Alan Grayson wants future records sealed in court fight with estranged wife

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Palm Beach Post

Saying his estranged wife has been using court proceedings to try to “falsely, intentionally and maliciously harm” his reputation, U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Orlando, has asked a judge to seal future court records in the legal fight over the break-up of their marriage.

Grayson, who filed the motion in Orange County Circuit Court last week, is expected to open a 2016 campaign for U.S. Senate soon.

Lolita Grayson filed for divorce in January 2014. Alan Grayson countered three months later with a petition for an annulment, contending their “apparent marriage” in 1990 was never valid because Lolita Grayson didn’t disclose she was still married to a man she had wed in 1980. An annulment would likely allow Alan Grayson to keep more of his estimated $26 million net worth than he would retain in a divorce.

The Graysons appeared to reach an annulment agreement in April, but Lolita Grayson refused to sign the deal — prompting Alan Grayson to call her a “gold digger” in a TV interview. Alan Grayson filed a motion this month asking the court to enforce the settlement, claiming a verbal agreement existed even though Lolita Grayson didn’t put her signature on the document. In a response, Lolita Grayson’s attorney accused Alan Grayson of trying to “bully her into submission.”

Read more: http://postonpolitics.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2015/06/24/alan-grayson-wants-future-records-sealed-in-court-fight-with-estranged-wife/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Translation: I'm behaving like an ass, so please hide that from the public.

I'm sorry, I like his politics, but in his married life, the guy is a complete and utter ass. Calling her a 'gold digger'? Please. You're the greedy bugger here, trying to cheat her out of whatever you can. Live with her for a quarter of a century, then do your best to leave her virtually penniless? Total jerkitude.

[AndreaCG]

2. It's the kind of behavior we expect from republican tools

Not progressive democrats. And it's not just her living in poverty it's the kids. That's inexcusable no matter what she did.

[Roland99]

3. His ex is borderline insane

I don't blame him one bit

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. Still no reason to leave her in poverty.

Give her half, and get the hell away from her if that's a worry.

[Xipe Totec]

13. Who said anything about poverty? nt

[Major Nikon]

59. $120K per year is poverty?

[awoke_in_2003]

65. She was married to another man when she married him...

what would you say if the shoes were reversed?

[SunSeeker]

6. Why did he have 5 kids with her?

[Roland99]

17. Obviously things were fine (or fine enough) until the end

Kinda like my ex.

And the exes of a couple friends of mine.

[Orrex]

19. Why does any divorced-in-the-future couple have kids?

[font color="white"]XXX[/font]
[font color="white"]XXXXXX[/font]
[font color="white"]XXXXXXXXX[/font]
[font color="white"]XXXXXXXXXXXX[/font]

[closeupready]

30. That's their problem. They should have predicted the future from the past.

[SunSeeker]

32. I think Grayson knew who he was marrying.

If she is "borderline insane" she was likely so before the divorce proceedings.

This is no way to treat the mother of his 5 children.

[Orrex]

35. I don't endorse the assertion that she is "borderline insane."

So I'm under no obligation to support claims based on that assertion.

This is no way to treat the mother of his 5 children.

She probably shouldn't have gotten married while still married to another man, then, nor should she have lied to her second husband and her children for 25 years. That's no way to treat the father of her five children.

[SunSeeker]

37. Expecting alimony is how most women treat the father of their children.

After 25 years and 5 kids, Grayson should pay alimony to her.

[Orrex]

40. He should support the children, and all indications are that he is doing so.

He should not be required to subsidize the lifestyle of someone who committed fraud against him (and against his children) for a quarter century.

[closeupready]

48. She can get a job like anyone else.

[SunSeeker]

49. After 25 years as a stay at home mom?

She could at best get a minimum wage job. That would not even come close to covering the childcare expenses of the kids living with her.

[closeupready]

50. Yes. After 25 years as a stay at home mom.

All work is honorable.

That said, if I were Grayson, I'd make her sign a confidentiality agreement in exchange for giving her a nice settlement, and get that toxic woman out of my life.

[SunSeeker]

52. That would not make economic sense and would hurt the kids. nt

[closeupready]

53. Grayson is supporting the kids. And as to custody,

she shouldn't be the caretaker.

[SunSeeker]

58. Kids need to have their mom supported too.

The court apparently gave her custody of at least some of them.

I know what it's like to be a kid with a divorced mom who is not getting alimony. For the first year after their divorce, my mom only got child support for me and my brother, no alimony. She could not afford to go to the doctor or dentist. She got a raging gum infection and they had to pull all her teeth. She ended up with full dentures, and she was only 33. It was horrible seeing my mom like that. And she needed to take care of us, so how the fuck did he expect her to do that when he gave her no money to feed and take care of herself? Apparently you think that is not a problem.

The cruelty in this board toward women, and their children, is really stunning. It doesn't matter how "borderline insane" she is. She's still a human being.

[closeupready]

60. With all due respect, you are not Mr. Grayson's child, and

thus, your anecdotal experience is inapplicable here.

I'm sorry you had a childhood like that. I have ZERO idea about the circumstances of your parents' relationship, so I take your word for it that she deserved better.

In my personal opinion, family courts in the US are biased in favor of mothers. That's not just, and it's wrong.

[SunSeeker]

64. Mr. Grayson's children should expect a lot more from him than I could from my dad. nt

[jwirr]

20. Because she kept her first unresolved marriage a secret from him. Legally they were never

married because bigamy is against the law but he did not know that she was married before. From what I have read here on DU she is getting the house, and good support for the children. 2 of them live with him. She is using the media to force him to give her more than they first agreed on. She ran up something like $70,000 on his credit card he did not know she had and that is why he called her a gold digger.

There is two sides to this story and as usual the media is taking the side of the story that will cause the most sensation. I am on his side since I also went through a dirty divorce. Fortunately I was not someone my ex could use blackmail against. Little hard to convince a judge that the care taker of a severely disabled child is just after the money.

[LanternWaste]

27. Creative allegations often reveal biases. Yours certainly did.

Creative allegations often reveal biases. Yours certainly did.

[SunSeeker]

5. I feel sorry for their 5 kids.

How do you annul a marriage after 25 years and 5 kids?

Grayson just now figured out she might have still been married to her former husband when Grayson married her in 1990?

[Sunlei]

9. Grayson didn't figure it out. She had to provide documentation about her last divorce and could not.

[Orrex]

15. Yes! How dare Grayson not know that she was deceiving him?

The fact that he was lied to is 100% his fault, no question.

[SunSeeker]

28. I don't know that she lied. Do you? Why are you being so sarcastic and angry?

I love Grayson's politics but the way he's handling his divorce--5 children are involved--is not in keeping with his progressive ideals.

Even if she lied, their marriage was real. It lasted 25 years and produced 5 kids. She never worked outside the home and has no means of support other than Grayson. Grayson is apparently seeking the annulment to avoid paying her alimony. You think she should get no alimony after 25 years and 5 kids?

[Orrex]

31. It's quite simple, in fact.

For some bizarre reason, the default assumption, again and again, is that he wronged the woman who lied to him and their children and who has been caught on camera physically assautling Grayson. He is criticized for his handling of the divorce. He is criticized for the effect it will have on the children. He is criticized for trying to exert some measure of control over the outcome of the divorce. He is criticized for failing to realize that she lied to him and their children and that she committed a crime lasting 25 years.

You think she should get no alimony after 25 years and 5 kids?

One does not generally get to profit from one's crimes. The children should certainly be supported. If her marriage to Grayson was fraudulent (i.e., if she was not legally married to him because she was still legally married to someone else) then that's 100% her fault, and Grayson should not be required to subsidize her. Why doesn't she divorce her other husband and hit him for alimony?

Look, I'm not a fan of Grayson. I think he's a self-serving blowhard and a bit of a poser, and if he drops completely out of the political world I won't miss him for a second. Regardless, if he were discovered to be a bigamist who lied to his second wife and his children for 25 years and who assaulted his second wife on camera, would you be as vocal in advocating on his behalf?

[SunSeeker]

34. I'm not defending her assault.

And you're being a lot more "vocal" than me.

I don't know the details of the paperwork issues with her first marriage. I imagine you have no first hand knowledge either. And apparently that's the way Grayson wants to keep it, seeing as how he's moving to seal the court records.

[Orrex]

36. I'm making no assumptions not already known to the public

I see that you ignored almost the entirety of my post so that you could instead take another jab at Grayson while accusing me of being more vocal than you.

As of this post, we each have five replies in the thread, so I'm not sure how that equates in your mind to me being "more vocal."

You are also making assumptions about Grayson and assuming fault where none has been demonstrated. I find it interesting that you would leap to her defense so readily. You might not be "defending her assault" of Grayson, but you seem more than happy to ignore it.

Why? Would you be as willing to ignore the assault if she'd been the victim?

[SunSeeker]

38. I'm saying she should get alimony after 25 years and 5 kids. nt

[Orrex]

41. Why should she get alimony?

As has been demonstrated elsewhere in this thread, they weren't legally married. You're requiring him to remit payment because he is the victim of fraud. Why?

I haven't seen anyone claim that he shouldn't be required to support the children, nor have I seen any indication that he has failed to do so.

[SunSeeker]

44. She lived with him for 25 years and helped raise their 5 kids.

She never worked outside the home for 25 years--raising 5 kids is a full time job. She has no other means of support other than Grayson. Regardless of whether she is a "gold digger" and "borderline insane," she is those 5 kids' mom and Grayson's companion of 25 years. Her motherhood is real, not a fraud. She was undeniably Grayson's companion for 25 years. There are no allegations she was still living with her former husband or had any relationship with him.

It has not been "demonstrated" let alone proven in court that the Graysons' marriage was not legal.

[Orrex]

47. You apparently don't understand the difference between alimony and child support

raising 5 kids is a full time job.

Golly, I never realized this before. I had assumed that raising five kids is effortless. I figured that it was bonbons and video games all day long. Thanks for cluing me in!

Show me one person on DU who has asserted that raising five kids is anything less than an exhausting full-time job. Your condescension reveals quite a bit.

It has not been "demonstrated" let alone proven in court that the Graysons' marriage was not legal.

So stipulated; if the current marriage is found to be valid and is not annulled, then she should certainly be entitled to alimony as decided by the presiding judge. However, if she indeed has not divorced her previous husband, then her fraudulent marriage to Grayson should be annulled, and she should receive no alimony for committing a quarter century's worth of fraud.

Child support, by the way, is paid to the custodial parent to provide for the children.

Alimony, in contrast, is paid to one of the parties in a divorce. If, as appears to be the case, the marriage was fraudulent, then you'll need to demonstrate why she should receive alimony. She's apparently getting a house. That's a pretty good payoff for fraud IMO.

You have repeatedly attempted to conflate the two. This is either deliberately dishonest of you or else culpably ignorant. Which is it? Or is this another one of those inconvenient questions that you'll simply ignore?

[SunSeeker]

61. I'm not conflating the two.

Forgoing her own career to provide 25 years' companionship and raising his 5 kids establishes an implied contract for support, giving her the right to "palimony," even if there was no legal marriage. At least that is how it is under California law.

You sure are worked up about this. Grayson is worth over $20 million. He can afford to take care of the mother of his 5 children. And it's the right thing to do.

[Orrex]

62. That "contract" was forged under false terms

Therefore it can be voided, i.e., annulled. You're doing some wild acrobatics to paint this fraudulent bigamist as the victim, and one has to ask why. If Grayson had deceived her for 25 years, would you be leaping to his defense?

Forgoing her own career to provide 25 years' companionship and raising his 5 kids establishes an implied contract for support, giving her the right to "palimony," even if there was no legal marriage. At least that is how it is under California law.

Really? Does palimony apply even of one party is still married to someone else? Do tell. Please cite the exact statute that requires palimony to be paid to bigamists.

You sure are worked up about this.

That's a lie, and a desperate lie at that. Every time that claim is made--also phrased as "why are you getting so defensive?" or "you shouldn't take it so personally," it's an effort to distract, which is especially preposterous coming from you because I'm no more deeply involved in this conversation than you are. Are you "getting worked up about this" as well?

Grayson is worth over $20 million. He can afford to take care of the mother of his 5 children. And it's the right thing to do.

That's incredibly foolish of you. First, no one has claimed that he shouldn't support his children (or that he hasn't. Second, you're saying that he should give money to his fraudulent, bigamist pseudo-wife because she lied to him and their children for 25 years. Why on earth should that be the case? Do you argue that other 25-year criminals are entitled to their victims' money?


Since you don't answer questions posed to you, and since you conflate alimony and child support, and since you make false, desperate accusations to distract from the subject, it's clear that you have nothing to offer.

Done with you.

[SunSeeker]

63. No one has adjudged her a "fraudulant bigamist." nt

[Orrex]

67. No shit.

And I have stipulated that, if she turns out not to be a fraudulent bigamist, then she's certainly entitled to some manner of alimony, perhaps offset by the fact that she assaulted Grayson on camera.

If she's shown to be a fraudulent bigamist (which is, in this context, simply redundant) will you concede that the "marriage" is invalid and that she's entitled to no alimony? Or will you simply declare that she's entitled to alimony regardless, as you've done already?

[SunSeeker]

68. So until she is so adjudged, shouldn't he pay her spousal support?

For months now (the divorce proceedings have been going on 18 months per the OP article), he has not been paying her spousal support. She went on EBT to feed herself. Taxpayers should not be supporting the wife of a man worth over $20 million. Yeah, he's paying the house mortgage, phone and utilities, amounting to $10,000 per month, but he is paying no money for her support (food, healthcare, clothing, etc.), nor for repairs on the large, mold-infested house. http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/how-did-alan-graysons-wife-get-approved-public-ass/nhtMk/

Don't you think that's cruel? The woman gave him 25 years of her life and 5 kids. He will still have those 5 kids, and those 25 years, whether it turns out the divorce paperwork from her first marriage was finalized or not. So yes, I think he should pay for her support regardless.

I wish he would just pay the woman and get this behind him. We need him to fight for us, not fight his wife.

[Orrex]

69. You're becoming a caricature.

Don't you think that's cruel? The woman gave him 25 years of her life and 5 kids. He will still have those 5 kids, and those 25 years, whether it turns out the divorce paperwork from her first marriage was finalized or not. So yes, I think he should pay for her support regardless.

Did he not give her 25 years of his life? Why do you pretend that this he's the parasite in this equation? She gave him a 25 year lie, and she lied to their children. Don't you think that's cruel? Again and again and again and again you are painting her as the victim--do you really consider women so weak and helpless? Why?

Yeah, he's paying the house mortgage, phone and utilities, amounting to $10,000 per month, but he is paying no money for her support

Sell the fucking house and split the fucking proceeds. In this country entire families live on a year's income totaling less than this fraudulent bigamist is pulling in every month. If she can't scrape by on that, then maybe you're defending the wrong victim.


Ok, fine. Pay her spousal report until she's found to be a bigamist, and then she needs to pay that money back plus interest or else admit to committing fraud.

[SunSeeker]

70. Why are you so angry and calling me names?

I'm giving you my honest opinion.

I think he has more power than her. He's not the one on food stamps. She has no source of income. If (and again, nothing has been proven) she indeed failed to properly finalize the divorce of her first marriage, that is not fraud on the kids. She is still their mom and still loves them I presume. She can't sell the house without his approval, it is community property.

[Orrex]

71. Because your rhetorical style is intellectually dishonest

And I frankly don't believe that you're giving an honest opinion.

You're voicing bizarre conjectures and misrepresentations and then flatly ignoring the responses that you find inconvenient. You also assume that she is the victim, glossing over her assault upon Grayson. And, when called on it, you accuse me of anger--which is a lie--just as you did earlier.

I think he has more power than her.

So? If she's been lying to him for 25 years, then he's still the victim, and she's simply facing the consequences of her fraud.

He's not the one on food stamps. She has no source of income.

She's on food stamps? Really? She has assets totaling less than $2,250, as required by the Florida Food Assistance program? I find that unlikely. Further, I seriously doubt that her monthly childcare expenses exceed $10,000. So what was that about no source income, again? For that matter, why the hell can't she get a job? $10,000 per month buys a hell of a lot of daycare.

If (and again, nothing has been proven) she indeed failed to properly finalize the divorce of her first marriage, that is not fraud on the kids.

If she has portrayed herself--even once--as legally married to their father without correcting that statement, then it most certainly is fraud committed against the kids.

She can't sell the house without his approval, it is community property.

If, as you previously asserted, it's mold-infested a drain on their finances, they should dump it now and move on, community property or not. Otherwise the judge will order its disposition, and if she claims joint ownership due to a marriage that turns out to be fraudulent, then I imagine she'll find herself in quite a bit of trouble, expressly by her own making.

And I suspect that you'll still label her as the victim.


Do me this one favor, since you've demonstrated your reluctance to answer actual questions: if it is found that she is still married to her first husband, will you accept that the current marriage is invalid due to her bigamy? Can you answer that simple, straightforward question?

[SunSeeker]

72. I Googled it for you. Even Grayson admits she's not still married to her first husband.

The issue is when did she divorce her first husband. Grayson says he has court records that the final divorce judgment was entered in 1994 in Florida. She claims it was was done in Guam before she married Grayson in 1990. Grayson apparently tracked down her first husband and describes him as a "hermit"--sounds like the dude not only did not have any relationship with her but anyone in the world for the last 25 years.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/florida-rep-alan-grayson-back-court-bizarre-bigamy-case

So, it will never be found that "she is still married to her first husband."

And yes, she's on the Florida version of food stamps, EBT. She's not getting $10,000 a month; that is what Grayson is paying for the mortgage on the house and utilities. I already gave you a link that confirms all that.

You're welcome to run your own Google searches if you don't believe me or my links.



Whether or not she is a "victim" or greedy or insane, she is a human being and the mother of his 5 children and she should be treated accordingly.

[Orrex]

73. Predictably, you refuse to answer a simple, straightforward question

Goodbye.

[SunSeeker]

74. I answered your question(s), with links. I proved you were wrong.

Your question makes an incorrect assumption, which even Grayson is not making, that she is still married to her first husband. It's like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?"

It is undisputed that she divorced her first husband decades ago, the only question is was it before or after her 1990 marriage to Grayson.

If what you now know mean is if it turns out that Guam divorce was not valid and that 1994 divorce judgment Grayson found is void, do I think Grayson should pay to support her, my answer is yes.

She indisputably gave him over 20 years of companionship and stayed home to raise his 5 kids. He owes her. I am not saying this to beat up on Grayson. I'm saying this to stand up for the value of the work women do in the home.

Good bye.

[jwirr]

21. Yes to your second question. As to hard to get an annulment not when she hid the truth for that long

[cstanleytech]

33. But can you have a marriage legally with someone if they are still married to someone else?

And as someone else has pointed if he actually is offering to give her the house and support for the kids thats a pretty deal if she did conceal the fact that she never divorced her husband because if she did that he could very well get a court to deny giving her anything other than child support if he can prove she is still married to someone else.

[Sunlei]

7. "divorce" is always messy, especially if one side can't even 'divorce' because they lied.

But both sides can talk about it to anyone they wish, even todays political tabloid 'news'.

Grayson should release the 'annulment agreement', legally he could have given her nothing and give support just to his children.

[pipoman]

8. He deserves some measure of privacy if every lurid detail is going to be reported

since most lurid details which come out during the coarse of a divorce are half truths at best...

[brooklynite]

10. Happy to give it to him...

...which is why I'll be supporting Patrick Murphy in the Senate campaign.

[ladjf]

11. I think Grayson has seriously hurt himself political by public ally

conflicts with his wife so public ally. He either called the police or sued her because she was using his AMEX card. God Grayson, all you had to do was get a new AMEX card with a different number.

[jwirr]

22. You may be right. But Grayson is not one to lay down and roll over. That is what we like about him

as a congressman. I suspect that he is really angry at what she is doing. Jt is not in his nature to just give in.

[ladjf]

23. I remember a number of his speeches during the Bush administration.

I thought he was terrific then. I believe his marital problems have damaged his thinking. That happens, you know.

[newfie11]

12. This is his business and I could care less about his marital status

Two sides to every story and neither one any of my business.

[ladjf]

25. Of course it was his business and none of ours.

Yet, he allowed it to enter into the public forum as a result of some of his actions. I always have been a fan of his political positions.

[mopinko]

14. pretty much every divorced woman in america is now gonna

look pretty cross eyed at him.
i think he has been an ass. and a greedy one at that.

[jwirr]

24. Not me. If they are up on just what is going on they will be honest - getting taken is something

that can happen to either gender.

[naoya6161]

16. How likely is the judge going to grant this request?

[candelista]

18. "Gold digger" = defamation = another lawsuit.

.

[jwirr]

26. From the way she is acting now I would guess you are right about this but she will not win. The

name involved the use of his credit card and she took over $70,000 off it. He went to the police.

[jomin41]

29. I've been through two divorces so

I will never comment on another persons hell. I wish it on no one.

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. From a guy who champions "transparency" this move definitely seems "shady". n/t

[Orrex]

42. Apples=/=oranges

He probably closes the door when he uses the bathroom. Would you criticize this lack of transparency as well?

Or do you instead accept that one's personal life is very different from the workings of government and therefore understandably held to different standard of transparency?

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. Are you saying that divorce proceedings are like going to the bathroom?

[Orrex]

45. Well, going to the bathroom stinks less and isn't as messy

And typically fewer people will be shit on in the process.

[kooth]

46. Alan Grayson ...

Do any of you know how draconian the alimony laws in Florida are? That is a very real reason to keep on fighting and to seal the records. Those kids will be fine.

Good luck, Alan!

[yurbud]

51. Does this affect the work he does in Congress? If not, the most this tells you is whether or not to

date or marry the guy.

[yurbud]

54. when you can't beat someone on the issues, resort to gossip

It's the MSM and political establishment stock and trade.

Next to the horse race aspect of politics, it's about all the MSM will talk about--IF a politician isn't in favor with the owners of America.

Politicians who are obedient can have even the worst of sins left out of the public eye.

[arcane1]

55. Gossip Underground.

Details of someone's divorce is "Breaking News" now?

[Psephos]

56. The activity and interest shown in this thread and in news outlets demonstrates that it's news.

de facto

[Orrex]

57. If the Obamas announced that they're divorcing, would that be "breaking news?"

[madville]

66. He may also not want to disclose

How much wealth he has in offshore accounts, that could be a burden in a Senate campaign if he has millions sitting tax free in the Cayman Islands while he's trying to rally against Wall Street and millionaire corporate CEOs, etc here at home.

[apnu]

75. Divorces are ugly, spiteful affairs and nobody wins. They are also private things.

We should be minding our own business. The divorce proceedings should be private and sealed.

Also, going on TV and calling your ex a gold digger is a dick move. Especially if you want to keep the divorce process private.

[shenmue]

76. This is very sad

[randys1]

77. I want to know what TRUE, real Women liberals think of this, this is who I want to hear from