REVEREND WRIGHT INTENTIONALLY DERAILS OBAMA!

....FOR THE CLINTONS!
OH, AND THAT BOOK HE HAS COMING OUT!
________________________
GOOD MORNING FLINT!
BY Terry Bankert 5/1/08
You are invited to join me at Face Book http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry_Bankert/645845362 ___________________________
Full article at http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/
Flint Talk http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=27984#27984
__________________________

WHY WOULD A BLACK OLD PREACHER KEEP DOWN THE NEW GENERATION OF BLACK LEADER? Black and white voters in next week's primary states agreed on one thing Wednesday: Barack Obama's preacher had hurt the Democratic presidential candidate at a crucial time. The question was how much.[A] Huckabee: Rev. Jeremiah Wright needs Obama to lose to justify his views [H] I grew up after the civil rights victories but within the evolution of our country that is allowing the cream of the black community to rise and lead. Why would a participant of the battle like Reverend Wright not allow his prodigy, Obama , to taste the sweet nectar of greatness? As Obamas sun rises the old guards sun will set. An old guard of the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, and a social stratum of the old school pastors such as Wright just need to get out of the way be quite and offer gentle support and leadership to their prodigy. These street fights cannot do it, they are inclined to eat their young for another second of fame , or to just sell their book. How sad.[trb]

IT IS ABOUT A BOOK DEAL. In the past few days, Mr Wright has made a series of public appearances - he has a book coming out later this year - that have infuriated the Obama campaign, which hoped it had put the Wright controversy behind it. [T] I think the flap over the Rev. Wright has gotten overblown, but there was one thing he said that really rankled me. On Monday at the National Press Club, he insisted that the attacks on him were tantamount to attacks on the black church. What a cop-out. As if the black church were the source for Wright’s most inflammatory statements, or would stand behind them. As if some of Wright’s views, which are fringe and have no basis in fact or scholarship, don’t deserve debate or harsh criticism. [f]

WRIGHT IS A BLATHERING OLD MAN IN DECLINE Larry Sharpe said he saw it coming, even if his friend did not. Watching Obama's former minister speak on national TV this week, the friend thought the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was making sense and putting an end to recent controversies that had rocked Obama's presidential campaign.[A]

THE OLD GUARD MUST DERAIL THE NEW BLOOD, OR THEY ARE DONE. "But I said, 'No, it's going to kill him,'" said Sharpe, a black Democrat who is intensely following Obama's battle with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.[A] The pugnacious pastor didn't back down before the national media this week in a combative and playful performance in which he damaged Senator Obama directly by suggesting the senator's previous rejection of some of the things the pastor had been saying was simply a politician talking. [T] "If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected," Mr Wright said. [T] A grave looking Senator Obama, who is vying to be the first black president, said yesterday: "At a certain point, if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally and then he questions whether or not you believe it - in front of the National Press Club - then that's enough. That's a show of disrespect to me. It is also, I think, an insult to what we've been trying to do (in the campaign). Whatever relationship I had with Mr Wright has changed as a consequence of this." [T]

CLINTON HAS THE BLACK PREACHERS, WRIGHT IS A BLACK PREACHER, CLINTON TOLD WRIGHT WHAT TO DO! HE DID IT! North Carolina and Indiana hold primaries Tuesday, and voters' reactions there to the Wright affair will help determine whether Clinton continues her recent string of victories over Obama, who still leads in the delegate count.[A]

DO YOU REALIZE HOW HARD IT IS FOR A BLACK MAN TO REPUDIATED HIS PREACHER. HOW STRONG A MAN OBAMA IS. HOW WEAK A PREACHER WRIGHT IS. Sharpe, 59, in some ways beat Obama to the mark. After a full day of rather tepid efforts to distance himself from Wright's fiery remarks to the National Press Club, the Illinois senator called a news conference Tuesday to denounce the retired pastor in severe tones, a tacit admission that his ties to Wright were damaging his campaign.[A] SenatorBarack Obama’s aura of inevitability in the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination has diminished in the wake of his loss in the Pennsylvania primary and the furor over his former pastor, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. [n] So, he has a killer instinct after all--or at least some limit to his forbearance. Obama's response yesterday to Jeremiah Wright's flurry of appearances, and especially to the pastor's speech at the National Press Club on Monday, was pretty steely. He called what Wright had to say "a bunch of rants". He said he was disgusted, and looked it. In contrast to his earlier and widely noted speech on race, in which he said he could never repudiate Wright the man, this time he just went ahead and did so.[z] We shall see whether this works. Wright isn't going away. His NPC appearance showed that he is a narcissist as well as a racist demagogue, so there will be more. (So much, by the way, for taking his sermon snippets out of context. Wright has embarrassed not just Obama but also many moderate sympathisers who felt the reverend should be cut some slack. When asked about the government conspiracy to spread AIDS among the black population, he did not apologize for getting carried away; he affirmed that this was his view, saying that the government was capable of anything.) Perhaps Obama has now separated himself, but perhaps not.[z]

OBAMA IS BRINGING US TOGETHER. THE WRIGHTS, JACKSONS AND SHARPTONS MAKE A LIVING DRIVING US APART. THEY ARE HIS REAL ENEMY. And ours.[trb] The issue threatens the multiracial coalition that is crucial to Obama's hopes of becoming the first black president, and it has highlighted a gulf between white and black Americans on matters of church and religion. But interviews with more than two dozen Indiana and North Carolina voters Wednesday suggested Obama may have made the best of a bad situation, even if belatedly.[A] The rift between the pastor and his former follower runs deeper than words. It is a generational conflict. If what the pastor is saying is antithetical to everything Mr Obama has stood for as an adult, it is equally true to say that Mr Obama would not now be challenging the nomination without the broadsides from the fiery preacher. One generation of black leader is dependent on the other. [g]

WHITES ARE JUST TIRED OF THIS CRAP. THIS COUNTRY HAS TO MOVE ON AND REPLACE THE LEADERSHIP THAT WILL NOT. While many white voters were shocked to hear a minister curse America and promote conspiracy theories from the pulpit, some accepted Obama's argument that he should not be blamed for his former pastor's words. Many black voters, meanwhile, were far more familiar with Wright's style of preaching — whether or not they agree with it — and believe the issue will not cripple Obama's campaign.[A]

SILENCE SPEAKES LOUDER THAN THE RANTING. THE BLACKS ARE TIRED OF THIS CRAP. OUR COUNTRY HAS TO MOVE ON AND REPLACE THE LEADERSHIP THAT WILL NOT. In fact, in a day of interviews with North Carolina and Indiana voters of all races and ages, Sharpe was the only one to raise the Wright issue without prodding. Virtually all the prospective voters knew details of the matter. But unlike TV and radio talk show hosts, they found it far less interesting than the candidates' positions on health care, gasoline prices and other kitchen table issues.[A]

ON THE OTHER HAND


THE SAD THING IS THAT PASTOR WRIGHT IS NOT THE ROOT OF OBAMA’S WOES. IF YOU TRACE BACK HIS POLITICAL CAREER, YOU WILL FIND SOMEONE WHOSE JUDGMENT SEEMED OBSCURED BY HIS POLITICAL AMBITION. THINK ABOUT TONY REZKO, AND THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND, AND, OF COURSE, PASTOR WRIGHT. [u]

IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY, THIS MAN HAS MORE THAN A FEW TIMES SHOWED A LACK OF JUDGMENT WITH HIS AFFILIATIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS TO FURTHER HIS POLITICAL CAREER. [u]

AT THE START, HE ENJOYED THE BENEFITS FROM THESE ASSOCIATIONS AND SAID NOTHING. BUT WHEN THESE ASSOCIATIONS PROVED TO BE A LIABILITY TO HIS ASPIRATIONS, HE STEERED AWAY FROM THEM. AND MORE THAN A FEW TIMES HE HAS TRIED TO GET AWAY WITH “I-DID-NOT-KNOW-HIM” EXCUSE. I MEAN, YOU CAN ONLY SAY “I’M A BUTTHEAT” SO MUCH[u]

IT IS A NEW DAY. "Absolutely it hurts" Obama's campaign, said Sharpe, a retired truck driver. But Obama has done his best to distance himself, he said, and people who won't accept his explanation probably would not have voted for Obama anyway.[A] "What more can he do?" said Sharpe, who is leaning toward Obama even though he attended a speech by former President Bill Clinton in Sanford.[A]

I HOPE THE SUPER DELEGATES SEE THE SUPER COURAGE OF OBAMA Despite the Wright issue, Obama has continued to gain the backing of superdelegates, the prominent Democrats who are free to choose either candidate. Obama trails Hillary Rodham Clinton by just 21 superdelegates, 243-264, cutting her lead in half in less than two months. This week, he picked up seven delegates to her four.[A]

EVIL LURKS IN THE HALLWAYS OF THE HOUSE OF FARRAKHAN, WRIGHT IS HIS GUEST. June Biven, 85, of Evansville, Ind., was typical of many white voters interviewed. "Everybody I've talked to has said it was terrible of him to start this with the May primary coming up," she said of Wright, who this week restated his praise of Louis Farrakhan and repeated his own claim that the U.S. government may have invented the AIDS virus to attack blacks.[A]

LIKE A LEVEL 5 IT WILL BLOW OVER "I think it will blow over," said Biven, an Obama supporter. "It might hurt a little bit, but I do think he is the only one who can really change Washington."[A] Troy Morin of Apex, N.C., said he is leaning toward Clinton, but not because of the Wright matter.[A] "I just don't think it's all that important," said Morin, 41, who is white. "I think it's overblown."[A]

HILLARY IS JUST A PISSED OFF SOCCER MOM. OBAMA BRING US BACK OUR DIGNITY A quality engineer who brought his wife and two sons to hear Bill Clinton speak in Apex on Wednesday, Morin said he tilts toward the New York senator because of her experience in Washington, a point made by nearly every pro-Clinton person interviewed.[A]

LET YEE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE To be sure, some white voters take a sterner view of the controversy. Betsy Lipsky of Raleigh, N.C., said she was deeply troubled by Wright's remarks and could not understand why Obama stayed in the Chicago church from which the minister recently retired. Lipsky strongly supports Clinton but said she would reluctantly vote for Obama in November if he is the nominee. GOP candidate John McCain "frightens me," she said, because he would continue Bush administration policies she abhors.[A]


WRIGHT IS A SMALL MAN WITH A SMALL MESSAGE As for the candidates themselves, Clinton said Wednesday she found Wright's remarks "offensive and outrageous." She said of her rival, "I think that he made his views clear, finally, that he disagreed. And I think that's what he had to do." She commented in an interview with Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly.[A] Obama, campaigning in Indiana, said, "The situation with Reverend Wright is difficult, I won't lie to you. We want to make sure this doesn't become a permanent distraction."[A]

WRIGHT ONLY SPEAKS FOR HIMSELF, TOO HIMSELF AS HIS STAR FADES AWAY Several black voters said Wednesday that they, too, sharply disagreed with some of Wright's comments. But none felt the matter should disqualify Obama.[A]


LETS NOT GET CARRIED AWAY. WRIGHT IS JUST A FALSE PROFITEER... "If a pastor said something I didn't like, I wouldn't go back to that church," said Deltrice Watkins, 34, a black housekeeper at Eastland Mall in Evansville. "I can't say what Obama should do." Some other black voters said Wright's remarks should have almost no impact on the election. "What he said shouldn't reflect on Obama at all because that's his own opinion," said Stacey Norman, 43, a home caregiver also from Evansville. She said her own pastor's political views "are not my political views, and Obama's pastor's views are not his." In Tramway, N.C., southwest of Raleigh, Naika Benjamin had harsh words for Wright and praise for Obama.[A]

A FOOL BY ANY OTHER NAME OR TITLE IS STILL A FOOL Wright, she said, "acted like a pure fool this week. I go to a black church, and my minister doesn't talk like that."[a] Benjamin, 24, who works at a hair salon, said she relates to Obama because he was raised by a single mother, like herself. As for Wright's remarks, she said, "I don't think they should make a big issue out of it. I don't think that's fair at all."[a]


AS WE TRAVEL ON THIS ROAD TO A BETTER AMERICAN WRIGHT IS JUST A HOWLING DOG BAYING AT THE MOON AS WE TRAVEL FORWARD TO OUR FUTURE LEAVING HIM AND HIS TYPE IN THE PAST SOON TO BE FORGOTTEN Sharpe, the North Carolina Democrat who scours the newspapers, TV, and Internet for political news, said the Wright incident goes to the heart of misunderstandings and suspicions between black and white Americans.[a]


LETS WALK THIS WALK TOGETHER He agrees with Obama that there is no basis to Wright's claim of a possible government conspiracy to spread AIDS among blacks. "But whites shouldn't be so shocked" that some blacks believe it is possible, he said, given the infamous Tuskegee Institute experiments on unsuspecting black men in Alabama who had syphilis decades ago, he said.[a]


YOU CANNOT NOT COMPREHEND NOR UNDERSTAND THE RAGE OF AMERICANS BLACK OR WHITE IF OBAMA IS UPSET BY THE BELTWAY PROS AND THEIR LACKIES Similarly, Sharpe said, if Democratic superdelegates steer the nomination to Clinton despite Obama holding a lead in pledged delegates, "then white America will not understand why black people are so upset." [a] Monday in Washington, he lost me, seeming more to revel in the spotlight. Maybe he didn’t say anything he hadn’t said before in his church, but I wondered about his judgment saying it at the National Press Club in the heat of a presidential campaign. But should Wright be a factor? Do we fairly make decisions about Barack Obama based on the beliefs and remarks of the retired pastor of his former church? These are the kinds of "swift boat” non-issues that distort campaigns. Wright was wrong, sure, but so is the national media for obsessing over him.[f] Republicans are already trying to portray Mr. Obama as a liberal who is outside the mainstream of American values, but the poll suggests that — at least so far — he is not viewed that way by most Americans. Nearly two-thirds of registered voters said they believe he shares their values, about the same number who felt that way about Mr. McCain (58 percent said Mrs. Clinton shared their values).[n]


Posted here by Terry Bankert ...
http://attorneybankert.com/
Join my political party of preference,
http://www.michigandems.com/join.html

—WHERE DID THIS STUFF COME FROM---- ---

[a] AP http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j7CFCuLFxDano9UulI3_ES7zARVwD90CF8KO0

[trb] Comments of Terry Bankert to include Cap headlines. http://attorneybankert.com/

[H] Houston Chroncile http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/5743681.html

[N] The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/us/politics/30cnd-poll.html?hp

[u] U.S.News and World Report http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/4/30/obama-is-throwing--wright-under-the-bus.html

[t] The Austrailian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23623735-2703,00.html

[F] Freep.com http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080430/BLOG25/80430082

[g] The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/01/barackobama.uselections2008

[z] The Atlantic.com http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/a_new_tougher_obama.php

52025/13408

Sphere: Related Content

WHAT DO WE STAND FOR AND AGAINST?

AMERICANS, WHAT DO WE STAND FOR AND AGAINST?

__________________________
GOOD MORNING FLINT!
BY Terry Bankert 4/27/08
You are invited to join me at Face Book http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry_Bankert/645845362 ___________________________
Full article at http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/
Flint Talk http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=27832#27832 __________________________

IMAGINE IF WE LEARNED OUR TROOPS WERE BEING WATERBOARDED! Legal experts critical of the administration, noted the paper, indicated that the Justice Department seemed to be arguing that the task of preventing a terror attack could justify interrogation methods that would otherwise be illegal.[A] "What they are saying is that if my intent is to defend the United States rather than to humiliate you, than I have not committed an offense," Scott Silliman, a professor of national security from Duke University, was quoted by The Times as saying. [A] The humiliating and degrading treatment of prisoners is prohibited by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. [N]...the Bush administration lawyers are citing the sometimes vague language of the Geneva Conventions to support the idea that interrogators should not be bound by ironclad rules. [N] The United States has faced heavy criticism from rights groups and some allies for its use of a simulated form of drowning known as "waterboarding" during interrogations and for holding hundreds of suspected militants in a prison camp at a U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.[R]

WHAT IS WATERBORDING Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.[1] Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.[2] In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex.[3] Although waterboarding does not always cause lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5] Waterboarding was used for interrogation at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition to obtain information,[6] coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. It is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[4][7] politicians, war veterans,[8][9] intelligence officials,[10] military judges,[11] and human rights organizations.[12][13] Despite its long use as a technique, the first use of the actual term "waterboarding" occurred in the May 13, 2004, New York Times. In 2007 waterboarding led to a political scandal in the United States when the press reported that the CIA had waterboarded extrajudicial prisoners and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure.[14][15] The CIA has admitted waterboarding Al-Qaida suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.[16] [W]

U.S. ALLOWED TO COMMIT “OUTRAGES”? AFTER ALL THE SPANISH DID! The Geneva Conventions' ban on "outrages against personal dignity" does not automatically apply to terrorism suspects in the custody of U.S. intelligence agencies, the Justice Department has suggested to Congress in recent letters that lay out the Bush administration's interpretation of the international treaty. [w] A March 5 letter from the Justice Dept. to Congress makes clear the Bush administration has not defined which interrogation methods might violate the Geneva Convention's bans on "outrages upon personal dignity," the Times said.[RI] The letters were provided by the staff of Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. The panel received classified briefings on the matter and Wyden requested further information, which yielded the letters, the Times said.[RI]

TOURTURE BY ANY OTHER NAME Lawyers for the department, offering insight into the legal basis for the CIA's controversial interrogation program, reasserted in the letters the Bush administration's long-held view that it has considerable leeway in deciding how the conventions' rules apply to the harsh questioning of combatants in the war on terrorism. [w] The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law. [n] WHAT IS ....IS! While the United States is legally bound by the conventions' Common Article 3 and its requirement to treat detainees humanely, the definition of humane treatment can vary, depending on the detainee's identity and the importance of the information he possesses, a Justice Department official wrote last September and this March to a Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee. [w] In one letter written Sept. 27, 2007, Mr. Benczkowski argued that “to rise to the level of an outrage” and thus be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions, conduct “must be so deplorable that the reasonable observer would recognize it as something that should be universally condemned.” [N]

CIA IGNORING BUSH The legal interpretation, outlined in recent letters, sheds new light on the still-secret rules for interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. It shows that the administration is arguing that the boundaries for interrogations should be subject to some latitude, even under an executive order issued last summer that President Bush said meant that the C.I.A. would comply with international strictures against harsh treatment of detainees. [N]

AMERICANS WANT TO LEAD IN HUMAN RIGHTS, NOT EXPLAIN THEM AWAY "Some prohibitions . . . such as the prohibition on 'outrages against personal dignity,' do invite the consideration of the circumstances surrounding the action," Brian A. Benczkowski, the principal deputy assistant attorney general, asserted in one of the letters. [w] Benczkowski's letters were provided to The Washington Post by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who asked the Justice Department to explain the legal foundation for President Bush's executive order last year authorizing the CIA's continued interrogation of terrorism suspects. The existence of the letters was first reported last night by the New York Times. [w] A spokeswoman for Wyden said the administration's suggestion that the Geneva Conventions could be selectively applied was "stunning." [w]

PRESIDENT BUSH’S LOGIC WOULD JUSTIFY KILLING THE FIRST BORN OF..... “The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act,” said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.[N]

WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND "The Geneva Convention in most cases is the only shield that Americans have when they are captured overseas," the spokeswoman, Jennifer Hoelzer, said in a phone interview. "And for the president to say that it is acceptable to interpret Geneva on a sliding scale means that he thinks that it is acceptable for other countries to do the same. Senator Wyden -- and I believe any other reasonable individual -- finds that argument appalling." [w]

DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS What they are saying is that if my intent is to defend the United States rather than to humiliate you, than I have not committed an offense,” said Scott L. Silliman, who teaches national security law at Duke University.[N] The Justice letters allow that certain acts by interrogators -- sexual mutilation, for example -- would be unlawful under any circumstance. But when judging whether a specific interrogation practice would violate the conventions' ban on degrading treatment, the government can weigh "the identity and information possessed by a detainee," Benczkowski wrote. [w] Some legal experts critical of the Justice Department interpretation said the department seemed to be arguing that the prospect of thwarting a terror attack could be used to justify interrogation methods that would otherwise be illegal. [N] A senior Justice Department official, speaking to the Times on condition of anonymity, said of the classified information: "I certainly don't want to suggest that if there's a good purpose you can head off and humiliate someone."[R] But he said "the fact that you are doing something for a legitimate security purpose would be relevant."[R]

WHEN IS PULLING OUT FINGERNAILS...ALLOWED? He suggested that a suspect with information about a future attack could be subjected to harsher treatment, noting that a violation would occur only if the interrogator's conduct "shocks the conscience" because it is out of proportion to "the government interest involved." [w]

JUST SAY YOU DID NOT MEAN TO...AND ITS OKAY! Moreover, to fit the definition of an "outrage upon personal dignity," an action must be deliberate, involving an "intent to humiliate and degrade," Benczkowski wrote. [w]

THIS PRONOUNCEMENT SHOULD BE TESTED IN FEDERAL COURT! The CIA declined to comment on the memo. However, agency spokesman Mark Mansfield said the CIA's detainee program "has been and continues to be in full compliance with the laws of our country." [w]

AND SO DOES THE PRICE OF GAS "The program has disrupted terrorist plots and has saved lives," Mansfield said. [w]

BUSH SAYS ANYTHING GOES TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY The administration of President George W. Bush has told Congress that US intelligence agents trying to prevent terrorist attacks can use interrogation methods that in other circumstances might be prohibited under international law, The New York Times reported on its website Saturday.[A] Mr. Wyden said he was concerned that, under the new rules, the Bush administration had put Geneva Convention restrictions on a “sliding scale.”[N] If the United States used subjective standards in applying its interrogation rules, he said, then potential enemies might adopt different standards of treatment for American detainees based on an officer’s rank or other factors. [N] “The cumulative effect in my interpretation is to put American troops at risk,” Mr. Wyden said. [N]

WHAT DO YOU THINK? I THINK THESE ARE WAR CRIMES!

Posted here by Terry Bankert ...
http://attorneybankert.com/
Join my political party of preference,
http://www.michigandems.com/join.html

—WHERE DID THIS STUFF COME FROM----
[w] The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/27/AR2008042700016.htm
[N] The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/washington/27intel.html?hp http://attorneybankert.com/
[R] REUTERS http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26402914
[RI] REUTERS INDIA http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-33257820080427 [A] AFP http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gs-wx7UlPlMCgnP_OPxB7HdaNMRQ
[W] Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

51614/13321

Sphere: Related Content

Emotional now or financial later!!!

SUPPORT YOUR SPOUSE NOW OR LATER WITH A COURT ORDER
________________________
GOOD MORNING FLINT!
BY Terry Bankert 4/26/08
You are invited to join me at Face Book http://www.facebook.com/people/Terry_Bankert/645845362 ___________________________
Full article at http://goodmorningflint.blogspot.com/
Flint Talk http://flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=27816#27816 __________________________

WFLT 1420 AM 9 AM 4/26/08- PROGRAM “ KNOW THE LAW” CALL IN! On Saturday 4/26/08 from 9:am until 9:30 am We will talk about Spousal support reviewing a case on spousal support on my radio program “ Know the Law” WFLT 1420 am radio. This is a call in program and you may ask question on the air by calling 810-239-5733. __________________________

Issues:
Divorce;
Spousal support; Olson v. Olson; Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co.; Moore v. Moore; Fletcher v. Fletcher; Hanaway v. Hanaway; Sands v. Sands;

Whether plaintiff-wife was entitled to share in the appreciation of the rental property defendant purchased before the parties' marriage; Reeves v. Reeves;

Denial of plaintiff's request for attorney fees; Kosch v. Kosch; Maake v. Maake; Chisnell v. Chisnell; Quade v. Quade;

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting plaintiff from presenting evidence of alleged fraud during trial;

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)4-15-2008

Kent Circuit Court

Case Name: Kettlewell v. Kettlewell e-Journal Number: 39070 Judge(s): Per Curiam - Fitzgerald, Smolenski, and Beckering The court held the trial court's determination of spousal support was inequitable because the award did not balance the needs and equities of the parties in a manner preventing the plaintiff-wife from becoming impoverished.

On remand, the trial court should reconsider the award of spousal support, keeping the ultimate objective in mind. While the trial court appeared to take the appropriate factors into account, the court found the trial court abused its discretion by awarding plaintiff insufficient spousal support to prevent her from invading her marital assets to support herself.

The trial court did not balance the needs and incomes of the parties without impoverishing plaintiff.

The trial court specifically recognized the parties previously enjoyed a "middle class" standard of living, plaintiff needed spousal support and would not be able to avoid a "wide disparity in incomes" without it, and the defendant was able to pay spousal support.

However, the trial court only awarded spousal support in the amount of $1,000 per month ($12,000 per year) for 60 months (5 years).

In contrast, defendant's base salary was approximately $125,000 per year.

Thus, not only did the trial court's award of spousal support result in a disparity between the incomes and lifestyles of the parties, but it was unlikely plaintiff, without a post-secondary degree or significant work experience, would be able to maintain a "middle class" standard of living on $12,000 per year without immediately invading her marital assets, contrary to the court's mandate in Hanaway.

Further, it was unlikely plaintiff, who will be over the age of 50, would be able to maintain even a modest lifestyle after 5 years, when defendant no longer provides spousal support. While the trial court found plaintiff responsible for the breakdown of the marriage, fault is only one of the relevant factors in determining spousal support, and "a judge's role is to achieve equity, not to ‘punish' one of the parties."

There are 14 factors the court should review when setting spousal support.
1.The relation and conduct of the parties during the marraige.
2.The length of the marraige.
3.The parties ability to work.
4.The distribution of the assests awared to the parties.
5.Age of the parties.
6.The ability of the parties to pay support.
7.present situation of the parties.
8.The parties needs.
9.Health of the parties.
10.Prior standard of living and whether one party had been responsible for the support of the other.
11.Parties contribution to the marital estate.
12.Fault
13. Effects of co habitation equity (fairness) Olson V Olson 256 MA 619, 631 671 NW2d 64 (2003)

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. [The e-journal was modifed for blog and radio presentation, look to the origonal]

Posted here by Terry Bankert ...
http://attorneybankert.com/
Join my political party of preference,
http://www.michigandems.com/join.html

51452/13303

Sphere: Related Content