Mich App 286, 296-297; 690 NW2d 505 (2004).
TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE
In finding that defendant and Walsh were not cohabitating, the trial court properly
considered the totality of the circumstances. Defendant first met Walsh in 2002, and they have
engaged in a monogamous, sexual relationship since 2004. After Walsh’s own marriage failed in
October of 2003, he moved to Georgia, where he lived with his sister and later purchased a
home. He moved back to Michigan for a period of time in May or June of 2004, but returned to
Georgia in September of 2004. He also spent the summer of 2005 living in Grand Rapids where
his ex-wife allowed him to live in their marital home after she moved out, although Walsh had
minimal utility charges at the home during this time period. Walsh obtained a Georgia driver’s
license and has no plans to move back to Michigan. He is the CEO of his own marketing firm
and travels extensively on a regular basis, almost exclusively in connection with business. For
example, a credit card statement revealed that in a single month, Walsh traveled to North
Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Nevada, Louisiana, Texas, Indiana, Kentucky, and
Alabama. Walsh estimated that he spends 40 weeks each year traveling for business.
When his schedule allows, Walsh stays at defendant’s house in Grand Rapids, Michigan,
where he sleeps in the same bedroom as defendant. Whenever possible, defendant and Walsh
exercise together, share meals, spend vacations and holidays together, and spend time with each other’s children. April Piper, defendant’s housemate in 2004 and 2005, testified that she saw
Walsh’s vehicle parked at defendant’s house overnight between two and four times per week.
Piper was uncertain, however, whether Walsh actually spent the night on all of those occasions,
as she acknowledged there were times when Walsh simply left his vehicle at the house while
away on business travel.
Walsh testified that he does not keep any personal belongings at defendant’s house,
toiletries or otherwise, and that while he brings clothing to defendant’s house, he does not leave
it there and takes it back to his own house for cleaning. He does not receive any mail at
defendant’s home, with the exception of his judgment of divorce and subpoena for this case.
Defendant’s friends testified that they were aware of defendant’s relationship with Walsh, but
that they saw no evidence indicating that Walsh lived with defendant. Walsh estimated that he
spent 30 to 35 nights with defendant in both 2004 and 2005, including vacations. Walsh also
stayed with defendant at her house for four nights in January of 2006, and for a long weekend in March of 2006.
Walsh asked defendant to move to Georgia to live with him on various occasions dating
back to 2004, and asked her to marry him on four or five occasions. However, defendant told
Walsh that she did not want to marry or live together with anyone until her spousal support
ENDS when her youngest child turns eighteen years of age. Defendant and Walsh both testified that
they have a committed, monogamous relationship and love each other. The couple does plan to
marry in the future.
Defendant and Walsh do not share bank accounts, credit cards, or a cellular telephone
plan. They do not contribute to each other’s bills, including daily living expenses or mortgage
payments. When the couple travels together, they share the expenses. Walsh has offered advice
to defendant regarding her rental properties and has assisted her with household projects related
to her own home and the rental properties.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, defendant’s relationship with Walsh is
more accurately characterized as a committed, long-distance dating relationship, involving
regular overnights together, than as two people "living together . . . as partners in life," or
"dwelling together . . . in the manner of husband and wife." Walsh maintains a separate
residence in Georgia, he does not keep personal items at defendant’s house, he does not regularly
receive mail there, the couple does not share personal property, they do not hold themselves out
as living together, and they are not financially interdependent. Accordingly, the trial court did
not clearly err in finding that defendant and Walsh were not cohabitating, and it properly denied
plaintiff’s request to terminate spousal support on that basis.
III
Finally, defendant cross-appeals the trial court’s denial of her request for attorney fees
and costs under MCR 3.206(C).3 We review a trial court’s ruling on a request for attorney fees
for an abuse of discretion. Gates v Gates, 256 Mich App 420, 437-438; 664 NW2d 231 (2003).
An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision falls outside of the range of
reasonable and principled outcomes. Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719
NW2d 809 (2006).
"In domestic relations cases, attorney fees are authorized by both statute, MCL 552.13,
and court rule, MCR 3.206(C)." Reed v Reed, 265 Mich App 131, 164; 693 NW2d 825 (2005).
Attorney fees in a divorce action may be awarded "when a party needs financial assistance to
prosecute or defend the suit." Id. That is, "a party should not be required to invade assets to
3 Defendant requested attorney fees and costs in her written closing argument following the
evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff’s argument on appeal that the request was untimely and improperly made is without merit.
MCR 3.206(C) does not require that a request for attorney fees be made
in a separate motion, and provides that a party may request attorney fees "at any time." MCR
3.206(C)(1).
satisfy attorney fees when the party is relying on the same assets for support." Gates, supra at
438. Pursuant to MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a), the party requesting the fees must allege facts sufficient
to show that she is "unable to bear the expense of the action, and that the other party is able to
pay."
We agree with the trial court that defendant did not demonstrate that she was unable to
bear the expense of the action, and that plaintiff was able to pay, in accordance with MCR
3.206(C)(2)(a). Defendant’s request for attorney fees and supporting affidavit were solely
comprised of unsubstantiated assertions that, aside from spousal support used for living
expenses, her income is "minimal," and that she would be unable to defend the action unless the
trial court awarded her attorney fees. The trial court properly concluded that, in light of
defendant’s recent purchase of three income-producing rental properties, she had not
demonstrated a need for financial assistance in defending the action. Defendant also asserted
that there was a wide disparity in the incomes of the parties, but the record does not support this
assertion. While defendant’s affidavit listed plaintiff’s alleged income from 1999-2003,
defendant did not supply income tax returns supporting those figures or any evidence regarding
plaintiff’s income in 2004 and 2005. Nor did defendant supply her own income tax returns to
substantiate the alleged disparity between the parties’ incomes.
Additionally, defendant argues that the trial court improperly relied on the "American
rule" in denying her request for attorney fees. We disagree. "Michigan follows the ‘American
rule’ with respect to the payment of attorney fees and costs.
Under the American rule, attorney
fees generally are not recoverable from the losing party as costs in the absence of an exception
set forth in a statute or court rule expressly authorizing such an award." Haliw v City of Sterling
Hts, 471 Mich 700, 706-707; 691 NW2d 753 (2005). The American rule is codified at MCL
600.2405(6), which provides that "[a]ny attorney fees authorized by statute or by court rule" may
be awarded as costs. See Id. at 707. Here, while the trial court stated that it was "a very big
supporter of the American rule, . . . that everybody has to carry the burden" of litigation, the
court acknowledged that attorney fees are authorized by MCR 3.206(C). The court found that
defendant failed to demonstrate her need for financial assistance in defending the action, as
required by MCR 3.206(C)(2)(a), and denied defendant’s request for attorney fees on that basis.
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
Posted here by Terry Bankert ...
Join my political party of preference, http://www.michigandems.com/join.html
Friday, March 21, 2008
WFLT 1420 AM, SATURDAY 9:00 AM BANKERT ON FAMILY LAW CALL IN PROGRAM 239-5733
LEAVING MIDDLE EARTH
NO LONGER A MIDDLE WAY!
________
GOOD MORNING FLINT!
BY Terry Bankert 3/21/08
http://attorneybankert.com/
You are invited to join me at Face Book
http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry_Bankert/645845362 ___________________________
Full article at http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/
SUMMARY ON Flint Talk http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=26325#26325
_____
For Some Young Tibetan Exiles, Dalai Lama’s ‘Middle Way’ Is a Road to Failure (NYT)
HUMAN RIGHTS! STARTS AT HOME NANCY
A senior US lawmaker, Nancy Pelosi, has called on the international community to denounce China's rule in Tibet. (B)
"As a freedom-loving people, if we don't speak out about the Chinese oppression, then we have lost our right to speak on human rights," Pelosi told reporters. ( c)
MARCHING MONKS
The unrest began March 10 when Buddhist monks marched in Lhasa calling for an end to religious restrictions and the release of imprisoned colleagues. (BC)
The demonstration marked the anniversary of a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule in 1959, after which the Dalai Lama fled to India. (BC)
WHAT DOES TIGHTEN SECURITY MEAN!
The Chinese authorities are continuing to tighten security following days of protests by Tibetans in the main city, Lhasa, and in surrounding provinces. (B)
NANCY MEETS WITH THE GOVERNMENT IN EXILE
Ms Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, spoke out while holding talks in northern India with the Dalai Lama. (B) Beijing accuses the Dalai Lama of inciting the violence. (B)
The Dalai Lama is trying to build international pressure on China to show restraint in dealing with the biggest protests in Tibet in almost 20 years. The Nobel Peace Prize winner says he is committed to a peaceful solution and isn't seeking independence for the Himalayan territory. (BC)
LET FREEDOM REIGN
"If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out
against China and the Chinese in Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak out on human rights," Ms Pelosi told a crowd of thousands of cheering Tibetan exiles, including monks and schoolchildren, in Dharamsala. (B)
Tibet had varying degrees of autonomy from China until the Chinese Communist Party came to power in 1949. It deployed troops there a year later and annexed the region in 1951. (BC)
CONGRESSIONAL JUNKET
Ms Pelosi's visit at the head of a congressional delegation was planned before the anti-China protests began. (B)
On Thursday, China admitted for the first time that troops had shot and injured protesters during the unrest. (B)
TABLOIDS CATCH NANCY HOLDING HANDS IN PUBLIC
Pelosi told the crowd at the temple in Dharamsala that it must be karma that brought her to India at such a difficult time. The Dalai Lama and Pelosi held hands as he escorted her around the temple( c)
Rifles and bayonets (B)
THIS IS THE NRA DREAM WORLD
These Tiebettans just need the right to bear arms and form a militia..., giterdone.(TRB)
Anti-China protests began on 10 March in Lhasa and gradually escalated, spreading to Tibetan communities in neighbouring Gansu, Sichuan and Qinghai provinces. (B)
China says 13 people were killed by rioters in Lhasa. The Tibetan government-in-exile says at least 99 people have died in a crackdown by Chinese troops. (B)
China has said "13 innocent civilians" died and that it used no "lethal" force to subdue the rioting.(H)
Bullets are simply a non lethal crowd control mechanism, time tested on internal political opposition.(trb)
AN ARMED INSURGENCY WITH WMD.
The Tibetans "were throwing stones at anything that drove by," Mr Kenwood said. (H)
"The young people were involved and the old people were supporting by screaming - howling like wolves. Everyone who looked Chinese was attacked," said 25-year-old Swiss tourist Claude Balsiger. (H)
OUT WITH THE OLD
"They attacked an old Chinese man on a bicycle. They hit his head really hard with stones (but) some old Tibetan people went into the crowd to make them stop," he said. (H)
"Shops were all burnt out - all the merchandise was on the street in a bonfire. Many buildings were gutted," said Serge Lachapelle, a tourist from Montreal in Canada. (H)
"The Muslim district was entirely destroyed - every store was destroyed," said Mr Kenwood. (H)
THIS IS NO LONGER MIDDLE EARTH
... a handful of radical Tibetan exile groups have said angrily that the “middle way” has achieved nothing in nearly 30 years. They have called for an Olympic Games boycott, burned Chinese flags and refused to call off a march from here to Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, which he has called impractical in opposing a mighty state intent on using force.(nyt)
RESTRICT THE PRESS
China is not allowing foreign journalists into Tibet. Troops have also sealed off towns in the surrounding areas where unrest has taken place, witnesses say. (B)
But the BBC's James Reynolds spent 24 hours in Hezuo in Gansu, where earlier this week Tibetan protesters tore down the Chinese flag. (B)
Chinese security forces had swamped the town and the streets were full of police cars, check points and military trucks. (B)
On the southern entrance to Hezuo there were rows of soldiers carrying AK47 rifles and bayonets, our correspondent said. (B)
Public notices and police broadcasts told protesters to surrender by midnight on 25 March or face arrest and punishment. (B)
Other witnesses have reported seeing hundreds of troop carriers heading for Tibetan areas in recent days. (B)
Protesters shot (B)
POLITELY(TRB)
On Thursday Chinese authorities admitted that members of the security forces had fired on Tibetan protesters. (B)
SELF DEFENSE? WORDS DO HURT!
Police wounded four protesters "in self-defence" last Sunday in Aba county, a Tibetan area of Sichuan province, Xinhua news agency said. (B)
An earlier Xinhua report said police had shot the four dead, but it was quickly changed.(B)
Xinhua did not provide further details of the incident, but Tibetan activists say at least eight people were killed at a demonstration against Chinese rule near the Kirti monastery in Aba on Sunday. (B)
The rioters burnt down a police station in Aba town and attacked officers with knives, according to the report. (BC)
THE CHINESE DO NOT DISCRIMINATE
Earlier this week, the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy circulated photos of bodies with apparent gunshot wounds, which it said were the result of police firing indiscriminately at protesters. (B)
CONDI SPEAKS..
Now we are really in trouble.(trb)
On Thursday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held telephone talks with her Chinese counterpart, Yang Jiechi, in which she urged Beijing to show restraint. (B)
THE DALI DID IT!
But Mr Yang told her the protesters were trying to sabotage both the Olympics and social stability - and reiterated China's position that it blamed the Dalai Lama for the violence.(B)
The Dalai Lama - who in 1989 won the Nobel Peace Price for his commitment to non-violence in the quest for Tibetan self-rule - has called for talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao. (B)
The Dalai Lama says he will resign as leader of Tibet's exiles if unrest in his homeland worsens, as aides say a Chinese crackdown claimed 19 more lives.(h)
The Buddhist leader, speaking in the northern Indian town of Dharamshala where his exiled government is based, said today he was opposed to the violence that erupted in Tibet last week(h)
Chinese officials blame supporters of the Dalai Lama for riots in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, last week. Authorities say protesters killed 13 people and damaged more than 500 homes. Tibetan exiles said security forces have killed about 100 demonstrators since the protests began March 10. (BC)
Even so, the 72-year-old monk’s refusal to call for independence from China more forcefully as it has cracked down on the protests in Tibet has sharpened disagreement with younger and more aggressive Tibetan exiles. (NYT)
So the question arises of whether the Dalai Lama, who has spent the last 49 years here in India and built one of the most powerful exile movements in the world, is out of touch with his own people. Or is this monk, regarded by his followers as a reincarnation of Buddha, the ultimate political pragmatist?(nyt)
There is no clear answer. Whether his doggedly conciliatory posture will ever assuage China’s government, or whether his allies will intensify pressure on China on his behalf remains a mystery.(nyt)
But a hint of his influence here bleeds through the often angry, inventive protests that have gone on nearly nonstop for over a week. For all the slogans of fury — “Free Tibet” and “Death to Hu Jintao” — China’s president, the most common is a call-and-response homage: “Long live the Dalai Lama.”(nyt)
LEADERSHIP? Or lack thereof!
President “ I have bought my tickets, Nancy just work this thing out!”(TRB)
George W. Bush, who ignored objections by China in October to award the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal, plans to attend the Games, according to the White House.(BC)
Over the last week, the violence has spread beyond Tibet into at least two neighboring Chinese provinces -- Gansu and Sichuan -- both with large Tibetan populations. ( C )
THE NEW VOICES
Tashi Phuntshok, 40, a resident of a dormitory for new refugees here, said he understood that the Dalai Lama’s political strategy was intended to spare more Tibetan lives. If he called for independence, Mr. Phuntshok said, there would be outright war. “His Holiness, he is kind-hearted,” Mr. Phuntshok explained. 1. “For us,” he said, “it should be full independence.” Tashi Phuntshok, 40, a resident of a dormitory for new refugees here, said he understood that the Dalai Lama’s political strategy was intended to spare more Tibetan lives. If he called for independence, Mr. Phuntshok said, there would be outright war. “His Holiness, he is kind-hearted,” Mr. Phuntshok explained. (nyt)
Tsering Dorje, 34, came out of an Internet cafe on the same road, having scoured the Web for the latest news inside Tibet. He regarded the “middle way” as still the soundest strategy, but said that China would have to respond favorably soon for Tibetans to keep faith in the concept. “It’s time for China to show whether it has the courage,” he said. “If China doesn’t change its stance, I will change my mind.”(nyt)
Samdhong Rinpoche, the prime minister of the Tibetan government in exile, said he recognized the “energy and fire” of younger, more radical exiles, but dismissed their expectations.(nyt) “They have all lived in a world of dreams,” he said. “And they are driven by emotions.”(nyt) “For us,...it should be full independence.”(nyt)
Which side do you fall when a people fight for freedom, I side with freedom.(TRB)
Tenzin Wangdue, who has spent the last 11 days shouting slogans, including some that the Dalai Lama would shun, is typical of the new generation. While not rejecting the Dalai Lama’s authority, he believes Tibetans have to push harder if they are going to get anywhere. “They’re not going to give total independence,” he said of China. “But I think there’s hope they’re going to accept genuine autonomy if we say we want total autonomy.”(nyt)
good luck....(TRB)
Posted here by Terry Bankert ...
http://attorneybankert.com/
Join my political party of preference,
http://www.michigandems.com/join.html
—where did this stuff come from---
(B) BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7308169.stm
(BC) The Bloomberg.com http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amQQ7nR0ANbk&refer=home
(TRB) Comments of Terry Bankert and CAP headlines Terry Bankert 3/20/08 http://attorneybankert.com/
(NYT) The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/world/asia/21exiles.html?ref=asia
( c ) CNN.com /Asia http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/21/tibet.dalai.lama/
(h) The Heraldsun http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23398353-663,00.html 44788
Posts
