Dina McGreevey: I bankrolled wedding

[RSSfeed]

The estranged wife of New Jersey's gay former governor said she depleted her savings to pay for their $30,000 wedding, even reluctantly agreeing to add dozens of his political cronies to the guest list.

Dina Matos McGreevey testified about her meeting and subsequent courtship with former Gov. James E. McGreevey for about an hour Wednesday, painting a picture of herself as a dutiful and supportive girlfriend-turned-spouse who devoted herself to his goal of being elected governor.

"Once we became engaged, I was a full partner," Matos McGreevey said as the bitter divorce trial continued.

The McGreeveys wed in 2000, but their marriage unraveled four years later after he proclaimed himself "a gay American," announced he'd had an affair with a male staffer and resigned as governor. The staffer denies the affair and says he was sexually harassed by McGreevey.

Matos McGreevey, 41, wants compensation for losing out on the perks of his job -- state police transportation and a 24/7 security detail, a household staff and use of two beach houses -- because he resigned 13 months shy of completing his first term.

McGreevey maintains that perks of the governor's office are not a marital asset.

Her accountant placed the value of their so-called gubernatorial lifestyle at $51,000 a month, but acknowledged under an intense cross-examination that he relied mostly on guesswork to derive the estimate.
McGreevey's accountant has put the value of maintaining that lifestyle at a far more modest $16,000 a month.

Matos McGreevey testified Wednesday that she and McGreevey maintained separate checking accounts even after being married and that she was never privy to how he spent his paycheck. He enjoyed many perks as mayor of Woodbridge, including a township car, free gasoline, a cell phone and an expense account, she testified.

She said she paid for her own car, insurance and clothes out of her salary, estimated at $55,000 a year as a hospital executive. She said being on the arm of a politician sometimes required three changes of clothes in a single day.

Neither Matos McGreevey nor her husband could recall who paid for their 10-day honeymoon to Italy, although Matos McGreevey said she drained her savings account for their opulent Washington wedding because her parents didn't have the means.

Earlier, McGreevey said his wife made all their honeymoon arrangements, but Matos McGreevey said his secretary booked the trip.

Matos McGreevey returns to the witness stand today.

Cassidy is hearing financial testimony to determine how much McGreevey should pay in alimony and child support.

Original from Courier Post

[bad1500]

she should'a seen it from the start then!

[Pineygirl]

The only part I take her side on is something I heard on the news yesterday -- it seems Jim owes $250,000 to a "friend." The way it sounded, it's the boyfriend.

If that's true, then sorry, he owes it to the wife he cheated on first. IMHO the "other woman/man" doesn't get squat until you've satisfied your debts to the person you were married to.

[proudrepub1]

This entire case is disgusting and another embarassment for New Jersey. A message for the McSleezy's " Shut up and go away!" You are both disgusting trolls. I feel better now!

[Arius]

Wait, I have to be clear on this. I am just beside myself here that we are concentrating on the sleeze but not on WHAT REALLY MATTERS.

Did anyone else notice the "perks of the job" for the stinking wife of our governor???? Why the eff are we allowing these perks to be part of a job of a stinking PUBLIC SERVANT???????????????????????????????????

$16,000 per month????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????

[Pineygirl]

Because the voters of New Jersey are compassionate. They give freely of their votes and support without asking if our elected officials leaders deserve the perks. They never ask "does this governor NEED this perk" or "does our mayor really NEED the pension."

No, our voters are totally without ego, emulating Christ Himself. They generously elect and re-elect without judging our leaders.

It's enough to melt the cockles of one's heart, I tell you.

[Arius]

Someday you may get it, you have a loooooooooooooong way to go.

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

Because the voters of New Jersey are compassionate. They give freely of their votes and support without asking if our elected officials leaders deserve the perks. They never ask "does this governor NEED this perk" or "does our mayor really NEED the pension."

No, our voters are totally without ego, emulating Christ Himself. They generously elect and re-elect without judging our leaders.

It's enough to melt the cockles of one's heart, I tell you.

Now, since you need a lesson it seems...

It is precisely ego that generates the perks...voters who believe that somehow their cult (aka political party) somehow is better than the other are the cause for this. I am sure that if you looked at the executive perks of a Republican like Todd-Whitman, you will find they are in line with what is available today. But, since we are often clouded by ego, ensuring our party gets elected regardless of the truth or the consequences, we often allow for the ridiculous waste that is prevalent today. Waste that is not partisan, and the same across party lines.

It's the same mechanism as in religion, where our need to be right and see those like us as right clouds the truth of things.

It is in our mindset that somehow the governor, or the president, or some other legislator should be better than us...it is left over from the days of the monarchy, so we allow them excess well beyond our means. Look at the perks of being President, as ridiculous as they are extreme.

It's not compassion to allow these perks, nor is it ego to want to see them gone, nor is it wrong to work to see the end of these things as long as the work is not part of the identity of the person doing it. As stated in the Tao, "When all work is finished, it is to be forgotten."

[Pineygirl]

It's also ego that tells a person they should refuse to work because they don't want to contribute to the government income. Or that they should refuse to work because of this or that.

It's also ego that tells a politician they deserve this or that perk.

Hey, I'm only going by what you've posted in the past, slamming me because I dare to judge their need. So here I'm giving a perfect example of pure nonjudgmentalism, and you dispute that, as well.

And it IS pure nonjudgmentalism on the part of the voters. Why, they give and give and give and expect nothing in return, and get nothing in return. Isn't that the purest form of compassion, as defined by you? A TOTAL lack of ego.

Therefore, the voters in New Jersey are pefect Taoists.

[Arius]

Actually, it depends on why they aren't working, just as it could be said that you work due to ego...to feel some value, to obtain more things, to find an identity in your job.

If you work just to work, don't identify with it, don't hold it as important (you are not your job and your job is not you), then you are not working in ego. Similarly, if you identify with not working, hold your unemployment in as much value as some hold their employment, you are doing so in ego. If you are just unemployed because it feels right, and you find purpose in other things during each moment, then you are not doing so out of line with Being.

This is where the faulty nature of egoic judgment comes in, because ultimately you decide what is work or laziness on behalf of others. I am sure today you would judge Jesus a homeless lazy ass not worthy of your time or attention, yet you worship him daily as God. What does that alone tell you about judgment?