"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said.. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, " Michelle Obama
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing China for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.
How things have changed ! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. Lewis, Dana M.. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even
Hillary had three;
Jackie Kennedy one;
Laura Bush one;
And prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travelled aboard Air Force One to Europe .
"Disgusting!"
Wake Up PEOPLE!!!
Copyright 2009 Canada Free Press.Com
Friday, September 4, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Queations? ask our lawyers.
Chandra Doucette, Esq.
Boca Raton
(561) 995-1490
invattyfl@lycos.com
Barry Silver, Esq.
Boca Raton
(561) 483-6900
barryboca@aol.com
Barbara Billiot Stage, Esq.
Orlando, FL
(407) 926-0263
barbara.billiot.stage@stagelaw.com
Jean Winters, Esq.
Boca Raton
(561) 516-0922
jgwlaw@bellsouth.net
Boca Raton
(561) 995-1490
invattyfl@lycos.com
Barry Silver, Esq.
Boca Raton
(561) 483-6900
barryboca@aol.com
Barbara Billiot Stage, Esq.
Orlando, FL
(407) 926-0263
barbara.billiot.stage@stagelaw.com
Jean Winters, Esq.
Boca Raton
(561) 516-0922
jgwlaw@bellsouth.net
Suit targets 44-year-old couple who own an age-restricted condo
Article Courtesy of The St. Petersburg Times
By Drew Harwell
Published August 29, 2009
DUNEDIN — In a lawsuit that has stretched over two years, two courts and three judges, the condo association of a 55-and-over complex is trying to get rid of a Tampa couple, both of whom are 44.
The rules are clear, says the board of directors of the Royal Stewart Arms condo association. The age restriction is on the application. Section 14.8 of the Declaration of Condominium Ownership states their complex is an "adult community." No 44-year-olds, like Natalie and William Trudelle, allowed.
The lawsuit demands the Trudelles not enter the condo without an approved of-age resident over 55 and pay the association's legal fees. They wouldn't be forced to sell the condo as long as they continued to pay the association dues and insurance.
If the over-55 rule is not enforced, wrote attorney Joe Cianfrone in a 2007 court complaint, the complex would "sustain irreparable damage."
The Trudelles, who work in real estate, say the suit is a sham. Natalie Trudelle said she bought the condo 15 years ago for her mother and grandmother, both of whom died within two years and left her the unit.
The Trudelles lived there for less than a year, and in the decade since, they have rented to seasonal tenants older than 55. Other underage people have lived in the complex, they said, and it was never an issue. Then came the lawsuit.
The board of directors of the Royal Stewart Arms condo association say that rules forbid Natalie and William Trudelle from entering their condo without an approved of-age resident over 55. The Tampa couple has owned the condo for 15 years.
A third (of our neighbors) say it's ludicrous, a third don't give a rat's patootie and a third are on the board's side and say the rules must be followed," William Trudelle said. "Everyone out there says Honeymoon Island is paradise. We say they're trying to evict us from paradise."
The Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 and amended two decades later, allows communities intended for those over 55 to discriminate against young potential renters and families with children. At least 80 percent of units must be occupied, it states, by a person older than 55.
So why can't their unit be in the other 20 percent, the Trudelles ask? They pay their taxes, their insurance, their $441 a month in association dues. Besides, they say, they're only ever there to decorate for potential renters.
The condo association won't budge.
"It is of no consequence that she claims to be there only to decorate," Cianfrone wrote in a 2007 letter to the association's board. "Any reason Ms. Trudelle provides for residing in the unit is irrelevant."
In the same letter, Cianfrone wrote the association could grant the Trudelles a "hardship exemption," allowing leniency because of Natalie Trudelle's former family connection. Department of Housing and Urban Development documents say the flexible protection is allowed but not required.
The board argues Trudelle never inherited the unit — it was hers all along. The sale application from 1994 shows Natalie as the applicant, with her mother and grandmother listed as additional occupants.
The Trudelles say they feel singled out by the association. They've compiled affidavits from former residents who would have been under 55. That includes board president John Hutchinson, who, they point to in records, was the sole owner of a unit there while underage.
Hutchinson disagrees, saying his unit was grandfathered in after the complex became age-restricted in 1988. He, like other board members, would not comment on the litigation. Four messages left for Cianfrone this week went unanswered.
Hutchinson did say any story on the 2-year-old legal complaint would be "premature," adding that "these kinds of cases happen all the time."
The case, moved from county to circuit court last month because county courts do not have jurisdiction over title disputes, continues, even as the Trudelles say they've given the board "every opportunity to drop the lawsuit."
They said they're sure they'll win. The board seems to disagree. The courts chug on.
"I would hope that you would try to get this matter mediated, or resolved somehow, instead of tilting (at) windmills like this," said Circuit Court Judge Radford Smith, according to a court transcript. "I mean, it just goes on and on and on."
By Drew Harwell
Published August 29, 2009
DUNEDIN — In a lawsuit that has stretched over two years, two courts and three judges, the condo association of a 55-and-over complex is trying to get rid of a Tampa couple, both of whom are 44.
The rules are clear, says the board of directors of the Royal Stewart Arms condo association. The age restriction is on the application. Section 14.8 of the Declaration of Condominium Ownership states their complex is an "adult community." No 44-year-olds, like Natalie and William Trudelle, allowed.
The lawsuit demands the Trudelles not enter the condo without an approved of-age resident over 55 and pay the association's legal fees. They wouldn't be forced to sell the condo as long as they continued to pay the association dues and insurance.
If the over-55 rule is not enforced, wrote attorney Joe Cianfrone in a 2007 court complaint, the complex would "sustain irreparable damage."
The Trudelles, who work in real estate, say the suit is a sham. Natalie Trudelle said she bought the condo 15 years ago for her mother and grandmother, both of whom died within two years and left her the unit.
The Trudelles lived there for less than a year, and in the decade since, they have rented to seasonal tenants older than 55. Other underage people have lived in the complex, they said, and it was never an issue. Then came the lawsuit.
The board of directors of the Royal Stewart Arms condo association say that rules forbid Natalie and William Trudelle from entering their condo without an approved of-age resident over 55. The Tampa couple has owned the condo for 15 years.
A third (of our neighbors) say it's ludicrous, a third don't give a rat's patootie and a third are on the board's side and say the rules must be followed," William Trudelle said. "Everyone out there says Honeymoon Island is paradise. We say they're trying to evict us from paradise."
The Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 and amended two decades later, allows communities intended for those over 55 to discriminate against young potential renters and families with children. At least 80 percent of units must be occupied, it states, by a person older than 55.
So why can't their unit be in the other 20 percent, the Trudelles ask? They pay their taxes, their insurance, their $441 a month in association dues. Besides, they say, they're only ever there to decorate for potential renters.
The condo association won't budge.
"It is of no consequence that she claims to be there only to decorate," Cianfrone wrote in a 2007 letter to the association's board. "Any reason Ms. Trudelle provides for residing in the unit is irrelevant."
In the same letter, Cianfrone wrote the association could grant the Trudelles a "hardship exemption," allowing leniency because of Natalie Trudelle's former family connection. Department of Housing and Urban Development documents say the flexible protection is allowed but not required.
The board argues Trudelle never inherited the unit — it was hers all along. The sale application from 1994 shows Natalie as the applicant, with her mother and grandmother listed as additional occupants.
The Trudelles say they feel singled out by the association. They've compiled affidavits from former residents who would have been under 55. That includes board president John Hutchinson, who, they point to in records, was the sole owner of a unit there while underage.
Hutchinson disagrees, saying his unit was grandfathered in after the complex became age-restricted in 1988. He, like other board members, would not comment on the litigation. Four messages left for Cianfrone this week went unanswered.
Hutchinson did say any story on the 2-year-old legal complaint would be "premature," adding that "these kinds of cases happen all the time."
The case, moved from county to circuit court last month because county courts do not have jurisdiction over title disputes, continues, even as the Trudelles say they've given the board "every opportunity to drop the lawsuit."
They said they're sure they'll win. The board seems to disagree. The courts chug on.
"I would hope that you would try to get this matter mediated, or resolved somehow, instead of tilting (at) windmills like this," said Circuit Court Judge Radford Smith, according to a court transcript. "I mean, it just goes on and on and on."
Stuart couple in fight with homeowner’s association over cat
Article Courtesy of The TCPalm
By Eve Samples
Published August 31, 2009
STUART — So often, the kindness of the masses makes up for the extreme lack of it in a heartless few.
Two weeks after Bea and Ron Garza went public with the battle to keep their cat, Mitzy, to help with 87-year-old Bea’s dementia, the couple has received an outpouring of support.
Vero Beach lawyer Richard Brown volunteered to represent them in the fight against their condo association at Vista Pines in Stuart.
An anonymous Fort Pierce resident is working with Brown to set up a legal defense fund — and Brown will accept whatever money is deposited into the Seacoast National Bank account as payment in full. That account should be created in the next few days.
Meanwhile, people from around the state and the country have weighed in to say they’re behind the Garzas. Readers from as far as Las Vegas thought the association was being too callous — and I agree.
The association at Vista Pines has been pestering the Garzas for months, warning them to get rid of Mitzy, who they adopted from a shelter in November.
Its South Florida law firm, Becker & Poliakoff, sent the Garzars a letter earlier this month, warning that they had 48 hours to “remove the illegal cat.”
But Mitzy remains entrenched in the small condo, and the Garzas aren’t surrendering. Though they’ve received a few dirty looks — and a recent condo newsletter threatened that residents should turn in any neighbors with pets — most people have been encouraging.
“There’s really only very few who are just die-hard miserable people,” Ron said.
The Garzas have lived in Vista Pines for more than a decade. They got married 11 years ago at the condo clubhouse.
Still, the association is showing no sympathy for the longtime residents.
It refused to bend even after Bea’s psychiatrist, Dr. Frank Trovato of Stuart, provided an affidavit explaining that the feline helped Bea stay connected with reality. He said Mitzy could prolong her independence.
Becker & Poliakoff lawyer Marty Platts alleged the Garzas failed to prove that Bea’s dementia and depression impaired her everyday activities. Nor did they prove the cat alleviated the effects of her ailments, she said.
Brown spoke to Platts on Monday. He told her the Garzas aren’t violating the association rules for a simple reason: Mitzy is not a pet. She’s a service animal. Platts promised to speak to the association board and get back to him, he said.
He’s confident he can win this one for the Garzas.
If there’s one thing the Garzas’ story proves, it’s this: Few things rile people more than a power-hungry homeowners association. And few things rile associations more than “illegal” pets.
David Shapiro knows all too well. The retired teacher, who lives in South Palm Beach, spent $20,000 battling his association to keep his dog.
Shapiro’s battle involved two dogs at different times. In the first case, he argued he should be able to keep his dog because he purchased the condo before pets were prohibited. Later, he proved a second dog was medically necessary.
All the while, he was treated like a monster, he said.
“Frankly, if I came and told them I was a serial killer and a sex molester and a notorious drug dealer all in one, I would have been more accepted than if I told them I had a pet,” Shapiro said.
He ultimately won — and he hopes cases like his and the Garzas’ chip away at the rigidity of condo association rules.
“Hopefully with a little crack here and a little crack there, eventually this wall we have erected can come down, and we can start acting as human beings,” Shapiro said. “I don’t know what it is with these people. They come down here (to retire), and they lose their compassion.”
Here’s hoping the Vista Pines association finds its compassion.
By Eve Samples
Published August 31, 2009
STUART — So often, the kindness of the masses makes up for the extreme lack of it in a heartless few.
Two weeks after Bea and Ron Garza went public with the battle to keep their cat, Mitzy, to help with 87-year-old Bea’s dementia, the couple has received an outpouring of support.
Vero Beach lawyer Richard Brown volunteered to represent them in the fight against their condo association at Vista Pines in Stuart.
An anonymous Fort Pierce resident is working with Brown to set up a legal defense fund — and Brown will accept whatever money is deposited into the Seacoast National Bank account as payment in full. That account should be created in the next few days.
Meanwhile, people from around the state and the country have weighed in to say they’re behind the Garzas. Readers from as far as Las Vegas thought the association was being too callous — and I agree.
The association at Vista Pines has been pestering the Garzas for months, warning them to get rid of Mitzy, who they adopted from a shelter in November.
Its South Florida law firm, Becker & Poliakoff, sent the Garzars a letter earlier this month, warning that they had 48 hours to “remove the illegal cat.”
But Mitzy remains entrenched in the small condo, and the Garzas aren’t surrendering. Though they’ve received a few dirty looks — and a recent condo newsletter threatened that residents should turn in any neighbors with pets — most people have been encouraging.
“There’s really only very few who are just die-hard miserable people,” Ron said.
The Garzas have lived in Vista Pines for more than a decade. They got married 11 years ago at the condo clubhouse.
Still, the association is showing no sympathy for the longtime residents.
It refused to bend even after Bea’s psychiatrist, Dr. Frank Trovato of Stuart, provided an affidavit explaining that the feline helped Bea stay connected with reality. He said Mitzy could prolong her independence.
Becker & Poliakoff lawyer Marty Platts alleged the Garzas failed to prove that Bea’s dementia and depression impaired her everyday activities. Nor did they prove the cat alleviated the effects of her ailments, she said.
Brown spoke to Platts on Monday. He told her the Garzas aren’t violating the association rules for a simple reason: Mitzy is not a pet. She’s a service animal. Platts promised to speak to the association board and get back to him, he said.
He’s confident he can win this one for the Garzas.
If there’s one thing the Garzas’ story proves, it’s this: Few things rile people more than a power-hungry homeowners association. And few things rile associations more than “illegal” pets.
David Shapiro knows all too well. The retired teacher, who lives in South Palm Beach, spent $20,000 battling his association to keep his dog.
Shapiro’s battle involved two dogs at different times. In the first case, he argued he should be able to keep his dog because he purchased the condo before pets were prohibited. Later, he proved a second dog was medically necessary.
All the while, he was treated like a monster, he said.
“Frankly, if I came and told them I was a serial killer and a sex molester and a notorious drug dealer all in one, I would have been more accepted than if I told them I had a pet,” Shapiro said.
He ultimately won — and he hopes cases like his and the Garzas’ chip away at the rigidity of condo association rules.
“Hopefully with a little crack here and a little crack there, eventually this wall we have erected can come down, and we can start acting as human beings,” Shapiro said. “I don’t know what it is with these people. They come down here (to retire), and they lose their compassion.”
Here’s hoping the Vista Pines association finds its compassion.
Article Courtesy of The Tampa Tribune
By Laura Kinsler
August 30, 2009
SAN ANTONIO - Getting the records is just the first step.
When homeowners suspect their neighborhood association of misusing their money, they ask to see the financial records. By law, homeowners associations must make their records available to all paying members.
It has never been that simple at Tampa Bay Golf & Country Club, so some homeowners are suing to get the records.
Anita Stuckly, a retired accountant, sued the community's master association in January after failed attempts to inspect financial ledgers, contracts and audits dating to 2000. She offered to go to mediation, a required step before homeowners can sue associations.
Association President "Rick Feather said there's nothing to mediate. The records don't exist," Stuckly said.
Feather was appointed to the association board in 2007 and told the Tribune he doesn't know whether previous audits were conducted, though they were required by law.
"I can't speak to what went on before my involvement with the association," Feather said.
The association paid Stuckly $1,360 to settle the case. She's planning another lawsuit, this time for records explaining why former manager Jonnie Tyler was paid $30,000 for pool maintenance and $86,000 for operations in 2007 - on top of his management fee - before the association replaced him with an out-of-state management company.
Her attorney sent an offer to mediate the case this week.
Domenic Gualtieri took the association to small claims court over its failure to release the 2008 audit. Florida law requires homeowners associations that collect more than $400,000 a year to release an audit within the first four months of the year. Gualtieri sued on July 13 when the association still had not released the audit.
He received a copy of the audit in August but refused to drop his complaint, saying the association should pay for his court costs.
Homeowners associations can be penalized up to $500 per offense for failing to turn documents over to their members.
Barbara Stage, Stuckly's attorney, said homeowners have a right to see every financial record of their association, especially when the association is controlled by a developer.
"Basically, it's their money," she said. "Every dime the association spends comes straight out of their pockets, and it's not being spent for their benefit."
Feather, who stepped down from the association board in July, said the developer and its management companies have made every effort to comply with the written requests.
"If we had a record, anybody who requested it and was a member was welcome to inspect it," he said. "A lot of the people who have filed this litigation have been at our office doing just that."
Stuckly and Gualtieri are following the example set by homeowners in Cory Lake Isles, a gated community in New Tampa where residents sued and won the right to inspect their developer's financial records. After inspecting the records, 20 homeowners filed a lawsuit accusing the developer of diverting more than $500,000 in homeowner assessments for his private use and to subsidize his other businesses.
That case is making its way through Hillsborough County courts.
Gualtieri and five other homeowners sued the association in January for failing to respond provide them with copies of the contract between the association and Tampa Bay Golf & Country Club Recreation, which owns the community's clubhouse.
Association members pay $1.74 million a year to access the swimming pool and other amenities in the country club. Feather said the relationship between the association and the country club is "clearly spelled out" in the association's master declarations and bylaws.
"I've never seen any other document," he said.
The case is scheduled to go to mediation Sept. 11.
By Laura Kinsler
August 30, 2009
SAN ANTONIO - Getting the records is just the first step.
When homeowners suspect their neighborhood association of misusing their money, they ask to see the financial records. By law, homeowners associations must make their records available to all paying members.
It has never been that simple at Tampa Bay Golf & Country Club, so some homeowners are suing to get the records.
Anita Stuckly, a retired accountant, sued the community's master association in January after failed attempts to inspect financial ledgers, contracts and audits dating to 2000. She offered to go to mediation, a required step before homeowners can sue associations.
Association President "Rick Feather said there's nothing to mediate. The records don't exist," Stuckly said.
Feather was appointed to the association board in 2007 and told the Tribune he doesn't know whether previous audits were conducted, though they were required by law.
"I can't speak to what went on before my involvement with the association," Feather said.
The association paid Stuckly $1,360 to settle the case. She's planning another lawsuit, this time for records explaining why former manager Jonnie Tyler was paid $30,000 for pool maintenance and $86,000 for operations in 2007 - on top of his management fee - before the association replaced him with an out-of-state management company.
Her attorney sent an offer to mediate the case this week.
Domenic Gualtieri took the association to small claims court over its failure to release the 2008 audit. Florida law requires homeowners associations that collect more than $400,000 a year to release an audit within the first four months of the year. Gualtieri sued on July 13 when the association still had not released the audit.
He received a copy of the audit in August but refused to drop his complaint, saying the association should pay for his court costs.
Homeowners associations can be penalized up to $500 per offense for failing to turn documents over to their members.
Barbara Stage, Stuckly's attorney, said homeowners have a right to see every financial record of their association, especially when the association is controlled by a developer.
"Basically, it's their money," she said. "Every dime the association spends comes straight out of their pockets, and it's not being spent for their benefit."
Feather, who stepped down from the association board in July, said the developer and its management companies have made every effort to comply with the written requests.
"If we had a record, anybody who requested it and was a member was welcome to inspect it," he said. "A lot of the people who have filed this litigation have been at our office doing just that."
Stuckly and Gualtieri are following the example set by homeowners in Cory Lake Isles, a gated community in New Tampa where residents sued and won the right to inspect their developer's financial records. After inspecting the records, 20 homeowners filed a lawsuit accusing the developer of diverting more than $500,000 in homeowner assessments for his private use and to subsidize his other businesses.
That case is making its way through Hillsborough County courts.
Gualtieri and five other homeowners sued the association in January for failing to respond provide them with copies of the contract between the association and Tampa Bay Golf & Country Club Recreation, which owns the community's clubhouse.
Association members pay $1.74 million a year to access the swimming pool and other amenities in the country club. Feather said the relationship between the association and the country club is "clearly spelled out" in the association's master declarations and bylaws.
"I've never seen any other document," he said.
The case is scheduled to go to mediation Sept. 11.
Joe "Do Nothing" Hunter
I have asked the residents of Lake Ashton to notifly me if Joe Hunter has help them in solveing their problems as rersidents and no one has come forward. Joe Hunter has done nothing to help the residents of Lake Ashton. NOTHING
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)