Friday, April 24, 2009

Judge Appointed F. Kay Behm

Good Morning Flint!
By Terry Bankert,
4/25/08, early edition
http://flintfamilylaw.com/

This Saturday will be my last scheduled Radio program with WFLT.

Lynn ,my wife, and I are taking the summer off. The decision to return will be made in August possibly at a different time and format.

We are extremely grateful for the education the listening audience of WFLT has given us. To WFLT thank you for opportunity to present our firms philosophy of putting children first .

We will continue to be available to help you with Family Law issues.

WFLT 1420 AM Saturday 9 am till 9:30 am. “ Know the Law” hosted by Terry Bankert.

You are invited to ask questions of F.Kay Behm “Judge Appointed” by Governor Jennifer Granholm to the Genesee County Family Court.

Call in your questions 810-239-5733.

From the Governors web page.April 10, 2009

LANSING - Governor Jennifer M. Granholm today announced the appointment of F. Kay Behm as judge of the Genesee County Probate Court for a term expiring January 1, 2011.

She replaces the late Judge Robert Weiss. Behm, of Grand Blanc, was most recently an attorney in private practice.

Previously, she was an associate attorney with Winegarden, Haley, Lindholm & Robertson PLC law firm and an associate attorney with Braun, Kendrick, Finkbeiner, PLC law firm. She is also a former member of the Centennial American Inn of Court.

Behm earned her law degree from the University of Michigan and her bachelor's degree from Albion College.

This appointment is not subject to disapproval by the Michigan Senate.

F. Kay Behm , 234-2400 kbehm@ameritech.net

This is a call in program at the 9:15 point I will ask for question about probate court issues.

F. Kay Behm was recently appointed to the Family Law Bench in Genesee County. She will be Judge Behm after her swearing in. Good Morning! And welcome to WFLT

Q: Please tell us how the Governor told you of your appointment.

Q:When will you be sworn in?

Q:How does one get a judicial appointment?
Q:Where was your undergraduate education and law school?

Q: Are you Married? Do You have Children?

Q:Where do you live now?

Q:What is a day like in the Behm household with children and two professional parents?

Q:What are your practice areas and what have you been doing since law school?

Q:Is there a judge school and if yes are you attending?

Q:How long is your term? When will you have to begin campaigning? F. Kay Behm is looking forward to a new challenge and believes she will find it in her new job as family court judge.[Flint Journal]

Q: WHAT WILL BE YOUR BIGGEST CHALLENGE AS YOU TAKE THE BENCH?

Behm, 39, of Grand Blanc, was named Genesee County probate judge Friday. The seat had been vacant since Judge Robert Weiss died in January.[Flint Journal]

"One of the things I really like about practicing law is that every day is a new challenge," she said. "These are things I can figure out and deal with. So much of it is listening and trying to be fair and respectful to all the parties."[Flint Journal]

Q: Describe your most memorable case and why you feel that way? Behm has been a probate attorney in private practice in Genesee County for several years, mostly focusing on business litigation and probate law. Her new role in the family court will deal with cases such as divorces, paternity, abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquents.[Flint Journal]

Q: From your perspective as a probate attorney what advice can you give the families listening when their loved ones need the protection of the probate court before or after the death of their loved one? FAQs What does it mean when a will is contested? Is a lawyer necessary for probate? I've heard that probate is expensive, time consuming, and bureaucratic. True? What can my family do to reduce the costs of probating my estate? What is probate Others who know Behm well said she is perfect for the job. Behm has been in her own private practice for about a year. She spent more than 10 years with Flint-based firm Winegarden, Haley, Lindholm & Robertson. She also worked in Saginaw, Cincinnati and Grand Rapids.[Flint Journal]

Q: Describe your community service."

2 MIN CLOSING COMMENTS BY Judge Appointed F.Kay Behm


MARK YOUR CALENDAR
Thursday, April 30, Flint Mayoral Debate, sponsored by the Genesee County Democratic Party and its caucuses, hosted by UAW Lo. 651, 6:30 to 8:00 PM at UAW Local. 651 Hall, 3518 Robert T. Longway Blvd., Flint. To be moderated by Flint Journal Editor John Foren.

This debate will be carried live by FLINT TALK RADIO Mr. George Moss and Ted Jankowski will be providing live commentary.

Please attend but if you cannot tune in to Flint Talk Radio at http://www.flinttalkradio.com/

Thank You WFLT and the listening audience.

Posted Here by Terry Bankert 4/24/09

You are invited to continue this discussion on my Face Book Page. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Torture and Truth

GOOD MORNING FLINT!
4/23/09 By Terry Bankert
http://flintfamilylaw.com/
posted first to flinttalk http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=43461#43461

ITS TIME TO KNOW THE TRUTH We have suffered too many valueless National administrations filled with heretics hiding under the skirts of a narrowly focused Religious Right selling and forcing its dogma on the American people of all walks of life. Its time for a change. American must fight for “common” values in public policy. As a nation of laws these values are embedded in our national and state constitution and international treaties. Its time to hold the human rights violators of American and International Law (criminals) in our midst .....accountable. Its time to know the truth.

TRUTH COMMISSION House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stepped up Democrats' calls to form a torture "truth commission," urging President Obama not to give immunity to anyone who illegally abused terror thugs.[1] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday endorsed the establishment of a formal truth commission to investigate Bush administration anti-terrorism policies, including an examination of former top Justice Department lawyers who crafted the legal justifications for what critics say was torture[3] On investigating use of extreme interrogation tactics used by CIA during the Bush administration: [Nancy Pelosi stated]"My thinking has always been that we should have some kind of truth commission as suggested by Sen. Leahy. Where we had some difference of opinion was that the thrust in the Senate side had been with immunity, and I thought we should be more selective in terms of granting immunity. I believe that the direction that we're going in the investigation by certain committees of the House will be useful. It might be further useful to have such a commission so that it removes all doubt that how we protect the American people is in a values-based way."[5]

PROSECUTE BUSH ADMINISTRATION Pelosi on Wednesday seized on Obama's openness to prosecuting top Bush administration lawyers who formulated policies to strip, slap, shove and waterboard detainees said to be among Al Qaeda's worst in U.S. custody after 9/11. [1]

NO IMMUNITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS "It gives further impetus among members to have some kind of truth commission as to what happened," Pelosi said. "I do not think immunity should be granted to everyone in a blanket way," she added. [1]

REPUBLICANS DO NOT WANT TRUTH
Republicans oppose a probe. [1]

HOLD THE PEOPLE AT THE TOP ACCOUNTABLE Obama has insisted that CIA operators who grilled detainees shouldn't be charged for following orders from Washington. But he suggested ex-President Bush's legal team might not be off the hook, and Attorney General Eric Holder said prosecutors will "follow the evidence." [1]

183,183,183,183,183......

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,politicians, war veterans,intelligence officials,military judges,and human rights organizations. As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.[6] Complicating matters was the disclosure that the CIA used waterboarding - which simulates drowning - on 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times. [1]

UNTRUTH But ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden claimed at a congressional hearing last year that the practice ceased within a week of Mohammed's March 1, 2003, capture. CIA officials could not explain the seeming discrepancy. [1]

THWARTS.... Former Vice President Cheney claims waterboarding helped thwart plots against the U.S. [1]

CHENEY UNTRUTH MONGER Several former officials disputed Cheney. One retired counterterror official who had read CIA cables said most were plots that Mohammed "was only remotely thinking of undertaking [that] didn't even reach the planning stage." [1]

FROM THE TROLL CAVE danr Apr 23, 2009 5:17:46 AM Hey, Nancy, why don't you just invite all of those terrorist thugs out to dinner, and give them all keys to the city? You are the all time WORST politician EVER. First, you want to give ILLEGAL aliens money from hard working Americans SS, now, you want to blame people who did their jobs. How come not ONE word about the over 2,000 innocent people killed on 9/11? Oh, yeah, most of them were Americans, weren't they? You are a total disgrace to this country. [1] twotap 4/22/09 I am saying do what it takes to protect America if your boy Barrack thinks differently he should be impeached. By the way you along with your lib cohorts played your hand long ago. Get Bush get Cheney even if it means screwing America. 2010 here we come.[2] Sid Love 04.22.09“Move On”, “Focus on the Future”, “Not Dwell on the Past”. B.S. They broke the law and perverted our Constitution. Corrupted law is worse than no law at all. Let us have some accountability at a higher than Sargent level. The Justice Department lawyers who wrote these abominable “Memos” should be disbarred and prohibited from government service. The cabinet heads who encouraged or signed off on these “Memos/Findings” need to be punished. They swore to uphold and protect our Constitution. It is obvious that they did the opposite.[4]

REAL AMERICAN VALUES

In a sit-down with reporters in her Capitol Hill conference room, Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat, said the advantage of such a commission would be that "it removes all doubt that how we protect the American people is in a values-based way." .[3]

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS LEAD IN BATTLE FOR TRUTH

Liberal Democrats have been pressing the issue for months with little traction, given the Obama administration's reluctance and fierce Republican resistance, but now are re-energized. Republicans moved to dash what they called a retrospective tribunal that would unfairly target officials who followed legal guidance at the time and intimidate officials going forward.[3]

DEMOCRATS PROMOTE VALUES , REPUBLICANS OPPOSE SAME

“The President of the United States is taking the exact right approach,” she said, referring to controversy this week over whether the Obama administration should prosecute those who abused detainees or who drafted the policies that enabled abuse. Obama has said that no one is above the law, but that he wants to keep the focus on the future, not the past.[4] “He has to look forward. We have inherited a tremendous economic crisis in our country, enormous challenges internationally, including two wars and the threat of Al Qaeda that’s still unresolved seven-and-a-half years after 9/11. The president has enormous tasks ahead and he is right to address the challenges that he faces in a positive way going forward,” she said.[4] But she also endorsed proposals for a “truth commission” to investigate abuses of detainees during the Bush administration. “It might be further useful to have such a commission so that it removes all doubt that we protect the American people in a values-based way,” she said.[4]

Posted Here by Terry Bankert 4/23/09
You are invited to continue this discussion on my Face Book Page. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362 -


[1] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/04/23/2009-04-23_pelosi_ups_pressure_for_truth_panel_on_torture.html
[2] http://www.flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=43448#43448
[3] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/22/MNAK1774SQ.DTL&type=politics
[4] http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/04/22/nancy-pelosi-in-the-political-hot-seat/ [5] http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/04/pelosi_on_energ.php
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

TORTURE! When is it not Okay with you?

GOOD MORNING FLINT!
Full article http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/
4/22/09 By Terry Bankert http://flintfamilylaw.com/
Summary posted first to Flint Talk http://www.flinttalk.com


THE WORLD TO PUT THE UNITED STATES ON TRIAL FOR TORTURE!

Obama: Bush aides may be prosecuted over torture[8]

In shift, Obama opens door to inquiry on interrogations.Prosecution of lawyers not ruled out[4]

WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS

Widening an explosive debate on torture, President Barack Obama on Tuesday opened the possibility of prosecution for Bush-era lawyers who authorized brutal interrogation of terror suspects and suggested Congress might order a full investigation.[1]

THE VEIL OF SECRECY HAS BEEN LIFTED

"The CIA has managed to avoid liability for torture by promoting the fiction that its torture and rendition programs were secret,"[3]

"By declassifying and officially confirming some of the worst details of the Bush torture regime, President Obama has removed any basis for denying victims their day in court," [3]

OBAMA HAS LET IN THE LIGHT OF DAY, LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY.

Last week, Obama declassified four Bush administration Justice Department memos authorizing the CIA to keep al Qaeda suspects awake for as long as 11 days and use a variety of other techniques during interrogations, including head slaps, stress positions, slamming into walls and the simulated-drowning procedure called waterboarding. Department lawyers said none of the procedures would constitute torture.[3]

CAN POLITICS AND JUSTICE STAND SIDE BY SIDE?

Obama also said that if Congress was intent on investigating that interrogation program, an independent commission might be more suitable than a congressional panel, which he said was more likely to split along partisan lines.[2]

HAS OBAMA GRANTED AMNESTY?

Manfred Nowak, another senior U.N. official who investigates torture accusations, said the Obama administration is violating terms of the U.N. Convention Against Torture by effectively granting amnesty to CIA interrogators. He said the United States, as a signatory to the treaty, is legally obligated to investigate suspected cases of torture. He also said Washington must provide compensation to torture victims, including al-Qaeda leaders who were waterboarded. [6]
"One cannot buy the argument anymore that this does not amount to torture," he said. "These memos are nothing but an attempt to circumvent the absolute prohibition on torture."[6]

THE WORLD IS WATCHING

European officials and lawyers seek to criminalize former US officials over torture charges amid the reluctance of President Barack Obama. [7]

European prosecutors are likely to investigate CIA and Bush administration officials on suspicion of violating an international ban on torture if they are not held legally accountable at home, according to U.N. officials and human rights lawyers. [6]

Many European officials and civil liberties groups said they were disappointed by President Obama's opposition to trials of CIA interrogators who subjected terrorism suspects to waterboarding and other harsh tactics. They said the release last week of secret U.S. Justice Department memos authorizing the techniques will make it easier for foreign prosecutors to open probes if U.S. officials do not. [6]

CHENY CANNOT ESCAPE "Universal Jurisdiction".

Some European countries, under a legal principle known as universal jurisdiction, have adopted laws giving themselves the authority to investigate torture, genocide and other human rights crimes anywhere in the world, even if their citizens are not involved. Although it is rare for prosecutors to win such cases, those targeted can face arrest if they travel abroad. [6]

ENHANCED? SO WAS THE WHEEL!

A number of European authorities and human rights groups have expressed dissatisfaction with Obama's failure to press charges against ex-CIA authorities who sanctioned or administered the so-called 'enhanced interrogation methods' to terror suspects, saying that they will make an effort to delve into the torture case under a "universal jurisdiction" code. [7]Civil rights campaigners say the legal code adopted by some EU countries, authorizes lawyers across the globe to file lawsuits against war criminals, perpetrators of genocides and other human rights offenses, regardless of their country of residence. [7]

ACCOUNTABILITY IS FUNDAMENTAL

Less than a week after declaring it was time for the nation to move on rather than "laying blame for the past," Obama found himself describing what might be done next to investigate what he called the loss of "our moral bearings."[1]

Obama's remarks were the first time that he has explicitly raised the prospect of legal jeopardy for those who formulated the interrogation policy, which critics say amounted to authorizing torture.[2]

WHY ARE WE BOTHERING TO SPIN THIS

The comments knocked the ordinarily smooth White House press operation back on its heels. Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, spent much of his daily briefing yesterday trying to explain precisely what Obama had meant, declaring at one point, "To clear up any confusion on anything that might have been said, I would point you to what the president said."[4]

The president's comments provided a glimpse into the White House's struggle to deal with one of the thorniest issues that Obama has faced since taking office. He has been assailed from all sides for his decision to release previously secret memorandums detailing the harsh tactics employed by the CIA under President George W. Bush -- memos that revealed, for instance, that two captured Al Qaeda operatives were subjected to waterboarding a total of 266 times.[4]

Elisa Massimino, executive director of Human Rights First, an advocacy group here, said Mr. Obama was using the same language her organization had used in trying to persuade the White House that he should create a commission. "Those criteria that he outlined," she said, "those are the exact same things we’ve been saying to them."[5]

COME DOWN HARD

His comments all but ensured that the vexing issue of detainee interrogation during the Bush administration will live on well into the new president's term. Obama, who severely criticized the harsh techniques during the campaign, is feeling pressure from his party's liberal wing to come down hard on the subject.[1]

IT WAS MEANT TO BE SECRET, HOW DARE THEY

At the same time, Republicans including former Vice President Dick Cheney are insisting the methods helped protect the nation and are assailing Obama for revealing Justice Department memos detailing them.[1]

CIA Director Michael Hayden, who criticized the release of the memos, also provided a declaration that is central in the argument over the prisoners' lawsuit. Hayden has said Obama's disclosure of the memos would aid the nation's enemies by displaying the outer limits of the CIA's methods. [3]

Critics on the right, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, said Obama was jeopardizing national security by releasing the memos. Obama officials have noted that the techniques have been discussed in news reports and even publicly by former President George W. Bush[2]

THE GREAT DIVIDE, REPUBLICANS FOR TORTURE DEMOCRATS AGAINST TORTURE

That divide remained evident yesterday.
"I am pleased that the president made clear that he has not ruled out investigations or prosecutions of those who authorized torture," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D., Wis.), "or provided the legal justification for it. Horrible abuses were committed in the name of the American people, and we cannot look the other way or just move on." [2]

Some Republicans questioned Obama's move.[2]
"There is a lot of gray, there's going to be an awful lot of conflict out there," said Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.). "They would be well-served not to depart abruptly from the policies that have kept us safe the last seven years."[2]

ATTORNEY GENERALS CALL

Answering a reporter's question Tuesday, Obama said it would be up to his attorney general to determine whether "those who formulated those legal decisions" behind the interrogation methods should be prosecuted. [1]

"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that," he told reporters at the White House.[2]

TERROR IS TERROR

The methods, described in Bush-era memos Obama released last Thursday, included such grim and demeaning tactics as slamming detainees against walls and subjecting them to simulated drowning.[1]

Nowak, an Austrian law professor based in Vienna, acknowledged that there is no mechanism in the anti-torture treaty to punish governments that ignore its provisions. From a political standpoint, he said, it is more important for the White House or Congress to authorize an independent commission to conduct a public examination of how terrorism suspects were treated after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. [6]

TRIAL FOR THE PEOPLE AT THE TOP, START WITH BUSH

He said anew that CIA operatives who did the interrogating should not be charged with crimes because they thought they were following the law.[1]

THE REAL ISSUE IS AMERICAN CREDIBILITY

"I think there are a host of very complicated issues involved here," the president said. "As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out national security operations."[1]

Martin Scheinin, the U.N. special investigator for human rights and counterterrorism, said the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration clearly violated international law. He said the lawyers who wrote the Justice Department memos, as well as senior figures such as former vice president Richard B. Cheney, will probably face legal trouble overseas if they avoid prosecution in the United States. [6]

"Torture is an international crime irrespective of the place where it is committed. Other countries have an obligation to investigate," Scheinin said in a telephone interview from Cairo. "This may be something that will be haunting CIA officials, or Justice Department officials, or the vice president, for the rest of their lives." [6]


TRUTH AND APOLOGY TRIALS

Still, he suggested that Congress might set up a bipartisan review, outside its typical hearings, if it wants a "further accounting" of what happened during the period when the interrogation methods were authorized. His press secretary later said the independent Sept. 11 commission, which investigated and then reported on the terror attacks of 2001, might be a model.[1]

The harsher methods were authorized to gain information after the 2001 attacks.[1]

TAKE DOWN THE TRUE BELIEVERS, JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS...BUNK

The three men facing the most scrutiny are former Justice Department officials Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Steven Bradbury. Bybee is currently a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Yoo is a professor at the University of California-Berkeley.[1]

The Bush Justice Department wrote three of the memos in 2005 in response to a request from John A. Rizzo, senior deputy general counsel at the CIA, who wanted to ensure the agency's interrogation procedures complied with laws and international treaties. [2]

The memos were prepared by Steven Bradbury, who led the department's Office of Legal Counsel. [2]

A fourth memo was drafted with the help of Jay Bybee, who served in the OLC before Bush named him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and John Yoo, who became a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and now writes a column for The Inquirer.[2]

Several CIA and Bush administration officials have been targeted for prosecution in Europe, though the cases have generally not progressed very far. [6]

EVEN THE HOME OF THE INQUISITION IS IN PROTEST

In Spain, a human rights group is pushing prosecutors to investigative six senior Bush administration officials for allegedly sanctioning the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Last week, Spanish prosecutors recommended dropping the case after Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido called it a politicized attempt to turn Spanish courts "into a plaything." A Spanish judge will make the final decision. [6]

REPUBLICAN LAWYERING AT ITS WORST

It might be argued that the officials were simply doing their jobs, providing legal advice for the Bush administration. However, John Strait, a law professor at Seattle University said, "I think there are a slew of potential charges."[1]

Those could include conspiracy to commit felonies, including torture, he suggested.[1]
Bybee also could face impeachment in Congress if lawmakers were so inclined.[1]

MEMOS THAT ARE A REMINDER OF THE LEGAL FOUNDATION OF THE INQUISITION

A federal investigation into the memos is being conducted by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which usually limits itself to examining the ethical behavior of employees but whose work in rare cases leads to criminal investigations.[1]

SEVERAL INDEPENDENT COMMISSIONS ARE NEEDED

The chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary committees said Tuesday they want to move ahead with previously proposed, independent commissions to examine George W. Bush's national security policies.[1]

MEMORIES OF SOUTH AFRICAN, TRUTH COMMISSION? RUN BY POLITICOS! GOOD LUCK!

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who has referred to his proposed panel as a "Truth Commission," said, "I agree with President Obama: An examination into these Bush-Cheney era national security policies must be nonpartisan. ... Unfortunately, Republicans have shown no interest in a nonpartisan review."[1]

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has proposed separate hearings by his committee in addition to an independent commission.[1]

DO WE GET THE GENERAL OR THE CAPTAIN IN THE FIELD.

Over the past weekend, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview the administration did not support prosecutions for "those who devised policy." White House aides say he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.[1]

HERE WE GO AGAIN. WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME THE LAWYER.

Yet it was unclear exactly whom Obama meant in opening the door to potential prosecutions of those who "formulated the legal decisions." Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the president meant the lawyers who declared the interrogation methods legal, or the policymakers who ordered, them or both.[1]

ISSUES FOR A TRIBUNAL NOT A PRESS CONFERENCE

"I don't know the answer to that," Gibbs said during a briefing in which he was peppered with questions about the president's words. Later, he added: "The parsing of some of this is better done through a filter of the rule of law and done at the Justice Department and not done here at the White House."[1]

LOYAL TROOPERS

When pressed about any confusion stemming from his comments and Emanuel's, Gibbs said: "Take what the president said, as I'm informed he got more votes than either of the two of us."[1]

DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS

National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, Obama's top intelligence advisers, told personnel in an April 16 letter that the interrogations had resulted in "high-value information" as well as a "deeper understanding" of al-Qaida.[1]

WELL...MABEY....NOT.

However, with the public release of his letter, Blair issued a statement Tuesday night saying that while the information gained was valuable in some instances, there was no way to know if that information could have been obtained in other ways.[1]

ALL ELEMENTS OF THE AMERICAN TORTURE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

Currently some of the tortueee’s are litigating and against a private company that helped to kidnap them.

The administration's chief rationale for dismissing the suit "no longer exists, because the (interrogation) methods are now public, and because they have been prohibited," Ben Wizner, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing five current and former U.S. prisoners, said in a filing with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.[3]

The five men accuse Jeppesen Dataplan, a San Jose subsidiary of the Boeing Co., of colluding with the CIA in their kidnapping and torture in a practice known as extraordinary rendition.[3]
The Bush administration acknowledged the rendition program, in which suspected criminals and terrorists were taken to foreign countries or CIA prisons for interrogation. The administration said, however, that the foreign governments guaranteed no one would be tortured.[3]

A former Jeppesen employee, in a court declaration, quoted a company director as telling staffers in 2006 that Jeppesen handled torture flights[3]

BUSH AND TORTURE HURT OUR NATIONAL IMAGE

"The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us, and they are not essential to our national security," Blair said.[1]

COUNT ME IN WITH THOSE PESKY LIBERALS

A number of Republicans, including former Vice President Cheney and former top intelligence
officials, say Obama has undermined national security with his release of the memos on the matter. On the other side, some Democratic lawmakers, human rights groups and liberal advocates want to see punishment for those involved in sanctioning brutal interrogations — the kind they say amount to torture and have damaged U.S. standing around the world.[1]

OXYMORON, SCHOLAR AND AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

"Certainly, this is an attempt not just to stake a ground between the left and the right, but also to navigate through something that he would prefer not be there as an ongoing issue," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar of U.S. politics at the American Enterprise Institute.[1]

THE GREAT BARRACK WALENDA

"He's walking the tightrope," Ornstein added. "You don't want to give a blanket, `Everything's OK, we're only moving forward.' And you don't want a president making a decision that it is a legal decision."[1]

TO BE A NATION OF LAWS, WE MUST KNOW WHEN IT IS BROKEN AND DO SOMETHING. OTHERWISE WE ARE JUST A GANG.

Obama said he was not proposing that another investigation be launched, but if it happens it should be done in a way that does not "provide one side or another political advantage but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way."[1]

IF AMERICA DOES NOT HOLD THOSE ACCOUNTABLE FOR TORTURE THE WORLD WILL

In Germany human rights groups have tried to bring charges against former U.S. defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib facility. Germany's federal prosecutor has twice rejected the case, but supporters have appealed in court.[6]

"Everybody prefers that prosecutions take place in the U.S.," he said. "But if nothing happens there, then that's the end of the legal argument to dismiss these cases in Europe." [6]

John B. Bellinger III, who was legal adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said European governments will face a worsening legal and political dilemma if human rights groups redouble their efforts to pursue criminal investigations of U.S. officials. [6]

OUR ALLIES CAN ONLY PROTECT US IF WE ACT ON TORTURE

"They will be under pressure from civil liberties groups and some European parliamentarians not to oppose these cases. But if they allow them to go forward, they know it could strain their relationship with the Obama administration, which says it wants to look forward, not back." [6]
Additionally, European governments are unlikely to favor the prosecution of U.S. officials under universal-jurisdiction statutes for practical reasons, he said. For instance, U.S. officials facing charges or indictment could no longer travel to Europe without facing the risk of arrest, a situation that could spiral out of control diplomatically. [6]

Meanwhile, UN special investigator for human rights and counterterrorism, Martin Scheinin has said that former senior US officials -- including vice-president Dick Cheney -- could face a trial overseas if they fail to respond to allegations into their order of torture in the United States. [7]"Torture is an international crime irrespective of the place where it is committed. Other countries have an obligation to investigate," Washington Post quoted Scheinin as saying. [7]"This may be something that will haunt CIA officials, or Justice Department officials, or the vice president, for the rest of their lives," he added. [7]

Posted Here by Terry Bankert 4/22/09
You are invited to continue this discussion on my Face Book Page.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362
-
SOURCES
[1]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ig-Lt4l7OBj1pzq-eKRjKqthYdLgD97N7KHG0

[2]
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20090422_Obama_open_to_torture_inquiry.html

[3]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/21/MN74176I3J.DTL&type=politics

[4]
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/04/22/in_shift_obama_opens_door_to_inquiry_on_interrogations/

[5]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22intel.html?bl&ex=1240545600&en=ab4559dbcc4ddb83&ei=5087%0A

[6]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042103742.html?hpid=topnews

[7]
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=92180&sectionid=351020605

[8]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/21/obama-prosecution-torture-memos-bush-administration

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

FLINT DEFICIT REDUCTION PLAN

GOOD MORNING FLINT!
Full article
http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/

4/21/09 By Terry Bankert
http://flintfamilylaw.com/
Summary posted first to Flint Talk
http://www.flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=43416#43416

STATE FORCES THE CITY OF FLINT TO MAKE MORE BUDGET CONCESSIONS

It is a state requirement of any local government operating in the red. The plan will reduce that debt completely within five years. In the plan, the mayor said they have reduced the city’s executive staffing by between $1 million and $1.5 million. [3]

STATE MONITORS IN CITY HALL TELL BROWN YOU HAVE TO DO MORE

Brown said the state government has worked with the city in drafting the plan for two months. There wasn’t any specific word on whether more cuts could come to police and fire. Brown said the city is actively seeking grants from the federal government to sustain and add more police and firefighters to the city. [3]

FLINT IS WORKING HARD TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW REQUIREING A BALANCED BUDGET AND AVOID STATE TAKE OVER LIKE PONTIAC

"The state will try its darnedest not to come to Flint," said Schimmel, the finance director at the Mackinac Center. "They don't want to take over municipalities. The state has enough problems of its own."Schimmel said Pontiac has failed to address the root problems in its budget, and its expenses would have continued to spiral out of control without a state takeover."They didn't have the gumption or the political will to stand up and make the tough decisions," Schimmel said.[6]

IN THE PROCESS OF A STATE TAKE OVER THE STATES RESPONSIBILITY IS TO DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET AND A DEFCIT REDUCTION PLAN

The recovery plan to be presented by Mayor Brown is a required action by the State of Michigan for any municipality that operates with a budget deficit. [4]

ITS SAD WHEN THE STATE HAS TO COME IN TO TELL US TO BALANCE OUR BOOKS, TO CORRECT PROBLEMS CAUSED BY WILLIAMSON,BUCHANAN AND THE CURRENT COUNCIL. BROWN HAS A TOUGH JOB.

"Because we had the state at the table with us as we went through this process for the past two months, I feel very comfortable that we're really following the dictates of the state," he said.[2]

WHO DOES IT GO TO AT THE STATE LEVEL.WHAT LAW REQUIRES THIS? WHAT HAPPENS IS THE PERSONNEL AT THE STATE LEVEL REJECT THE CITY PROPOSAL?

Flint City officials have presented their plan to balance the city’s budget. Now it moves on to the state for a final approval. It was a fairly crowded City Council chambers Monday night, where Acting Mayor Mike Brown presented the deficit elimination plan, unanimously passed by the city council at 7:12 p.m. [3]

WHERE IN LANSING DOES THE CITY PROPOSAL GO?

The deficit-elimination plan now heads to Lansing.[2]

BROWN SUBMITTED A BUDGET AND NOW FIORCED TO SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT

"Every municipality must present a balanced budget," Brown said. "We didn't create this mess but we are cleaning it up. We got 9-0 support from Council so I think it sends the right message to the community," he said. [3]

THE COUNCIL IS RESPONSIBLE WITH PAST MISMANAGEMENT ALONG WITH WILLIAMSON AND BUCHANAN, NO EXCUSES

"I wish we didn’t have to do this at all," said City Council President Jim Ananich. "But if you don’t present the deficit reduction plan, the state will come in and make drastic cuts. You’ve got to operate within the means that you have. You can’t have hope budgets. You have to have realistic budgets," he said.[3]

WHY DID THE COUNCIL NOT DO THIS BEFORE?

Wiping away nearly $14 million in red ink. The Flint City Council Monday gave the green light to the interim mayor's plan to start fixing the city budget. [2]

THE COUNCIL SHOULD FOLLOW SUIT BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL SEATS FROM 9 TO 5.

The numbers submitted to the state include various city revenue sources and include savings the city made through various budget cuts, including more than 100 job layoffs.[2]

DID BROWN CUT TOO DEEP INTO POLICE AND ENDANGER OUR COMMUNITY?

Brown says he's trying to reduce that, especially with regard to police.[2]

New Flint plan would save 10 public safety jobs by cutting executive positions [1]
The city may ax about 10 executive-level positions in order to save 10 public safety positions.[1]

The plan calls for the city to pay itself back more than $2 million the first year, and nearly $3 million in each of the four remaining years.[2]

Deficit plan highlights The Flint City Council on Monday unanimously approved a 5-year deficit reduction plan that eliminates a $14-million deficit by 2015. [1]

The plan cuts personnel costs and increases revenue by hiking fees for services. The city will also hire a grant writer to apply for federal grants.[1]

IS THIS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF VOODOO BOOKKEEPING?

There are also plans to use underutilized accounting methods to boost the city's troubled general fund with $3.9 million from the city's healthier water and sewer funds.[1]

IS THIS THE LAST DITCH EFFORT TO STOP A STATE TAKE OVER?

The white-collar cuts would come in addition to a new deficit reduction plan that temporary Mayor Michael Brown will send to Lansing this week in an attempt to convince state officials that the city can eliminate its $14-million deficit by 2015.[1]

NEELEY WAS ON THE COUNCIL THAT ALLOWED THE DEFICIT REDUCTION

"If the economic tide changes in this community, then we'll be able to pay this off sooner," said Councilman Sheldon Neeley.[2]

THE CITY DOES NOT NEED A SURPLUS IT NEEDS POLICE

Under the plan submitted to the state, the city will clear out its debt within five years and eventually end up with a surplus. [2]

EXACTLY?

The interim mayor's administration laid out exactly how the plan would work.[2]
The plan is serving as the blueprint to help the city get its finances back in order.[2]

"If we're spending money on executive staff, we can't spend it on police and fire," Brown said. "It's the right thing to do."[1]

WHAT DOES THE COUNCIL DISAGREE WITH?

Brown also proposed a reorganization of the city government, but not all city council members supported those possible changes. NBC25 spoke with Brown and members of council immediately after the measure was passed. [3]

FINANCE DIRECTOR?

"This will give us a clean slate," said Finance Director Scott Kincaid. "We don't have to worry about raising taxes to the residents in the city of Flint."[2]


Wow cuts across the board that include some executive positions, who would have thunk it.....[Posted by micu29 on [1]][1]

YOU WOULD THINK THE COUNCIL WOULD PUBLICLY DISCUSS THIS?

The Flint City Council on Monday unanimously approved Brown's plans to get rid of the deficit through personnel cuts, hikes in service fees and changes to accounting methods. The city will also hire a grant writer to apply for federal grants.[Posted by micu29 on [1]][1]

DO YOU THINK A MAJOR REORGANIZATION SHOULD HAVE PUBLIC DEBATE?

Brown also proposed not only reorganizing his office, but other city departments. The plan includes a public safety department for services like police and fire.[2]

WHY DID THE COUNCIL NOT DISCUSS THIS BEFORE THEY ADOPTED IT? IS THERE A STATE DEADLINE?

The council will later take a look at Brown's administrative reorganization plan.With 85 layoffs already announced -- mostly in the police and fire departments -- Brown is looking for ways to spare public safety from more cuts.[1]

Posted by retiretime on
04/20/09 at 10:39PM

Who would have thunk it, not mike brown until now. I wonder who told him he was cutting to deep in safety. Here comes the puppet man, the puppet man, the puppet man.... [1]

The proposed administrative cuts would save about $1 million, which means they could save about 10 public safety positions, Brown said.[1]

The city's executive positions would be chopped by more than half compared to former Mayor Don Williamson, who had 25 administrative positions.[1]

Under Brown's plan, the city would have 11 executive jobs plus the mayor, according to a fact sheet handed out by Brown. Brown had already eliminated some executive positions when he took over for Williamson in February.[1]

Saving police and fire jobs would be welcome news to north end resident Gwendolyn Turner, who said the city's streets need more police. There was a fight amongst numerous youth in her neighborhood over the weekend, but she said the police response was slow.[1]

"We called the police, but it took them hours and hours to get out there," Turner said.[1]Specific administrative positions to cut haven't been publicly identified yet, but Brown presented a broad plan to consolidate departments, including:[1]

• Creating a public safety department that includes police, fire, EMS and 911. There would still be a police and fire chief, but some administrative positions could be eliminated. [1]

There is also a development and infrastructure department for areas like parks and recreation, and code enforcement.[2]

There is also a department for all finance issues like the budget and accounts payable.[2]
Finally, there is also a human resources department for things like labor relations and benefits.[2]

The proposed department consolidations are estimated to save the city about $1 million.[2]
Council will talk about it later.[2]

Posted by baddog54 on
Great idea. Streamline and consolidate public safety. It can be done and public safety can become cost effective.[1]

• Development and infrastructure department. Planning and zoning, building inspection, transportation, code enforcement, parks and recreation and community and economic development would all be under one department. [1]

• Finance. Budget, finance, accounts payable, risk management, purchasing, treasury will all be under the finance department. [1]

• Human resources will be a combination of labor relations, benefits administration and occupational health. [1]

• Constituent services will include the ombudsman, civil service and human relations. [1]
Councilman Delrico Loyd said he's happy to see any proposal that saves police and fire jobs.[1]
"We have to cut everything but the essentials," Loyd said.[1]

Posted by tdimhcs on [1]

THANKS FOR ALL THIS DON WILLIAMSON

It is a start, but where will it end? How about saving money by getting rid of the ombudsman's office.Again,they have NO power. Put the money into saving a police or firefighters position (or 2).Posted by tdimhcs on [1]

Vote to get rid of the Ombudsman's office. Will they show up when your house is broken into or on fire? Didn't think so.Posted by tdimhcs on [1]

Years ago, did the ombudsman's office have a say when a "lady of the night" was picked up (without her consent) and dropped off outside the city limits?????Posted by tdimhcs on [1]

Flint Interim Mayor Mike Brown's five-year plan to get the city out of a $14 million deficit got the thumbs up from City Council members.[2]

It's a plan that could even leave the city with $1 million surplus by 2015.[2]

"We didn't create this, but we are cleaning it up," Brown said.[2]

Residents have heard it before. On the eve of another election, some are skeptical about the next mayor being able to improve Flint.The field of six candidates will be whittled to two in a May 5 primary, then voters will choose the city's next mayor in the Aug. 4 general election."I don't see any of them being able to do much of anything," said Carriage Town resident Bill Griffin. "We're at a standstill."The two candidates who can stir people such as Griffin will grab enough voters in a crowded field to emerge from the primary.But residents are definitely in a "show me" mood.Many appear unhappy with recent turmoil at City Hall and don't express much hope that things will change for the better.[5]

Councilman Scott Kincaid said he likes what he sees so far.[1]

"This is a good plan," Kincaid said.[1]

[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]
04/21/09 at 1:12AM

Good morning. Before anyone chastises my suggestion...strongly think of the potential savings short and long term.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

Our city is changing. The population is shrinking, tax revenues are down and will persist in declining, crime is still too high. Our schools are old, student #'s are down, budgets are out of whack. [Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

Simple solution with SIGNIFICANT political ramifications and high level admin types will need courage to make the tough choices. [Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

Solution: City/County Governmental consolidation...no holds barred but all departments systematically reviewed, scrutinized to the utmost. Think of the immediate savings in law enforcement coverage, efficiencies. [Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]
Less # of administrators between the city/county offices. Consolidations of city/county waste removal services, integration of the public safety vehicles, maintenance, administrative purchases, etc.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

Consolidation of human resources to name one...finance/budget...and the list goes on.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

There are other American cities larger than Flint which prssently have a city/county government in place and doing quite well. There are many efficiencies, savings to be obtained IMMEDIATELY if there are govt leaders willing to make the hard choices.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

A steering committee jointly approved by the County Commissioners, City Council and represented by people who have the knowledge, wisdom, desire and are objective in their choices would be a start. [Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

Since Mr Brown is NOT running for reelection, someone like him could fill one slot because of his knowledge of the city, county govt entities. Perhaps Governor Granholm could appoint another slot on this steering committee. Others would come from civic organizations, UM-Flint, Kettering, Mott Foundation,, businesses, the church, etc. The key to this committee would be objectivity since the infusion of politics across the board would hinder the committee's effectiveness. Again, we have a choice Flint, Genesee County to make a difference long term and this may be a viable option. Its just a thought. I have NO direct, indirect connection with any of the Flint or Genesee Co politicians though I have met several over the years. I say give it some thought.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

The children of Flint, Genesee Co deserve a future. They, like the adults, need the opportunity. Saving a million dollars here, there is nice..but "what if...?" What if we could streamline the WHOLE process, make our community a better place, have budgets in the black more often (than not)? What if. Give it some thought citizens. I'm willing to meet with anyone to explore ideas, suggestions, etc.[Posted by flintmiusa on [1]]

"I think the state will accept that plan, so over the next 3 or 4 years the deficit will be eliminated," said Councilman Scott Kincaid. [3]

BROWN MAY STAVE OFF THE STATE AND DELIVER A SMALLER CITY GOVERNMENT TO THE NEXT FLINT MAYOR? WHO DO YOU TRUST IN THESE HARD ECONOMIC TIME TO BE FLINT MAYOR? WHO ARE THE CANDIDATES?

They are former city administrator Darryl Buchanan, Genesee County Commissioner Brenda Clack, businessman Greg Eason, political activist Eric Mays, Flint City Councilman Sheldon Neeley and former mayoral candidate Dayne Walling.[5]The race is a tossup, but Walling, as the only white candidate, will likely emerge as one of the top two candidates, said Paul Rozycki, a political science professor at Mott Community College.[5] Walling was narrowly defeated when he challenged Williamson for mayor in 2007.[5]

ITS TIME TO MEET THE CANDIDATES AND DECIDE WHO YOU WILL VOTE FOR!

4/30/09-The Genesee County Democratic Party is sponsoring a Mayorial candidate debate Thursday 4/30/09 6:30 pm at UAW Local 651 on Robert T Longway. This will be the last debate. Bring hard questions about the budget, fill out a question card as soon as you arrive.

4/28/09 -The Flint Area Public Affairs Debates presents a candidate forum on Tuesday, April 28th from 7-9 pm at the UM-Flint Kiva. The forum will be moderated by Chris Machniak of the Flint Journal.

4/21/09 -The Evergreen Estate and Evergreen Valley Block Club Association will host a mayoral forum from 5:30-7:30 p.m. Tuesday , 4/21/09 tonite, at Scott Elementary School, 1602 S. Averill St.

Posted Here by Terry Bankert 4/21/09 You are invited to continue this discussion on my Face Book Page. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362

SOURCES
[1]
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/04/new_flint_plan_would_save_10_p.html

[2]
http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=news/local&id=6770997

[3]
http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=289457

[4]
http://www.toledoonthemove.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=288898

[5]
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/04/flint_mayoral_hopefuls_face_to.html

[6]
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/04/flint_so_far_avoids_pontiacs_t.html

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Lynn Sorenson election victory!

Congratulations Lynn Sorenson

Reflections on a happy moment for my wife Lynn Marie Sorenson.

We have a retreat on Leisure Lake Durand MI.

It is a retirement summer home for many, we are pre retirement. Proudly Lynn accepted the position of Secretary of the Board of Directors to fill a vacancy.

She elected to a full term of 2 years and re elected as Board Secretary.

I was very Proud of her.


Lynns You Tube campaign speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6lj4CD7gCw

Pictures and short videos of the 2009 Annual meeting of the Leisure Lake Condominium Association.
Thumbnails
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30366181@N05/sets/72157616929869833/



slide show
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30366181@N05/sets/72157616929869833/show/


Posted Here by Terry Bankert 4/19/09 You are invited to continue this discussion on my Face Book Page. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362

Posted here by Terry Bankert

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, April 18, 2009

LAW DAY

GOOD MORNING FLINT!
4/18/09 By Terry Bankert
http://flintfamilylaw.com/

FIRST AND FULL ARTICEL POSTED TO
http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/


WFLT 1420 A.M. Radio " KNOW The Law" Today my special guests are David Leyton Genesee County Prosecutor and president of the Genesee County Bar Association and Ramona Sain Executive Director of the Genesee County Bar Association.
This is a call in show 239-5733

TODAY WE WILL TALK ABOUT LAW DAY

On May 1 the United States celebrates Law Day, U.S.A.. It is meant to reflect on the role of law in the foundation of the country and to recognize its importance for society.
Through the efforts of then American Bar Association President Charles S. Rhyne, President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed May 1 (Previously known as May Day or International Workers' Day) would now be known as Law Day, U.S.A. in 1958.[1] Its observance was later codified into law by Public Law 87-20 on April 7, 1961.[2]
In contrast, most countries celebrate May Day on the same date, as it is designated Labor Day or International Workers Day. Law Day, U.S.A., along with Loyalty Day, was created to counterbalance these celebrations, which were perceived as communist. On February 5, 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized the first "Law Day" when he proclaimed that henceforth May 1 of each year would be Law Day. He stated "In a very real sense, the world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive it must choose the rule of law." See David Ray Papke, Law, Cinema, and Ideology: Hollywood Legal Films of the 1950s, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1473 (2001).

Now, many local bars and legal education associations, such as the Florida Law Related Education Association and the New York State Bar Association, use Law Day as a legal education tool, particularly for students.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Day,_U.S.A.

My special guests are Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton President of the Genesee County Bar Association and ramona Sain Executive Director of the Genesee County Bar Association.

DAVID LEYTON

David Leyton, 55, has been a football official with the Michigan High School Athletic Association since 1998.

Leyton played high school football and wanted to continue that in college. His coach had a relationship with the coach at the University of Toledo,
A business major in college, Leyton found it was not what he really wanted to pursue, so he switched to journalism.

Leyton graduated from the University of Toledo in 1975 with a degree in journalism.
As a radio newsman, Leyton won an Associated Press award for General Excellence in Individual Reporting in 1978, and honorable mention recognition in 1979, 1980 and 1982.

While doing his radio work, Leyton decided to attend the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing and earn a jurisprudence degree.

In 1982, Leyton graduated from law school, and started a private practice.
In 1992, Leyton decided to run for office, as a trustee for the Flint Township Board.

He was elected Flint Township Trustee, and served several years before being appointed in late 1995 as the township's clerk to fill an unexpired term. In 1996, he ran for election as the clerk and won. In all, Leyton spent a dozen years on the board, with nine years as clerk.

Leyton was elected Genesee County's top cop in 2004, beginning his first four-year term in 2005. He recently ran unopposed and will begin a second term that runs through 2012.
He has membership on the Child Advocacy Center, YWCA Safe Families Council, the NAACP Flint Chapter, and the Flint Jewish Federation.

He is a member of the State Bar of Michigan, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, and is currently President of the Genesee County Bar Association.

in the Fall of 1998 he began officiating some lower-school level games.
Even after being an official for 10 years, Leyton said he still reads the 100-plus page rule book for up to 20 minutes each and every day.


RAMONA SAIN


Ramona Sain is the Executive Director for the Genesee County Bar Association, a long-standing member on the Board of Directors for Planned Parenthood, and a current officer of Quota. She has also been involved in organizations such as Fairwinds Girl Scout Council and the Hurley Foundation.

Sain managed Ask the Lawyers, an on-air, weekly television segment where attorneys answered legal questions from the public. She also initiated "Teens & the Law," which taught local students about practical aspects of the law. And she planned and implemented the "Nursing Home and Hospice" program, which offers free legal work for low income senior citizens.

Sain volunteers a lot of her time to the community, but believes the best results come from helping the individual as opposed to the cause.

A Community Award recipient from the A. Phillip Randolph Institute, Sain was also recognized nationally by the American Bar Association for a Civility and Professionalism initiative.

LAW DAY
2009 Activities
Thursday, May 1, 2008Community Forum at the Flint Public Library, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m.Topic: Michigan's Drivers Responsibility Fees Refreshments. No Charge.

Friday, May 1, 20099:30 a.m. Mock Trial Jury Orientation (for all participants) at Masonic Temple, downtown Flint11:15 a.m. Law Day Luncheon featuring Wayne County Prosecutor Kym L. Worthy .Masonic Temple, downtown Flint. RSVP now. 1:00 p.m. High School Mock Trial Competition, 7th Judicial Circuit Court

Teens & The LawFor the past seven years the Genesee County Bar Association has recruited volunteer attorneys to discuss the law to area high school students through our "Teens & The Law" program. Topic include laws which are pertinent to their lifestyles and not usually covered in civics and government classes.

Senior OutreachVolunteer attorneys speak to senior citizens throughout the county about estate planning, durable power of attorney and many other important issues. For more information please contact Ann Lossing Ruwart, Pro Bono Coordinator LSEM, at (810) 234-2621.
OTHER Activities of the Genesee County Bar Association.


Lawyer Referral and Information Service

WHAT IS LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE?

Lawyer Referral Service is a non-profit agency sponsored by the Genesee County Bar Association since 1977, under the supervision of the American and State Bar of Michigan and endorsed by the Michigan Association of Bar Executives.

WHAT DOES IT DO FOR ME?

The Lawyer Referral Service determines the general legal problem you have described. Then, for a prepaid fee of $30 it arranges an appointment with an attorney who handles your kind of legal problem. The attorney will provide you with a half-hour consultation for this charge. The $30 fee is waived for personal injury and social security matters.

WHO CAN USE IT?

Anyone who needs an attorney and doesn't have one!

I ALREADY HAVE A LAWYER. SHOULD I USE LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE?

If you already know of an attorney, either through a personal experience or through a reliable recommendation, you should probably not use the Service. Lawyer Referral Service is not designed to help people who already have an attorney with whom they are satisfied. The Service is established to help people who have a legal problem and do not know an attorney. To a large extent, many individuals use Lawyer Referral Service once. When they have another legal problem they return to the lawyer who helped them without going through the Service. If for any reason you desire another attorney, you can use the Service as often as you like.

HOW IS LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE BETTER THAN PICKING AN ATTORNEY FROM THE TELEPHONE BOOK OR FROM HIS ADVERTISEMENT?

First, Lawyer Referral Service is an independent referral by a non-profit agency sponsored by the Genesee County Bar Association. Any other listing or advertising is basically a recommendation by an attorney for himself. Here are other reasons to use Lawyer Referral Service:

All Lawyer Referral Service lawyers must maintain malpractice insurance.
The lawyer on the service's list to whom you are referred has expressed a desire to handle your type of legal problem.

The Service's list is updated periodically to ensure the attorney desired area of practice includes your type of case. Only lawyers in good standing with the State Bar of Michigan receive referrals.

You know what the attorney will charge and the service to be rendered before you hire your lawyer.

Conferences are quickly arranged and immediately arranged in emergencies.

Lawyer Referral is not limited to a few lawyers but includes all lawyers in the community who are members of the Genesee County Bar Association and who are in good standing with the State Bar of Michigan and who are willing to take referrals.

Lawyer Referral attorneys maintain separate, independent law offices. Only by satisfying you, their client, are they able to continue their practice.

SO I SEE THE REFERRAL LAWYER – WHAT THEN?

Some legal problems cannot be solved by merely consulting an attorney. Many consultations result in further legal proceedings. You choose whether you retain the Referral lawyer for further proceedings. It is between you and your lawyer as to whether he or she is retained to do legal work and the charge for the further work.

I CAN GET A "REDUCED" RATE BY SECURING THE PLANT LAWYER FOR MY LEGAL WORK. WHY SHOULD I USE LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE AND HAVE TO PAY THE "GOING" RATE?

Lawyer Referral Service does not employ lawyers. Lawyers apply to be listed. The lawyer and/or law firm with whom you consult had no obligation to Lawyer Referral Service or to any organization or person except you, the client. As a result you know that no individual is benefitted by the referral except yourself. Lawyers to whom you are referred by the Lawyer Referral Service maintain their practice by satisfying clients. Their sole income is from their clients and not from any other entity.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE "DEAL" I CAN GET?

There are seldom "bargain" prices in any profession. Reduced rates mean reduced services. Few people would entrust a gall bladder operation to a physician who offered a "reduced" fee in exchange for reduced care. Most people want a good lawyer and a fair charge. Few people are willing to entrust their legal problems to a lawyer who solicits their case by promising a "reduced" fee.

YOU CONVINCED ME TO USE LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE. WHAT NEXT?

Simply call Genesee County Bar Association Lawyer Referral at (810) 232-6000 or visit our office in downtown Flint. No appointment is needed. Pay your $30 referral fee in advance and receive your appointment with a lawyer. The referral fee can be paid by check, cash, or money order.
To Be Referred, Call (810) 232-6000
Office Hours: Monday through Friday9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Closed from 12-1:00 p.m. for lunch)
30 Minute Consultation With A Practicing Attorney.
Referral Charge: $30. Paid in advance to the Genesee County Bar Association to help defray costs of running the program. The $30 fee is waived
Genesee County Bar
Association & Legal
Services of Eastern
Michigan


NURSING HOME AND HOSPICE OUTREACH PROGRAM
Offering low-income residents
peace of mind, during difficult
times....
Free Legal Services
‚ Simple will/change to will
‚ Durable power of attorney
‚ Health care papers
A free program of the
Genesee County Bar
Association and Legal
Services of Eastern
Michigan.
315 E. Court St.
Flint, MI 48502
(810) 232-6000

Ask the Attorney
Genesee County Bar Association
ASK THE LAWYER FREE COMMUNITY SEMINARS -- 2009


April 16th -- TRAFFIC: Drivers License Restoration & Expungement
Register now! Limited space. To RSVP email ask@gcbalaw.org
If an interpreter is needed for the hearing impaired - please indicate so in your email.
Registration will be open upon the conclusion of the April 16th seminar!

May 14th -- LANDLORD TENANT: Rights & Responsibilities

May 21st -- FORECLOSURE

May 28th -- ESTATE PLANNING

June 11th -- BANKRUPTCY
Seminars will be held at:Flint Public Library1026 E. Kearsley St. Flint, MI
Time: 6 p.m. -8 p.m.


Posted Here by Terry Bankert 4/18/09
You are invited to continue this discussion on my Face Book Page. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, April 17, 2009

Mott Park

Mott Park NBH Internet activism, excellent! posted first to flinttalk http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=43275#43275

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Defending the Family Law Attorney

GOOD MORNING FLINT! 4/15/09 By Terry Bankert
http://FlintFamilyLaw.com

I rise to defend the Flint/Genesee County Family Law attorney.

Family Law is a specialty practice. Family Law if done well is the highest level of service a lawyer can give to her or his community.

From the United States Supreme Court Justices to the District Court magistrates the best of the best are the Family Law attorneys.

We protect Children.

Today a class of attorneys and the judges that rise from their ranks actively assault the professionalism of these servants of Children and Families in Genesee County. From the Inns to the Chambers these servants of children are demeaned, disparaged, and held in contemptuous disrespect.

This is simply a notice that subsequent assaults will not go civilly and professionally unanswered.

Posted Here by Terry Bankert 4/15/09
You are invited to continue this discussion on my Face Book Page. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, April 10, 2009

MOM GETS PHYSICAL CUSTODY FROM DAD POST JUDGEMENT

"KNOW THE LAW"
Attorney Terry Bankert 4/10-11/09
Www.FlintFamilyLaw.com

Today’s issues are hot "Off the Press" released by the Michigan Court of Appeals on 4/2/09.
Flint Divorce Attorney Terry Bankert has modified (consult an attorney before reliance,) this opinion for media presentation, written, radio and internet TV. Flint Divorce Lawyer Terry Bankert practices exclusively in Michigan Family Law. Www.DivorceLawGuy.com
These issues will be discussed on WFLT 1420 AM Radio 9-9:30 AM Saturday 4/11/09. Program "Know The Law"It is a call in program. If you have questions call 1-810-239-5733.
Www.GeneseeCountyLaw.com
Issues:
MOM WANTS TO CHANGE CUSTODY
1.Custody; Whether the trial court properly granted the defendant-mother's motion for a change of physical custody of the parties' minor children; MCL 722.28; Mason v. Simmons; MCL 722.27(1)(c); Powery v. Wells; Schlender v. Schlender; Fletcher v. Fletcher; Berger v. Berger;
DID THE LOWER HANDLE THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS RIGHT?
2.Whether the trial court's findings as to several child custody factors were against the great weight of the evidence;
DAD NEEDED MORE TIME COURT SAID NO
3.Denial of the plaintiff-father's request for an adjournment; Soumis v. Soumis; MCR 2.503(C)(1) and (2);
THE POWER OF FREIND OF THE COURT
4.Admission of the FOC report over plaintiff's objection at the evidentiary hearing; Duperon v. Duperon
[If you have question email me at www.FlintDivorce.com ]
*
/opinions/appeals/2009/031209/42134.pdf/opinions/appeals/2009/031209/42134.pdfS 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
CHRISTOPHER J. STARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED
April 2, 2009, v No. 287314 ,Kent Circuit Court ,CYNTHIA L. STARK,
LC No. 99-005236-DM ,e-Journal Number: 42360
Defendant-Appellee.Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Zahra and Shapiro, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Full article posted at http://terrybankert.blogspot.com/
COMPLETE ARTICLE AFTER CAPTION FOLLOWS
*
Plaintiff Christopher Stark appeals as of right the trial court’s August 1, 2008 order,
which granted defendant Cynthia Stark’s motion for a change in physical custody of the parties’
two minor children. We affirm.
I. CHANGE OF CUSTODY, COURTS CANNOT ABUSE DISCRETION
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that a change
in custody was in the children’s best interests.
A. WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court must affirm a trial court’s custody order unless the trial court made factual
findings against the great weight of the evidence, committed a palpable abuse of discretion, or
made a clear legal error on a major issue. MCL 722.28; Mason v Simmons, 267 Mich App 188,
194; 704 NW2d 104 (2005).
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE NEEDED TO CHANGE CUSTODY
Modification of an established custodial environment requires clear
and convincing evidence that the change is in the best interest of the child. MCL 722.27(1)(c);
Powery v Wells, 278 Mich App 526, 528; 752 NW2d 47 (2008).
THE COURT MUST USE THE BEST INTEREST FACTORS
The trial court must weigh the statutory best interest factors enumerated in MCL 722.23 and make a factual finding regarding each factor. Schlender v Schlender, 235 Mich App 230, 233; 596 NW2d 643 (1999).
" A [TRIAL]court’s ultimate finding regarding a particular factor is a factual finding that can be set aside if it is against the great weight of the evidence." Fletcher v Fletcher, 447 Mich 871, 881; 526 NW2d 889 (1994).
Therefore, a trial court’s findings "with respect to each factor regarding the best
interests of the child under MCL 722.23 should be affirmed unless the evidence clearly
preponderates in the opposite direction." Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 706; 747 NW2d
336 (2008).
B. Analysis
1ST QUESTION , WHERE IS THE CUSTODIAL ENVIRONMENT
In this case, the trial court found that a custodial environment existed with plaintiff and
properly weighed each of the best interest factors.
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE NEEDED
After weighing the best interest factors, the trial court found that a change was warranted by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, the trial court found that factors (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h), (j), (k), and (l) favored defendant, that plaintiff was favored on factor (c), and that the parties were equal with regard to factor (g).
Plaintiff challenges the trial court’s findings of fact pertaining to factors (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h),
(j), (k), and (l) of the best interest factors, arguing that the findings were against the great weight
of the evidence.
FACTOR A
Factor (a) refers to "[t]he love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the
parties involved and the child." MCL 722.23(a). The trial court found that plaintiff’s emotional
relationship with the children was severely damaged because of pornography found in the home,
excessive use of corporal punishment, and uneven treatment of the children. There was ample
evidence showing a strained emotional tie between plaintiff and the children. The parties’ son
was very angry with plaintiff and refused to see plaintiff because of plaintiff’s punishment
techniques and the perceived disparate treatment amongst the children. In addition, the parties’
daughter had unresolved fear and anxiety stemming from the pornography in plaintiff’s house
and his use of corporal punishment. Furthermore, plaintiff admitted that he had declined to take
the steps necessary to continue supervised visitation and strengthen the emotional tie. The
evidence does not clearly preponderate against the trial court’s finding that this factor favored
defendant.
FACTOR B
Factor (b) requires the trial court to consider "[t]he capacity and disposition of the parties
involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising
of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any." MCL 722.23(b). The trial court found that
defendant had a greater disposition to fulfill this factor because the children harbored unresolved
fear and anger against plaintiff. The trial court recognized that plaintiff met this factor in the
past, but after a specific incident on August 28, plaintiff failed to provide the intervention
necessary for "healing and restoration of relationships." David Bosworth testified that the
children found more comfort with defendant despite spending the majority of their time with
plaintiff. In addition, both of the children had unresolved anger towards plaintiff, but he has
refused to exchange letters through the children’s therapist to repair the relationship.
Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that this factor favors defendant is not against the great
weight of the evidence.
FACTOR D
In regards to factor (d), "[t]he length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory
environment, and the desirability of maintaining continuity," MCL 722.23(d), the trial court
found that defendant enjoyed custody of the children since the August 28 incident and was in a
stable relationship and environment for several years while plaintiff’s home was less stable
because of the use of corporal punishment and pornography in the home. Defendant testified
that she has lived with her boyfriend for four years and that they had recently purchased a house.
Plaintiff lived with his partner and had two other roommates until April 2008, and while in
plaintiff’s custody, the children were exposed to pornography and received excessive corporal
punishment. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that this factor favors defendant is not against
the great weight of the evidence.
FACTOR E
As for factor (e), "[t]he permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed
custodial home or homes," MCL 722.23(e), the trial court found that defendant’s living situation
exhibited more permanence than plaintiff’s situation. Defendant testified that she was in a fouryear,
stable relationship with her boyfriend and that she planned to move into a house in August
2008. The new house was located in the children’s school district and would not result in a
change of school. Plaintiff lives in a four bedroom duplex with his partner. While in custody of
the children, plaintiff has had other partners and roommates living with him and has lived in a
number of different places, including defendant’s home. Therefore, the trial court’s
determination of this factor is consistent with the evidence on the record and was not against the
great weight of the evidence.
FACTOR F
Factor (f) "[t]he moral fitness of the parties involved," MCL 722.23(f), relates to the
parent-child relationship and the effect that any identified conduct at issue may have on that
relationship. Fletcher, supra at 887. Conduct relevant to this factor includes "verbal abuse,
drinking problems, driving record, physical or sexual abuse and other illegal or offensive
behaviors." Id. The trial court indicated that its primary concern on this factor was the
children’s exposure to pornography. Bosworth interviewed the children and determined that
they both had been exposed to inappropriate sexualized images and situations in plaintiff’s home.
Some of the sexual images were purposefully shown to the children by plaintiff and his partner.
Bosworth testified that exposure to sexual images and items caused the children to experience
anxiety and could be deleterious to their future development. Accordingly, the trial court’s
finding that this factor favors defendant is not against the great weight of the evidence.
The trial court found in favor of defendant with regard to factor (h), "[t]he home, school,
and community record of the child." MCL 722.23(h). The trial court commended plaintiff’s
efforts for establishing a foundation for the children’s educational successes; however, plaintiff’s
ongoing discipline regime was unhealthy and detrimental to the children’s development.
Bosworth testified that plaintiff’s discipline techniques were not suitable for someone with
special educational needs like the parties’ son. Plaintiff’s use of corporal punishment caused
both of the children to experience anxiety. Defendant on the other hand used a system of
privilege removal and timeouts, and the children were responsive to those techniques. Both of
the children found more comfort with defendant. Therefore, the trial court’s determination of
this factor is consistent with the evidence on the record and was not against the great weight of
the evidence.
FACTOR J
With regard to factor (j), "[t]he willingness and ability of each of the parties to facilitate
and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other
parent or the child and the parents," MCL 722.23(j), the trial court found that defendant
attempted to facilitate a strong relationship between the children and plaintiff while plaintiff was
unwilling to accept criticism of his past mistakes and had terminated contact with the children.
Bosworth testified that the parties are often inappropriate in the comments they make concerning
the other party; however, plaintiff’s criticisms are more prolific. In addition, during the
supervised visitation, William Edwards testified that defendant encouraged the parties’ reluctant
son to visit with plaintiff. Conversely, plaintiff refused to bring the children’s Christmas
presents or video game equipment to the supervised parenting time because he felt their property
should stay at his home. In addition, plaintiff refused to take the steps necessary to continue
supervised visitation. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that this factor favors defendant is
not against the great weight of the evidence.
FACTOR K
Factor (k) refers to "[d]omestic violence, regardless of whether the violence was directed
against or witnessed by the child." MCL 722.23(k). The trial court found that there was a long
history of domestic violence between the parties and that both parties bear the responsibility to
change their behavior; however, the trial court found that more recent events were dispositive on
this issue. Defendant admitted that she was arrested twice for domestic violence against plaintiff
in the past and previously used corporal punishment with the children. Plaintiff recently used
corporal punishment as a motivation for the parties’ son to behave properly in school and used it
when he threatened to slap the parties’ daughter after she used "the Lord’s name in vain." In
addition, plaintiff was arrested after the August 28 incident because the son had red marks on his
neck and chest. Furthermore, Edwards testified that he was primarily concerned about emotional
abuse that may be occurring between the children and plaintiff. The children were more
comfortable with defendant because of the corporal punishment and pornography issues at
plaintiff’s household. Therefore, the trial court’s determination of this factor is consistent with
the evidence on the record and was not against the great weight of the evidence.
Factor (l) refers to "[a]ny other factor considered by the court to be relevant to a
particular child custody dispute." MCL 722.23(l). The trial court found that the parties’
daughter required special care because she was a victim of sexual abuse and that plaintiff did not
fully appreciate the situation and allowed the child to be exposed to pornography. Bosworth
testified that the child was intrigued by pornography and searched for pornographic images and
that plaintiff had not completely restricted access to the sexualized images and, in fact, had
shown some of them intentionally. Bosworth testified that the child was experiencing anxiety
because of her exposure to inappropriate adult images and that such exposure could cause further
deleterious effects. Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that this factor favors defendant is not
against the great weight of the evidence.
COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED EACH FACTOR
Our review of the record indicates that the trial court properly considered each of the best
interest factors and made factual findings consistent with the record evidence. The majority of
the statutory factors weighed in favor of defendant and the great weight of the evidence
supported the challenged findings. Because the evidence did not clearly preponderate in the
opposite direction, and because the findings favored defendant, there is no basis on which to find
that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant sole custody of the children.
II. DAD WANTED ADJOURNMENT
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for an adjournment to
allow him more time to prepare for the hearing.
A. Standard of Review
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion for an adjournment for an abuse of
discretion. Soumis v Soumis, 218 Mich App 27, 32-33; 553 NW2d 619 (1996).
B. Analysis OF FATHERS REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT
An adjournment may be granted because of the unavailability of a witness or evidence,
but the motion "must be made as soon as possible after ascertaining the facts" and "only if the
court finds that the evidence is material and that diligent efforts have been made to produce the
witness or evidence." MCR 2.503(C)(1) and (2).
ADJOURNEMNT MUST BE FORE GOOD CAUSE
In addition, a motion for an adjournment must
be based on good cause, and a trial court may grant an adjournment to promote the cause of
justice. Soumis, supra at 32.
FATHER DID NOT ASK FOR THE ADJOURNMENT QUICK ENOUGH
Plaintiff’s claim that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for an
adjournment is without merit because plaintiff’s motion for adjournment was not timely and was
not made for good cause.
FATHER WAS ILL AND WANTED ADJOURNMENT
Plaintiff moved for an adjournment three days before the hearing
because he was unable to reestablish supervised parenting time with the children and was unable
to communicate with his counsel preceding the hearing because of a prolonged illness. While we
do not question that plaintiff’s counsel suffered a prolonged illness before the hearing, the record
does not support that an adjournment was necessary. Counsel appeared in this matter on
February 20, 2008, and even without most of the month of May to prepare, he had more than two
months, including a full week before trial to prepare. Nothing in the record or in plaintiff’s
arguments on appeal indicates that certain witnesses or evidence was not presented because of
any lack of preparation. Further, plaintiff failed to articulate to the trial court, or to this Court,
how additional preparation would have benefited plaintiff. In addition, there was evidence that
plaintiff’s counsel was aware that Edwards suspended plaintiff’s supervised parenting time in
April 2008, and he discussed the matter with plaintiff. Plaintiff had ample time to address the
issue before the evidentiary hearing. Therefore, we conclude that plaintiff’s motion, made the
Friday before the hearing, was not only untimely, but was not made for good cause. The trial
court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion.
III. THE POWERFUL FRIEND OF THE COURT REPORT
Plaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in admitting the Friend of the Court (FOC)
report over his objection at the evidentiary hearing.
A. Standard of Review
A trial court’s evidentiary decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Waknin v
Chamberlain, 467 Mich 329, 332; 653 NW2d 176 (2002).
B. Analysis ENTERING INTO A TRIAL THE FRIEND OF THE COURT REPORT WITHOUT TESTIMONY?
We reject defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in admitting the FOC report at
the evidentiary hearing. In rendering its opinion, the trial court never referred to the FOC report
and did not rely on the report as the basis for its decision. The trial court based its opinion upon
competent evidence adduced at the hearing. The trial court’s modification of the custody order
was proper.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
[Comments of Flint Lawyer Terry Bankert are found within Brackets or CAP Headlines. Spacing has been changed for readability-trb]
END ARTICLE
Posted here by Terry Bankert http://www.flintdivorce.com/ You are invited to continue these discussions on my face book. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

FREE THE CROOK CHARGE THE PROSECUTOR

Good Morning Flint!,
By Terry Bankert 3/8/09
http://www.divorcelawguy.com

Full article at http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/

LET THE CROOK GO TO HOLD THE SYSTEM ACCOUNTABLE

If you had to make a choice between these two which is more important to you, fairness of the process or determination of guilt?

There's plenty of guilt to go around in the Ted Stevens case[6]

I think the difference between us an a third world dictator is the rule of law and the fairness of the judiciary.

PROSECUTORIAL ABUSE TIP OF THE ICEBERG?

It was enough to give even a hardened conservative a bleeding-heart sympathy for the accused. "Imagine what it's like for people who don't have any money," Andrew Lundquist, a former aide to Stevens and to Vice President Dick Cheney, said as he left the courtroom. [5]

THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WAS POLITICIZED UNDER BUSH, OBAMA IS EXPECTED TO RE PROFESSIONALIZE IT.

There is no way to put a good "spin" on what happened in regard to corruption allegations against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. Heads should roll in the Justice Department as a result of its bungling of the case.[7]

This issue raises fundamental constitutional questions about the importance and political independence of the court. We should all be angry.

PROSECUTOR OR PERSECUTOR

A federal judge dismissed the ethics conviction of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing.[1]

THE IRONY OF IT ALL

The longest-serving Senate Republican had become an unlikely victim of the overreach of George W. Bush's Justice Department. [5]

IF HE IS GUILTY HE SHOULD NOT BE RE CHARGED, CAN HE BE RE CHARGED?

Stevens was convicted Oct. 27 of seven counts of failing to disclose gifts, including home renovations, on his Senate financial-disclosure forms. He lost his re-election bid days later.[4]

LET THE LITTLE FISH GO TO PUNISH THE WHALE

Either a corrupt politician is escaping punishment because of prosecutors' illegal zeal - or the government illegally persecuted a public servant. We may never know the full truth about allegations against Stevens.[7]

A LITTLE HARLEY ROUGH JUSTICE ROLLING DOWN THE HIGHWAY

The investigation into whether prosecutors broke the law in pursuing their case against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is being led by a Harley-riding attorney known for his low-key style and experience on both sides of criminal law.[2]


JUDGE SEETHING

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, speaking in a slow and deliberate manner that failed to conceal his anger, said that in 25 years on the bench, he had "never seen mishandling and misconduct like what I have seen" by the Justice Department prosecutors who tried the Stevens case.[1]
[Judge Sullivan]...announced that he was naming a special prosecutor to investigate whether government attorneys had broken the law by failing to ensure that the Alaska Republican got a fair trial.[4]

WE MUST HAVE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW

The Justice Department is conducting its own investigation, but Sullivan said it's moving too slowly and the allegations are too important to leave to an internal review.[2]

WHICH IS THE MORE IMPORTANT , THE SENATORS OR THE PROSECUTORS GUILT?

The unraveling of the case overshadowed the facts of a trial in which Stevens was shown to have accepted thousands of dollars in undisclosed gifts. After Sullivan dismissed the case, Stevens turned to his friends and held up a fist in victory as his wife and daughters broke into loud sobs. A couple of Stevens supporters broke into applause when Sullivan announced the criminal investigation.[2]

BAD PROSECUTORS, MAYBE THIS WAS WHAT SPAIN AND THE INQUISITION WAS LIKE!

Indeed, dismissing the case because prosecutors were bad is not the same thing as saying Stevens is good. Some of the most damning accusations during the trial -- his acceptance of furniture, a puppy, a stained-glass window, a statue of migrating salmon and a Shiatsu massage lounger -- were largely unrelated to the prosecutorial misdeeds. Also, Stevens did at least as much to hurt his cause as prosecutors did, including his combative appearance on the stand and his request for an expedited trial, without which he almost certainly would have been reelected. [5]

HE’S NOT A CROOK UNTIL CONVICTED

Just because a federal judge dismissed all charges Tuesday against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens doesn't mean he's not a crook. [6]

YOU HOLD YOUR CARDS CLOSE IN POKER NOT PROSECUTION

Judge Sullivan’s lacerating 14-minute speech, focusing on disclosures that prosecutors had improperly withheld evidence in the case, virtually guaranteed reverberations beyond the morning’s dismissal of the verdict that helped end Mr. Stevens’s Senate career. [1]

ONCE AGAIN THEY ARE SORRY FOR WHAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DID TO THIS COUNTRY.

Paul O'Brien, a federal prosecutor newly assigned to the case, apologized to the judge on behalf of the department.[2]

TIP OF THE ICEBERG

Stevens found that when the government starts down a path of disregard for the rule of law -- at Abu Ghraib, in the torture memos, in the mass firings of U.S. attorneys and at Gitmo -- ultimately even a powerful lawmaker is not immune. Stevens, rescued by a Democratic attorney general and new prosecutors who "deeply, deeply regret" what happened, pledged to push for legislation to reform prosecutions "when the dust settles." [5]

ETHICS OF THE PROSECUTION

The judge, who was named to the Federal District Court here by President Bill Clinton, delivered a broad warning about what he said was a "troubling tendency" he had observed among prosecutors to stretch the boundaries of ethics restrictions and conceal evidence to win cases. [1]

Withholding materials that could be helpful to criminal defendants has become a troubling Justice Department trend, Sullivan said, citing Stevens' case and that of a Guantánamo detainee who fought to have his medical records released to his lawyers.[4]

THE RULES MUST BE APPLIED FAIRLY

Recalling the Supreme Court description of a prosecution's proper role -- "not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done" -- he drew a link between the Stevens debacle and the Justice Department's most prominent recent abuse of power. The government's obligations to the accused, he said, apply whether it's "a public official, a private citizen or a Guantanamo Bay detainee." When the judge heard that Stevens's attorneys sent three letters about prosecutorial misconduct to former attorney general Michael Mukasey but received no response, he called it "shocking -- but not surprising." [5]

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

He named Henry F. Schuelke 3rd, a prominent Washington lawyer, to investigate six career Justice Department prosecutors, including the chief and deputy chief of the Public Integrity Section, an elite unit charged with dealing with official corruption, to see if they should face criminal charges.[1]

He said that he had asked a former military judge, Henry Schuelke III of Washington, to investigate the prosecutors for potential obstruction-of-justice charges.[4]

PROSECUTORS CAUSE SENATORS DEFEAT?

Only days after a jury last October found Mr. Stevens guilty on seven felony counts, he was narrowly defeated in his bid for re-election. Mr. Stevens had been the longest-serving Republican in the history of the Senate. [1]

GRUMPY SMILES

The smile Mr. Stevens displayed during Tuesday’s court session would have been unfamiliar to those who have followed him in the Senate, where he had a reputation as being dour and grumpy.[1]

COLLATERAL DAMAGE FOR JUSTICE?

In a brief statement, Mr. Stevens told the court that he had long maintained an unwavering faith in the judicial system. "But what some members of the prosecution team did nearly destroyed my faith," he said. "Their conduct had consequences for me that they will never realize and can never be reversed."[1]

IT WAS JUST A "Home Improvement".

Mr. Stevens was charged with failing to list on Senate disclosure forms some $250,000 worth of goods and services he received, mostly to transform a modest chalet he owned in Girdwood, Alaska, into a more splendid residence. [1]

SLOW MOVING LIARS!

During the five-week trial, prosecutors were repeatedly forced to acknowledge that they had failed to turn over information to defense lawyers as required. "Again and again, both during and after the trial in this case, the government was caught making false representations and not meeting its discovery obligations," Judge Sullivan said Tuesday. [1]

IT WAS JUST THE LAW OF THE LAND!

A 1963 Supreme Court ruling, Brady v. Maryland, requires prosecutors to give a defendant all information they hold that might materially help the defense.[1]

THE NEW GUY SAYS WE ARE JUST GOING TO DO IT RIGHT

The Stevens case finally collapsed last Wednesday, more than five months after the verdict, when Eric H. Holder Jr., the recently installed attorney general, asked that all charges be dismissed because the new lawyers whom he had put in charge of the case had discovered yet another example of concealment.[1]

DID MR.ALLEN GET A DEAL?

During the trial, defense lawyers argued that Mr. Stevens had written a letter to Bill Allen, a onetime friend and the owner of a huge oil services company, asking for a bill for all the goods and services that Mr. Allen had provided. Mr. Allen, the chief prosecution witness, discredited that letter, testifying that he had been told by Bob Persons, an emissary from Mr. Stevens, to ignore the letter because the senator was just seeking to provide a false record to protect himself.[1]

PERSONS WHO?

But recently discovered notes showed that prosecutors who interviewed Mr. Allen on April 15, 2008, heard him say that he did not remember any such conversation with Mr. Persons.[1]

WHY DID HE CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY?

Mr. Stevens’s defense lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, told the court Tuesday that he had been blind sided by Mr. Allen’s testimony about the letter. "It was the most explosive testimony in the case," Mr. Sullivan said.[1]

A LITTLE WHITE LIE

Mr. Sullivan said that had he known of the prosecutors’ notes, he would have been able to argue that Mr. Allen’s account of the conversation with Mr. Persons was fabricated.[1]

PROSECUTOR ON PROSECUTOR

Paul O’Brien, chief of the new prosecution team that discovered the latest impropriety by the original prosecutors, said in court that "we deeply regret that this has occurred."[1]

THE FEDERAL 6 ABOUT TO TAKE A FALL

Judge Sullivan named six prosecutors as the subject of Mr. Schuelke’s investigation, including William M. Welch II, who heads the public integrity unit, and his deputy, Brenda K. Morris. Justice Department officials said the prosecutors remained at work on Tuesday.[1]
The other lawyers are Joseph W. Bottini, James A. Goeke, Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan. None of them were in the courtroom Tuesday except as presences to be repeatedly flayed by the judge and Brendan Sullivan.[1]

Biographical sketches of six federal prosecutors under investigation for mishandling the trial of former Sen. Ted Stevens.[3]

_BRENDA MORRIS: A longtime prosecutor with the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, Morris now serves as its principal deputy. She helped supervise the investigation into disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and has prosecuted corruption cases around the country. She teaches corruption investigations within the Justice Department and is a professor at Georgetown Law School. A graduate of Howard University law school, she served as the lead attorney in the Stevens trial, giving the government's opening statement and cross-examining Stevens.[3]

_NICHOLAS MARSH: One of two public integrity trial attorneys on the case, Marsh handled much of the courtroom work during the trials of Alaska lawmakers caught up in the scandal. He has been part of numerous other public corruption investigations, including one involving a scheme in Mississippi to defraud a $400 million fen-phen settlement fund. An FBI whistleblower accused Marsh of intentionally withholding evidence from Stevens and sending a witness back to Alaska during trial to prevent potentially damaging testimony. The prosecution team denies those accusations.[3]

_JOSEPH BOTTINI: An assistant U.S. attorney in Alaska, Bottini was a key figure in the Stevens case. He questioned the government's star witness, Bill Allen, and delivered the second half of the government's closing argument. Much of Allen's testimony had been discredited. The contempt investigation will look into whether prosecutors knew there was evidence of inconsistencies in Allen's statements but concealed it. Bottini graduated from California Western School of Law.[3]

_WILLIAM WELCH: The chief of the Public Integrity Section, Welch supervised the Stevens case but did not participate in the trial. He has supervised every major public corruption case brought by the department in the last several years. A former prosecutor in Springfield, Mass., Welch prosecuted former veterans hospital nurse Kristen Gilbert for killing four patients by injecting them with a heart stimulant. A graduate of Northwestern University Law School, Welch has been mentioned as a possible candidate for the U.S. attorney job in Massachusetts.[3]

_EDWARD SULLIVAN: The other public integrity trial attorney in the case, Sullivan has been part of the trial team that won convictions of several Alaska lawmakers caught up in the corruption scandal. He played a mostly behind-the-scenes role in the Stevens trial and his role in preparing the mishandling of evidence is unclear.[3]

_JAMES GOEKE: An assistant U.S. attorney in Alaska, Goeke also had a largely behind-the-scenes role in the Stevens trial. He has been a key figure in the prosecution of other politicians wrapped up in the Alaska corruption scandal.[3]

THE ECHO OF GEORGE BUSH

Judge Sullivan also criticized Michael B. Mukasey, the last attorney general in the Bush administration, saying it was shocking that he had failed to respond to letters from the defense team complaining about the Stevens prosecution. Mr. Mukasey’s office would not comment. [1]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS

Judge Sullivan previously served on the District of Columbia Superior Court, the equivalent of a state court, to which he was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. [1]

JUDGE SULLIVAN THE FEDERAL COURT AND THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH

Like other judges on the Federal District Court in the nation’s capital, he has ruled on cases involving the rights of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and other issues of federal policy. He is now hearing a case that he will decide without a jury: the contention of animal rights advocates that the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus mistreats its elephants.[1]

PROSECUTORS MAY BE PROSECUTED

Michael Madigan, an experienced former prosecutor with the Orrick law firm in Washington, said Judge Sullivan’s decision to name his own prosecutor was highly unusual but was explicitly provided for in the rules of federal procedure. Under the rules, Mr. Madigan said, a judge may choose his own prosecutor for contempt investigations.[1]
Mr. Madigan said Mr. Schuelke would "operate under the authority of the court."[1]
"He will then recommend to the court whether to seek criminal contempt charges," Mr. Madigan said.[1]

"You'd think there would be jubilation, that we'd be high-fiving each other around the office," Brendan Sullivan, attorney for the fallen senator, said of the moment two weeks ago when he learned of the prosecutorial misconduct that would lead the government to drop the case against his client. "My reaction was sick; I was sick in my stomach," he said. "It was revulsion, revulsion turned to anger. . . . I was in a silent rage." [5]

Stevens, whose 40 years in the Senate made him the longest-serving Republican in the body's history before he was convicted, spoke briefly at the hearing.[4]
In the end, a form of rough justice triumphed in the case. It was a marginal prosecution to start with -- accusations of penny-ante corruption and ethics violations -- and it ended with a political, rather than a legal, punishment: Stevens keeps a clean criminal record, but loses his Senate seat. The judge has dismissed the case, but the court of public opinion is unlikely to be as generous.[5]

Setting aside the testimony tainted by prosecutorial misconduct, trial transcripts paint him as a man who lived lavishly off gifts from his political backers while concealing his allegiance to them. The loss of his long-held Senate seat is a fitting punishment, even if a court-approved sentence would have been more satisfying.[6]

Posted here by Terry Bankert
http://www.flintdivorce.com/

You are invited to continue these discussions on my face book. http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry-Bankert/645845362

sources:
[1]
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/politics/08stevens.html?bl&ex=1239336000&en=75a8bd1abce1493a&ei=5087%0A

[2]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUP1B2Zw_4dNuu7VoIE48DDqE4dAD97E4S3G0

[3]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwwUitG44VN1O-xnL--GqxTWHWyQD97E4SC01

[4]
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/989564.html
[5]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703649.html?hpid=topnews

[6]
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-stevens8-2009apr08,0,191069.story

[7]
http://www.messengernews.net/page/content.detail/id/514253.html

Sphere: Related Content