WTF? Alan Grayson's estranged wife is getting food stamps

[cali]

It appears to me that either someone is manipulating her or she's just dishonest and vindictive. I'm one of the few here that doesn't think much of Grayson, but this looks like bullshit to me.



Alan Grayson is one of richest congressman in the country, but just one week before Election Day, 9 Investigates has learned his estranged wife is now using tax dollars to support her children.

In front of his home, Channel 9's Karla Ray saw a septic leak. Inside the home, she saw mold in nearly every room.

"I don't have any money at all," said Grayson's wife, Lolita Grayson. "He's been holding all our money for years and years."

Grayson's wife said she applied for and received an EBT card from the state.

<snip>

But Alan Grayons' attorney, Mark Nejame, said it's no surprise the information is coming out now, one week before Election Day, arguing Lolita Grayson's assistance application is incomplete.

On the paperwork, she only claims $592 per child for her monthly income, but Nejame says Grayson is also paying the mortgage, utilities and phone bill for the home, a total of about $10,000 a month.

"This is abusing the public," Nejame said. "She's going out and asking for support because she can't support herself on $120,000? That's outrageous."

<snip>

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/how-did-alan-graysons-wife-get-approved-public-ass/nhtMk/

Grayson doesn't pay spousal support because he claims they weren't legally married. He says that she was still married to her first husband and is a bigamist. What a mess.

[jehop61]

1. Divorce

Brings out the worst in some people. They both should be ashamed for forgetting how this is affecting the minor children

[dilby]

2. I am sorry but she is not getting $120,000 a year.

He is paying the mortgage, utilities and phone bill. He is not paying for food which is where the EBT card comes in, it's also why his kids are on the free lunch program in their school. Thankfully we have programs like this to help women like her when their spouses turn into Dbags.

[valerief]

4. Why doesn't she give Grayson the kids like he wants? Why isn't she working? nt

[dilby]

7. Did she have 5 kids with her "real husband"

No she had 5 kids with a man she was married to for 29 years.

[valerief]

8. Sorry, but I updated the post before I saw your response. I found out she eventually

divorced her real husband.

[ChiciB1]

34. WHO Was Her Real Husband??

Is it not Grayson? I really don't know, please more information.

[valerief]

35. Some guy named Carson. I forget his first name. She was married to Grayson for years

before she got around to divorcing Carson. Grayson wasn't aware that she was married when he married her.

[stevenleser]

107. Which in effect means she was never married to Grayson and is the basis for his claims now

that she should get no alimony.

[valerief]

196. I don't know what if anything he's giving her. I think he might want his kids.

He's paying for his house where they live (all but him). I read something about him giving her 600 a month in child support, but who knows. Who knows who did what with whatever money. Maybe he's a bastard. Maybe she is. That's their business. I still think he's valuable as a congressman whatever his personal circumstances.

[stevenleser]

227. Agree in general. I won't take anything from her at face value after the abuse lie

If anyone researches it, they will see that in my comments here on DU I reserved judgement when those allegations first came out and said I wasn't supporting anyone until more facts come out. Then the video came out and we saw what the facts were, she lied about him, SHE is the physically abusive one.

Now we see she engaged in this monstrous lie pretending she wasnt married and got "married again" to Grayson and on the sly got divorced from the other guy several years later. This lie didn't only affect her and Grayson, she had kids and subjected them to the effects of this deception.

She is not worthy of any DUer taking her word and defending her. This isn't about gender or typical marital issues of spousal or child support. This is about a person who is a complete liar and who abused her partner physically and also abused her partner and children through these lies and not only deserves nothing from Grayson, she should repay him for any way that she profited from the fraudulent relationship, she should be prosecuted for bigamy, and she should lose custody of the kids.

[TBF]

12. Wow. nt

[dilby]

14. Not many job opportunities for a woman who was a stay at home mom for 29 years.

I went through a similar situation with my ex wife, she was not a stay at home mom but she did not make anywhere near the income I did. I paid the alimony and child support, I would have liked to have custody but that would have destroyed her. I see me kids all the time and they are quite happy.

I see women who go through what this woman is going through all the time, they either get discarded by their husbands or they file for divorce for legitimate reasons and the guy uses his money to pretty much crush them. It's pretty disgusting, he enjoyed the benefit of having a stay at home wife for 29 years, someone who took care of his home and kids. He needs to man up and look at paying her alimony is similar to a retirement package he would have paid to an employee who worked for him for 29 years.

[valerief]

17. I didn't know she was unemployable. However, he wants to raise the young

kids until a more permanent solution can be found. I haven't read he's an abusive dad or anything. Why doesn't she take advantage of this? They're his kids, too.

I guess it doesn't pay to hitch your entire wagon to a sole breadwinner.

And I think he was bullshit with her for being a bigamist. Not an easy thing to handle when you're a politician.

[TBF]

24. You are going to take away the kids she gave birth to

because he happens to have inherited money? Really? She's been a stay at home mom supporting him and taking care of the kids for years. Obviously to avoid paying alimony he has her living in a house he owns and pays the bills on. I'm sure she feels trapped in many ways.

You would think they would split the assets equally, she'd have a separate residence, and they would have joint custody. Isn't that usually how this works? Why should she lose her children?

[stevenleser]

57. You're going to leave the kids with someone who conveniently lied for years that she was already

married and was still married when she supposedly 'married' the person to whom she was currently with and then had kids with him putting that entire family at risk because of her lies?

Thats the person you think should raise the kids?

[TBF]

66. We have no idea who to believe here -

there are 2 people involved and god knows what each of them was doing behind the scenes.

But I'm not surprised to see the hatred against women here on DU - it's been about all one can count on lately coming to this website.

[stevenleser]

68. There is an article in the Orlando Sentinel that explains it all. She lied and she knew she lied.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-04-29/news/os-alan-grayson-accuses-wife-of-bigamy-20140429_1_alan-grayson-lolita-grayson-lolita-carson

[TBF]

78. That is Alan's lawyers interpretation -

her lawyer did not respond. One-sided article.

I'm not saying she's perfect - no one person is. But there are always 2 sides to a story. Just because he is a democrat doesn't mean he is holier than thou either.

[stevenleser]

109. And will be very easy for the courts to verify and thus highly likely that they are correct.

The best way to piss off a judge is to submit false documents and its pretty stupid if they are easy to verify, i.e. if the documents are court filings.

You are pushing a narrative where the chance you are wrong is so high it virtually demands one characterize your position as highly biased.

[treestar]

608. Best interests of the child factors

Are used. The lie has nothing to do with the kids. They only know their stay at home mom.

Kids are not used to punish a parent under the law. Both raise the child. Kids are not deprived if one parent to punish that parent. Not having residential custody does not cut that parent out of the kids' lives.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

158. Grayson made his fortune wholesaling international long-distance service

He is the self-made man archetype Republicans jerk-off to.

[TBF]

166. I know he's a wealthy politician in FL

but didn't know he made the money himself - just read his entry on wikipedia. I'm not about to choose "sides" though over a guy who is trying to screw over the woman who spent 30 years with him and raised his 5 kids. In a relationship of that length and given his successful career I'm sure she put a heck of a lot of effort into the homemaking role - being the sole parent while he was usually at the office, attending the requisite client and fundraising events, and all the rest that goes with the role of being the spouse of a high-powered lawyer/businessman/politician. My guess is that like any other couple in the world they both have their good & bad traits. Hopefully the judge will see through his nonsense and split up the equity in a reasonable fashion given what she has also put into the relationship.

[sabrina 1]

590. Actually he made much of his money doing what Dems cheered him for, going after

Corrupt Mercenary/Defense Contractors in Iraq and winning. Grayson is a target, and has been, of the far right because of his Liberal views and voting record. They have spent MILLIONS, see the last election in his district, trying to defame him.

His personal problems are his, not mine. I support him as a Democrat and hope he wins reelection we badly need him in Congress.

[dilby]

28. If she gave up the kids she is giving up the only leverage she has when it comes to a divorce.

If you look what he is doing he is basically using his money to destroy her and as a parent I would be ashamed to admit I let me kids live in that home with a septic leak and black mold everywhere.

He is fighting for an annulment because then he would owe here absolutely nothing in a divorce even though she dedicated 29 years to their marriage. And by the judge of his character I would argue he is only looking for the kids because he does not want to pay the child support either.

[stevenleser]

58. If she was still married when she and Grayson "Married" then she and Grayson were never married.

The second marriage is not valid.

[kcr]

60. Are you sure it isn't just a case of his lawyers finding a t not crossed on her first divorce?

and using that as an excuse?29 years is an awful long time to be married but not really married. What was she doing, leading a secret double life?

[stevenleser]

61. Apparently not since she then went back and got a divorce from her first husband.

I've been divorced twice and as I think anyone who has been through it will tell you, its pretty obvious when it is done and over and it's easy to make sure by checking court records.

[kcr]

62. Still doesn't explain the 29 years that have passed

Was she missing for long periods of time? I'm not getting why this means he has no oblgigations from an ethical or moral point of view? They were together as husband and wife for 29 years with five kids. It's okay for him to skip off like nothing happened? It makes him a scumbag.

[stevenleser]

67. Here is the article in the Orlando Sentinel that explains it. She lied and she knew she lied.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-04-29/news/os-alan-grayson-accuses-wife-of-bigamy-20140429_1_alan-grayson-lolita-grayson-lolita-carson

I wouldn't believe anything this person said. She lied about not being married then secretly got a divorce several years later. SHe lied about being abused when she was the abuser.

Under those circumstances, he definitely has no obligations towards her, that's for sure. The kids are a different story, but considering how she has lied a number of times now, I'm certainly not predisposed to believing HER story.

[kcr]

69. THat is an article about Grayson's accusation.

"Attached to the congressman's counterpetition was a final divorce judgment dated March 7, 1994. It lists Lolita Carson as the respondent, and Robert Carson as the petitioner."

Final judgement is dated 1994.

[stevenleser]

71. And it refers to court documents he provided that are easy for the court to look up.

Face it, the person whose side you are desperately trying to defend lied and lied repeatedly.

[kcr]

73. I'm not on anyoen's side. I'm simply not knee jerk jumping to defend Grayson

and smear his wife. I would say that generally about anyone. Finding out that your spuoses divorce wasn't final doesn't mean you're ethically off hte hook after 29 years of marriage. Trying to make that claim makes one a scumbag.

[stevenleser]

74. You are clearly on the wife's side. There is no evidence supporting her and plenty supporting him.nt

[kcr]

75. I'm on anyone's side if their spouse is trying to screw them over on a technecality

It's a scummy thing to do.

[stevenleser]

84. A technicality? Lying about being married and getting married again? Wow...

[kcr]

86. If he can leave his family in such deplorable conditions, then I don't believe him about anything

I don't believe for one second he didn't know she was married before

[stevenleser]

88. To quote you,but reversing the gender, "That is HER story" & you are buying it hook line and sinker

when you know this person has lied multiple times before.

[kcr]

89. It may be about the gender to you. It isn't to me. Go ahead and reverse the genders. I don't care.

Anyone, balls or ovaries, who would leave anyone in those conditions is a scumbag with no credibility.

[stevenleser]

93. Its obviously about gender for you. I'm following the facts. nt

[kcr]

103. You're believing Grayson

The facts do not automatically point to Grayson's spin.

[stevenleser]

105. This time. I withheld judgement initially with the abuse allegations. Then we found out she lied.

I am not falling for it again.

[kcr]

110. That's not how I remember it

I remember when the story broke that she'd called 911 and there had been a domestic abuse charge against him. He counters with this video showing that see, it's actually her! An edited video that cuts away for an undetermined amount of time then shows her shoving him away before she runs in the door and closes it. Some chose to buy his spin. Some of us did not. I don't know what happened, but his video did not show whit he claims it does. And now I'm even less inclined to believe him.

[stevenleser]

114. Then you remember it wrong. She lied, she got caught, she dropped the allegation. nt

[kcr]

116. Because domestic violence victims never drop charges n/t

[stevenleser]

136. Because the video proved she lied. nt

[kcr]

157. It did no such thing

It didn't prove anything.

[NanceGreggs]

566. Ssshhhhh!

If you are attempting to defend Grayson, it's not a good idea to raise the subject of video tapes - given that Grayson's campaign in 2010 edited a video of Grayson's opponent in order to make it appear he had said the exact opposite of what he actually said.

"In a new ad, Grayson accuses his Republican opponent Daniel Webster of being a religious fanatic and dubs him "Taliban Dan." But to make his case, Grayson manipulates a video clip to make it appear Webster was commanding wives to submit to their husbands, quoting a passage in the Bible. Four times, the ad shows Webster saying wives should submit to their husbands. In fact, Webster was cautioning husbands to avoid taking that passage as their own. The unedited quote is: "Don’t pick the ones [Bible verses] that say, ‘She should submit to me.’ "

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/rep-grayson-lowers-the-bar/

[Scootaloo]

526. As Stevenleser points out...

Filing false documents is a fantastic way to gt a judge on your ass like a starving pitbull. And marriage and divorce documents are super-easy to verify. So if you really think the claim is false, then we have to assume that Grayson is paying his lawyers to lose his case - and risk their own jobs from gross incompetence.

I personally find this an unlikely proposition.

[kcr]

531. I'm not disputing the existence of any documents

I was disputing the claim that she lied to Grayson I have no idea if she did or not. There is no evidence of that.

[Scootaloo]

534. Think for a moment

You don't dispute that there are documents proving the claim that she was still married when she married Grayson. i think we can agree that such documents are so easily verified that claiming their existence falsely is... kind of a ludicrous notion.

So. You don't think that getting married to someone, while already married to someone else, onstitutes a lie? That staying married to two people for several years, before finally filing for a divorce from one, constitutes a lie?

Come on. Are you saying then, that you think Grayson knew about the current marriage, and went ahead and married her anyway? 'cause that's really the only possible scenario where she's not lying to him, if this is the case.

[kcr]

536. Think for a moment

Why would there be two divorce filings?

[Scootaloo]

538. Could be any number of reasons

But it remains, she was still married when she married Grayson. and she certainly knew that, because if a divorce doesn't go through (for whatever reason), you are informed of that. It's not like you just put papers in and never hear back, and can assume it's a done deal. No, there's proceedings all over the place, more paperwork, back-and-forths.

There's really no way that you can "accidentally" be married to two people

[kcr]

539. You can believe a divorce is final.

Which would explain the second filing.

[dilby]

90. I don't care if she had sex with the whole Florida State Football team in 1994.

He was with her for 20 years after the divorce was finalized. 20 years where they had 5 kids and now because he was able to dig up the divorce which could be a paperwork technicality he feels he does not owe this woman anything. He is paying less per child in child support than I do and he is a millionaire, I don't know the guy. He does not represent me, I have no dog in the fight. But I can judge him on his actions and I will say he is a greedy pig. Did you see the house he is letting his children live in? In any other instance he would be called a slum lord.

[stevenleser]

92. What you care about is not what is at issue. nt

[dilby]

98. A man who does not take care of his family? Because I think that is the issue.

I may have missed something but when your children are on the School Free lunch program and your wife is collecting food stamps that says everything about him as a person. Next look at the home his children live, I would rather sleep in a tent than in that mold infested heap of shit.

[stevenleser]

104. That allegation comes from someone who we know has lied in accusations against him several times and

who lied and said she was not married and quietly got divorced years after engaging in a bigamous marriage ceremony.

Every time allegations have come out against him from the wife, the facts then come out that disprove them.

[dilby]

113. So she is lying that she qualifies for food stamps and free lunches at school?

Even his lawyer is saying she is not lying about the child support amount, but he twists it like a lawyer will and says that because his client who owns that home and is paying his mortgage that somehow constitutes income for her.

If he wants to try and claim she is getting $120,000 a year he should sign the house over to her free and clear then pay that $10,000 a month. I bet you dimes to donuts he would not pay shit on that house if he knew he was no longer going to turn a profit after he sells it.

And the news showed the black mold and sewage in the front yard so I don't see how that could be a lie.

[stevenleser]

118. No, no and no.

She not only doesn't deserve the house, she needs to repay every bit of value she got from the "marriage" because the marriage never existed, and that is exactly what Grayson's lawyers have filed to have happen.

She is in effect stealing the money he is paying for the house because she doesn't deserve maintenance because the marriage never existed. She should be paying rent money to him to live in that house.

[dilby]

121. Wow, just wow.

I don't even know how to respond to this, I guess he does not need to pay child support either because his kids are bastards.

[stevenleser]

123. You want her to profit from the lies and fraud? And you claim to be impartial?

In what universe should she be allowed to profit from lying that she was still married, get married again and have children and subject the other person and the children to the consequences of that deception?

[dilby]

125. There is no such thing as profit.

So he technically had a slave for 29 years, they were not married, he used her how he pleased and can toss her out like the slave she was. God forbid she get something after 29 years of having to deal with him.

[stevenleser]

127. Now you are just spinning for the sake of spinning. You are wrong. Admit it. nt

[dilby]

132. No I am talking about a human being who he was with for 29 years.

And 20 of them after she was technically divorced. This was not a short span fling, this was a woman who bore 5 children for him, played the trophy wife and took care of his house and kids. This is a woman who is being tossed out like she was yesterdays garbage. I know servants who got a better retirement package than what he wants to give this woman.

But we all can see how he views women and his own kids.

[stevenleser]

134. And lied and committed fraud to enable that relationship of 29 years. The time makes it worse not

better for her argument.

[dilby]

139. He did not seem to notice for 29 years.

He must have thought she loved him, he must have loved her. I mean I could understand if she lied and a year later filed for divorce to take half his shit. But this was 20 years later, so it looks worse for him and 10x worse when you throw in he is treating his 5 children just as bad as his wife.

[stevenleser]

141. That's the point of fraud and deception. To deceive. You make my point. nt

[dilby]

151. So should he have to pay for his illegitimate kids?

Or should he escape that too since he was tricked into fathering them? I mean he is currently getting off pretty light with that $596 a month per child but he could even save more money if he goes to the judge and says how he was out smarted by a stay at home mom into having kids out of wedlock. It is Florida he could probably get away with that.

[kcr]

131. Are you the type that says things like "Marriage is just another form of prostitution?"

I bet you are.

[stevenleser]

133. No, and that has nothing to do with this discussion.

In fact, courts routinely award money to any spouse where it appears the other has wasted marital assets.

In this case, she has used marital assets to which she was not entitled because no marriage exists.

[kcr]

144. It has everything to do with it

Just because there's a possibility their marriage wasn't valid due to reasons we don't fully know doesn't mean she's automatically a crook who owes him money. That viewpoint can only come from one who sees marriage only as a financial transaction and nothing else.

[stevenleser]

145. Nope, I won't let you hijack the discussion down a meaningless tangent. nt

[kcr]

153. I'll post whatever I like

And there isn't anything you can do about it

[kcr]

129. So he's lying too, then?

They were never actually together? Are the kids actors?

[stevenleser]

135. Again, now you are just spinning for the sake of spinning. Admit you are wrong and move on. nt

[kcr]

140. No. I'm just being a typical human being with ethics and a conscience.

I know it's a trite saying, but marriage isn't just a piece of paper. If she actually didn't tell him about the marriage and knew she wasn't divorced, that isn't cool. But there's no evidence of that. There's a final judgment in 1994. That's all. That does not automatically mean their whole life together was a sham.

[stevenleser]

142. If you have ethics and a conscience, you are ignoring them here. nt

[kcr]

146. Really? Show me how?

The date of a final divorce judgment is not evidence of deliberate fraud. Show me what I'm ignoring.

[stevenleser]

147. You are arguing in favor of a woman who subjected her children to this horrible lie. nt

[kcr]

149. The horrible lie there is no evidence of

Again. Show me.

[Generic Other]

137. I believe Grayson lost his money

$18 million in some fraudulent investment. Not sure what he is worth these days.

[dilby]

143. I looked it up he is worth $16.69 million.

And draws $174k a year in his salary as a Congressman.

[Generic Other]

205. He lost the money last year

So if he's now worth 16 million, he made a fast recovery! Why doesn't my bank account ever do that??

[dilby]

206. he was worth $34 million and lost $18.

So he almost took a loss but still recovered a little since. Notice he is more upset losing a little money to a woman he was with for 29 years over the $18 million he lost to a swindler.

[Generic Other]

209. He should spring for the kids' lunch money then

He's not like my old man always harping on turning off the lights to save a few cents.

[tblue37]

148. She says her former husband filed those 1994 papers, without her involvement. She also says he

arranged the divorce in 1981. It sounds to me as though she is a woman who lets her husband take care of business, including all paperwork and all legal matters, and simply signs what he tells her she needs to sign. No doubt that is also how she signed their joint tax returns.

My mom was a woman like that, as was I during my marriage (I married young).

Mrs. Grayson probably did think she was divorced when she met and married Grayson, even if her first husband did not make sure the 1981 divorce was 100% legal. I seriously doubt that she lied about it. Why on earth would she? If she actually believed her first marriage wasn't completely and legally ended, but she wanted to marry the new man in her life, who just happened to be a wealthy lawyer, all she would have to do is tell him about her doubts concerning whether the first marriage was legally dissolved. He would check into it and take care of any legal loose ends, and then they could get married as planned. It makes no sense to assume that she deliberately neglected to properly divorce her first husband and then deliberately lied to keep Grayson from finding out and easily fixing the problem so they could be sure to be legally married. There is no possible scenario in which a woman would think that is a good way to handle things, or that she would in any way benefit from doing that.

On the other hand, the way he is behaving follows a pattern that is so common that it is a cliché. He stands to benefit in a number of ways if he can disappear their 29 years of marriage, during which she provided companionship (including sex), kept house, birthed and raised his numerous children, and, one presumes, served as hostess when he entertained.

Whatever the reason for the ruin of their relationship, he is obviously furious at her. The video of the incident during which she claimed he shoved her shows no such shove, but I don't necessarily assume that just because he is on the same political side that I am on, that necessarily means he is an angel in his private life. Wealthy, powerful men do sometimes abuse their wives. I am not saying he did, but that he could have, and we have no proof either way. She could be lying about that, but without proof, we just don't know.

What I do know, though, is that his words and actions about her, the ones we do know about, are filled with anger. He is acting publicly like a man who is used to calling the shots, being in control, and having his "underlings" jump to do what he tells them to do, a man who is really pissed off that things are not going the way he thinks they are supposed to go. He is behaving punitively toward her, not at all graciously, even though he knows the whole country is getting an eyeful and earful. He cannot even put on a mask of graciousness in public, despite the damage that he has to know this ugly, ugly divorce is doing to his image and his political prospects. He is rich enough to arrange a comfortable set-up for her and for the kids. If he were not angry and determined to punish her, that is what he would do—especially after 29 years and 5 kids together! She is asking for joint custody, with her as the primary caretaker. In other words, she is not trying to keep the kids from him at all. Besides, he works a lot, so if they are not with her when he is working, they would have to be with a nanny of some sort. Obviously it is better for them to be with their own mother, unless she is proven unfit—which I don't think is even in the cards.

Though she is not trying to take the kids away from him, he is apparently trying hard to take them away from her, and it looks as though his reasons are financial (to avoid paying child support) and punitive (to make her suffer through losing her kids). This is revealing, because it suggests that controlling and punishing her is more important to him than maintaining a viable public/political persona, which for a politician as ambitious as he seems to be strikes me as a clear danger sign. Even worse, it suggests that grinding her into the ground matters more to him right now than his own kids' happiness and well-being.

He is displaying over-the-top anger, a need for control, a willingness to risk or even sacrifice his own political viability and, even worse, the happiness and well-being of his children if that's what it takes to stick it to her and make sure she gets nothing from him. And he is doing all this despite 29 years of living and raising their children together, during which time she certainly provided "services" (housekeeping, giving birth to his kids and caring for them, hostess duties, companionship and sex), even if he is determined to insist that it wasn't a marriage after all. That is nasty and creepy--and it also, I am sorry to say, sounds like the behavior of a lot of men who are abusive in personal relationships. I am not saying that he is an abuser, since I have no way of knowing whether he is or not. But he is not making any effort not to appear nasty, vindictive, controlling—and abusive.

I want to like Grayson, since he supports the political positions I support and unlike so many other Dems, he is not too wishy-washy to tell the truth about the Republicans. But I think his behavior in this divorce is absolutely appalling. Even if his wife did deliberately lie about the divorce (which I honestly doubt), that would not excuse the ugly behavior we are seeing from him.

[kcr]

152. A thousand thank yous

Could not be said better

[dilby]

160. Hopefully he has to surender all his "#1 Dad" mugs.

The idea that he is going for annulment that gets him out of alimony and child support is just disgusting. Hopefully he supports good social services since his kids and wife will be homeless and broke by the time he is done with them.

[riderinthestorm]

169. + 1000 nt

[Generic Other]

208. Very insightful

You have a career as the new Kitty Kelley. She was that biographer who wrote all those exposes of people she never met.

Seriously though, I suspect you may be right about your assessment of the situation.

BTW, I believe the ex is Asian. How might that effect the dynamics?

[Cha]

220. Thank you for your post, tblue

[stevenleser]

231. You forgot several important things. The primary one being we know she is a liar from the abuse

issue.

At that point, the cliche you are trying to suggest exists completely falls down. We don't have a typical or cliched situation of spousal and child support. We have a liar who tried to get someone arrested and reputation ruined based on her lie.

And about the 'Oh gee, I don't know, I am just an innocent little person meandering through life letting others take care of things who though she was divorced' thing? No, first of all, someone who lies like she did about the abuse allegations isn't just an 'innocent little person'.

Now, this innocent little person, never looked for a divorce decree? Never had anyone check up on her divorce case which by the way was in the same state. And when she found out did she tell her "new husband". Did she say, "Oh my god, look what my previous spouse did, he screwed me and screwed us because he never took care of this? Please help me because I am just an innocent little person meandering through life letting others take are of things and my supposed ex never took care of this"?

No, she didn't. She hid it from Grayson. Why did she hide it? Because she knew about it all along and felt guilty. And completely unlike "an innocent little person meandering through life letting others take are of things" she quite ably filed for divorce in Broward county, keeping it all on the down-low and got it done without her new partner who she lived with knowing.

So no, your narrative doesn't work at all, not even a little bit.

[hfojvt]

331. that's pretty much how I feel

except some people keep saying 29 years.

They met 29 years ago, in 1985, got married 24 years ago, in 1990.

Then she files for divorce and he is now claiming she owes him money for all the years of marriage.

Not sure about the whole "false accusation of domestic abuse" thing. May need to search out a story and video.

[NanceGreggs]

542. Excellent analysis!

"... grinding her into the ground matters more to him right now than his own kids' happiness and well-being."

Exactly.

[closeupready]

507. Yes, a technicality. It's like "it's just a flesh wound."

[stevenleser]

545. ROFLMAO, exactly. The nonsense put forth by those trying to justify Lolita's actions is

beyond ridiculous.

[DeadEyeDyck]

584. people have believed they were divorced and remarried only to discover the state they

in does not recognize the divorce. I.e. Mexican divorce, no show divorce, etc.

[NanceGreggs]

603. When my father passed ...

... several years ago, his (second wife) applied for his SS benefits, and was told that their 40-plus year marriage was not legal, as my dad's Mexican divorce from my mom was not recognized.

So, yes, it happens. And it took over forty years to surface as a problem.

[TBF]

79. That's bullshit. No one is on either "side" -

unless you happen to be his personal friend or something. In which case you are clearly siding with him and purposely smearing her.

Nasty.

[stevenleser]

85. Your attempt to claim you aren't biased is what is bullshit. And its obvious. nt

[seabeyond]

171. most men wont cotton to a father allowing children to be in mold infested house while sittin on mils

most women will not think much of a man that allows the children to live in that environment, trying to throw away a 29 yr marriage, her raising the five kids, screwing her of everything and no child support.

no one is gonna be impressed with this man

he is running for office? and his greed and hate was so much more important than just doing what was right.

he deserves to lose, and the democratic party doesnt deserve this. nor his kids. nor the wife and i do not care how horrid she is.

doesnt change what grayson is doing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

183. Allowing?? He's asking the court to take them from that house.

Don't be coy. Your concern isn't for the kids but for the mom. The lying, abusive, fraudulent mom.

[seabeyond]

186. more nasty shit. he is letting the kids sit in the filth as punishment to the wife. MOST PARENTS,

regardless, see thru this shit and think it is vile. i do not give a shit about either parent. but i stand by what i say. this is about him, and what is more important to him. screwin over this woman takes precedence over all.... including his kids, including this race.

he is a contemptible man. i saw it well before the divorce.

now, defend the man that would do this to his children dude. cause i do not know one father in my life that would defend this. i watched my brother get gutted, by a nasty nasty woman for over a decade. and the one thing he focused on, always....

what was best for his daughter. time and again. wasnt about him. wasnt about the woman. it was about his daughter.

do not tell me my position on shit.

[LawDeeDah]

207. righteous rant

[laundry_queen]

212. +1 nt

[Cha]

221. Yes, "righteous rant"!

[Mojorabbit]

330. If I was married to a man who was still married

when he married me and then got the divorce on the sly, I am pretty sure I would be emotionally devastated by it. That is a huge breech of trust. A BIG lie. If these allegations are true, I can understand a strong response if only because of the hurt it would have caused. If someone lies about something like that they probably lie about many other things as well.

[kcr]

333. Absolutely

Would you also subject your children to that response? This is what makes me think the allegations are false. I think he knew all along and is using it as a weapon because he's being cruel all around. No one who is decent would put their kids through this as well. They are living in deplorable conditions. He's claiming she should pay all the money back during the 29 years. And that he shouldn't have to pay child support either. Because they aren't his kids? He's one of the richest men in Congress and she hasn't worked. Devestated, sure. Cruel to this extent? To his entire family? No, these are over the top tactics by his high priced lawyers to get her to back down. Not iornclad declarations of truth declaring her a liar.

[stevenleser]

335. Very well and succinctly put. Add the lie on the abuse allegation, and you see the kind of person

we are dealing with in Lolita Grayson. Some folks are trying to put together scenarios where she didnt lie, it doesnt work. See my #302 below. I would be interested in your take. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5739958

Oh and on the allegation that he is a deadbeat dad, he is actually paying $600/mo per kid AND is paying $10,000/mo for the house in which his non-wife and kids live. So the other person who responded to you is calling that being a deadbeat dad.

[randys1]

388. Kudos to Rove and the Koch's, they really hate Alan because he tells the truth, surprised

he is still alive, actually, or like Siegelman not in prison.

[steve2470]

490. in Florida, both sides get a copy of the final judgment notice/decree

I know, I'm in Florida and am divorced. Both sides have to provide an address where it is to be mailed to or an attorney who will receive it. You know when you are legally divorced if you are paying any attention whatsoever. I just cannot see getting remarried when you don't have ironclad evidence you are divorced. It's pretty common knowledge that you can't remarry until you're divorced, at least that's my impression.

On a side note, Steven, you do great work on Faux News. Going into the mouth of the lion and all that. Keep up the good work, I know it's not easy.

[kcr]

500. It would be a pretty hard thing to hide then, wouldn't it?

How did that divorce decree go through without Grayson knowing about it? She must have been watching the mailbox every day, hoping he didn't see it. Pretty sketchy living, married to a politician while filing court cases hoping he won't notice.

[steve2470]

508. it's possible she provided a fake address

Again, I have no idea what the truth is. It is possible the decree was mailed to the correct address and she did nab it before he could see the mail. It's also possible (but not probable) that the decree was never mailed, by a clerical error. Providing notice of documents is just basic legal procedure. It's also possible that she had a lawyer who did not notify her of the final decree, which to me is legal malpractice. I know that one must be legally divorced before you can remarry again, but it's possible Mrs. Grayson was not aware of this. However, in general, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

One possibility is that Mrs. Grayson, not being a lawyer or well-versed in the law, didn't think it really mattered. Most people don't pay a lot of attention to legal details.

tl/dr, like everyone else, I don't know what transpired in reality. It does not look good that Mrs. Grayson was married to two men for about 4 years.

[kcr]

514. That's my point. There are multiple possibilities. We don't know what that filing means.

Grayson is claiming it's bigamy but that isn't necessarily the case. Even if it is, it doesn't mean she intentionally knew about it and deceived him. She may not have known herself. We don't know. This is obviously a messy divorce.

[msanthrope]

579. It was a divorce filed in Guam. I agree she should have made sure the ex

filed the papers, but I can also see her assuming that the ex was going to do what he said.

[lumberjack_jeff]

150. Exactly. Her whole motivation.

[dilby]

155. Yeah her whole motivation was to have 5 kids from this guy so she can get everything he had.

I mean how much money did he have in 1985 when they met? This woman has to be the most brilliant strategist in the world because she gave up her whole life for this pig in the hopes of what? Getting a cool couple million to spend when she is old.

[laundry_queen]

213. IKR?

Apparently, not only is she a lying, manipulative, scheming money-grubber, but she's psychic too! And she specifically endured pregnancy, labor and birth 5 times over to seal the deal.

[stevenleser]

264. Well, the tactic seems to be working with you. You forgive every lie and scummy act by her

because kids exist. Somehow that absolves her of all.

[demwing]

215. "by the judge of his character"?

what do YOU know about this man's character?

[pnwmom]

501. She was the primary caregiver to those young kids. it would be to their benefit

to have the continuity to remain with her, and not go with him just so he can save some money. He's still going to be in Congress, traveling a lot.

[UglyGreed]

44. The long term unemployed are

Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 08:40 AM - Edit history (1)

also having trouble finding jobs these days.

[Dont call me Shirley]

80. Yup, they throw the ex and their own children into poverty. The lawyers and judges let them do it.

They abandon their child(ren).

Women and children often get the bad end of the stick in break ups.

[lumberjack_jeff]

154. I understand he has petitioned for custody.

If anything, she is holding their children in poverty.

[seabeyond]

156. ohhh. a new low. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

165. Indeed.

Oh, you mean me... not the battering, lying, money grubbing Lolita. n/t

[TBF]

168. Wow - I think you forgot a few of the

stereotypical adjectives. Come on you can insult women better than that - try harder.

[lumberjack_jeff]

176. If Lolita Grayson is the standard by which you want women judged, that's your call.

I wasn't insulting "women"; only the lying, fraudulent domestic abuser in question.

[TBF]

189. There are two sides to every story -

wish they had gotten this settled before election day but he is obviously hell bent on screwing her over. After 29 years someone doesn't just wake up and become evil. My guess is that good and bad exists with both sides of the story but we've only heard what Grayson's attorney has to say.

[Dont call me Shirley]

240. That may be best for the children. Kids raised in poverty have a difficult childhood,

that carries through into adulthood.

The woman's polygamist lie points to the concern that she may have a history of chronic lying.

[treestar]

609. Whoah

He is setting that up.

Money is not the only custody factor. Too many men want it to be that simple.

They have been with their mom all these years. He does not get to buy his way into taking advantage of that.

Classic blaming woman for mans actions.

[lumberjack_jeff]

610. Not the only factor?

True enough. Things like fraud, making false statements, allowing the home in which you live to crumble (bleach and Kilz paint are both eminently affordable) and video proof that you are a spousal abuser are also factors.

They've been with their dad "all these years" too.

Classic infantilizing women to excuse her own actions.

[treestar]

611. None of that affects the children

744.312?Considerations in appointment of guardian.—
(1)?Subject to the provisions of subsection (4), the court may appoint any person who is fit and proper and qualified to act as guardian, whether related to the ward or not.
(2)?The court shall give preference to the appointment of a person who:
(a)?Is related by blood or marriage to the ward;
(b)?Has educational, professional, or business experience relevant to the nature of the services sought to be provided;
(c)?Has the capacity to manage the financial resources involved; or
(d)?Has the ability to meet the requirements of the law and the unique needs of the individual case.
(3)?The court shall also:
(a)?Consider the wishes expressed by an incapacitated person as to who shall be appointed guardian;
(b)?Consider the preference of a minor who is age 14 or over as to who should be appointed guardian;
(c)?Consider any person designated as guardian in any will in which the ward is a beneficiary.
(4)?If the person designated is qualified to serve pursuant to s. 744.309, the court shall appoint any standby guardian or preneed guardian, unless the court determines that appointing such person is contrary to the best interests of the ward.
History.—s. 1, ch. 74-106; s. 12, ch. 75-222; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 5, ch. 79-221; s. 27, ch. 89-96; s. 15, ch. 90-271.
Note.—Created from former s. 744.35.

744.312?Considerations in appointment of guardian.—(1)?Su…

Those are the legal requirements; nothing to do with punishing the wife for failure to do what husband wants her to do.

[lumberjack_jeff]

612. Domestic violence doesn't affect the kids? Did you seriously just say that?

When all else is equal, given the choice between a violent applicant and a nonviolent one, courts should pick the latter.

But all else isn't equal. As poster after poster upthread have noted, the kids are suffering in a household with only a $13,000 monthly income, led by a violent bigamist welfare fraud.

[treestar]

613. I just quoted what is seriously Florida law

Does it say anything about domestic violence?

It's not your feelings that count, but Florida law.

You are of course assuming she is guilty of domestic violence, but even if guilty of it on that level - shoving him once, no it probably wouldn't affect the kids enough to be a factor in deciding who gets residential custody.

[seabeyond]

30. hold out on being a decent guy to get what you want? nah. shouldnt work that way.

that being said. i am really not versed on this. i do not like grayson. i do not like the mean and cocky streak i saw in politics. him behaving like this surprises me not.

i do not know anything about the woman

i am not gonna get informed. i just saw your comment, and wanted to make that statement.

i can well be wrong.

[LawDeeDah]

197. we all know raising kids and looking after a house is not 'real' work.

and sure, return the kids to the 'owner' like car keys.

[valerief]

199. His kids to him? Why not? And when the government PAYS us to raise kids and

take care of homes, then you can squawk about it not being real work. You don't get money from raising kids and staying at home. Unless you're a trust fund baby, you have to work for money.

[LawDeeDah]

201. I don't want to talk to you.

I am disgusted.

[Demsrule86]

371. Are you kidding?

I would not give the kids to a man who allowed them to live in squalor while he is filthy rich...I must say I am shocked. I thought better of Grayson.

[joeglow3]

11. Maybe she could downgrade from a fucking $10,000 a month residence

and then have plenty of food for the kids.

[dilby]

16. He owns the house.

She can't sell it or do anything with it, if she moves out she will be homeless. And the only reason he is paying that $10,000 is because it's his asset that he will retain once he gets what he wants and has her evicted. Saying he is paying her $10,000 a month is a little disingenuous.

[joeglow3]

19. Then why is he cool with septic leaks and "mold in every room"?

[dilby]

22. Probably because he does not live there.

And is not going to do anything to improve the quality of life of his wife who he is trying to get an annulment from.

[LanternWaste]

55. The rational mind would direct that particular query to Grayson himself, yes?

The rational mind would direct that particular query to Grayson himself, yes?

[joeglow3]

56. Cool. Got his phone number?

[Jamastiene]

170. Isn't he a member of DU?

Send him a PM?

[MineralMan]

391. He is, yes. In fact, he posted

most recently on October 30, 2014, the same day as this smear story from his district was posted. He was asking for support for his campaign, and linked to a current campaign video:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251382515

[closeupready]

509. Can she get a job, like most everyone else?

Other mothers work. Why can't she?

[dilby]

511. I am sure she is working on it. Resume is a little bleak though kind of looks like:

Experience: Married to a slumlord for 25 years who I gave 5 kids and all I got was this t-shirt, no wait he wants the shirt back.

Qualifications: None

Work History: None

Hobbies: Can't afford hobbies, unless counting black mold spots in the flop house I am crashing in is considered a hobby.

References: None, ex husband bought them all as punishment.

[closeupready]

512. Or, maybe she's not working on work.

She doesn't seem like one who is big on supporting herself.

[dilby]

524. At 53 most people are looking towards retirement.

Especially those who put 25 years of service doing one thing. But she can always rely on Social Security, nope she did not work for 25 years so she basically won't be getting much out of that. There is a reason we have Alimony, it's to protect those who dedicated their lives to their significant other.

[ancianita]

525. If there's no annulment she'll get Social Security just by being Grayson's spouse for ten years.

In terms of "protection," alimony doesn't exist as its substitute. She might get it, but she'll also receive SS benefits.

[kcr]

516. Really?

Do you say the same thing about the unemployed generally speaking? You know they aren't just handing out jobs with liveable wages to everyone?

[closeupready]

523. We get it. We get you support her unconditionally.

You're all over this thread saying you're unbiased, slamming everyone and anyone who says boo about her.

[kcr]

527. No. I responded to a post asking why can't she work.

I would respond that way about anyone.

[840high]

29. Thank God. My daughter

in a similar situation.

[dilby]

31. A lot of women are and it's sick.

Stay at home mom's have nothing and during a divorce the person with the money usually denies all access to credit cards, bank accounts and everything. They do this because they know they can manipulate the spouse who is dirt broke to give into their demands. This piece of trash is taking it one step further and trying to go for an annulment so he does not have to pay her a penny. I am sorry but this guy has Millions and his still wife is getting food stamps, if he does not like that then start making some alimony payments to show she has an income other than the child support. And I am blown away he is paying less for child support as a millionaire than I pay, with his income it should easily be $1,000 a kid.

[TBF]

39. Often a spouse like that limits

their access to funds during the marriage as well. If you don't find out what you are dealing with ahead of time you can find yourself married to a controlling asshole. You don't want to lose your kids so you stay married. I'm surprised she filed for divorce without trying to find a job first. Even though she hasn't worked in years she had to know he would react like this. I hope the court helps her out but I don't see this ending well for her because he will have a very high-paid attorney on his side and who knows what kind of counsel she has.

[dilby]

41. Having a job would have hurt her when going for alimony.

Judge would have taken her income into account when deciding the alimony payments. Even a minimum wage job could have cut her alimony in half. She will be able to get representation, there are a lot of attorneys out there that will gladly be paid after the divorce. Her lawyer is probably the one who told her to go on public assistance, with his political career on the line every time she shows poverty it will get on the news and force him to either give her money or speed up the divorce process.

[TBF]

48. Interesting -

It's hard to know what happens in a relationship and when there are 2 people there are always 2 stories. But I feel for her because I have some idea what it's like to be in such a marriage, and the person with the money makes the rules. It shouldn't be that way but in reality it is.

[dilby]

51. Yeah I tried to be as fair as possible for my ex when we divorced.

I told her not to stress on getting a better job while going through the divorce so she would get maximum on the Alimony. I made the house payments, cell phone payments and car payments while going through the process along with paying child support and what we agreed upon as temporary Alimony payment.

When the divorce was finalized the judge modified the Alimony and Child Support just slightly based on my income going up but it was not a major difference. I also transferred ownership of the house and two cars over to her. It was not a messy divorce at all and we did not bother with lawyers. The only downside is whenever I date a woman who finds out how much I pay in Alimony/Child Support plus gave the house and cars they get all bent out of shape and act like she is ripping me off. This is the one thing that pisses me off, it's my money and I see nothing wrong with making sure my kids are taken care of. And if I was not paying that money to my ex I surely would not be spending it on a woman who thinks a man taking care of his kids is being ripped off.

[stevenleser]

106. There isn't going to be alimony because there is no marriage to dissolve. She was already married.

Her marriage to Alan was not valid.

[dilby]

117. That will be for the Judge to decide.

Even if the marriage was not valid if you have a partner that you lived with for 29 years, had 5 kids and shared everything it would be enough for a judge to rule in her favor.

[stevenleser]

119. No, it won't. There is no legalized multiple marriage in Florida. It's a done deal.

You cannot cite a precedent where a second marriage like this was declared to be valid in a state that doesn't allow multiple marriages (which is basically all of them) because there isn't one.

They were never married and she committed fraud against him.

[kcr]

128. Yes, because we should just automatically believe everything Grayson's laywer says as fact

What does her lawyer say about that?

[stevenleser]

138. You're argument is so desperate as to be pathetic. This will be very easy for the court to verify.nt

[kcr]

172. Okay

I'm not sure why you're so adamant in defending him, then.

[stevenleser]

232. Well, aside from the now multiple lies she has told affecting him and the kids...

... which would be bad enough, she is now attempting to affect the congressional seat and flip it from a Democrat to a Republican.

So to screw him, she is screwing all of us, and it is all based on lies.

So, yeah, her lies have now become my problem, and all of our problems by extension.

[kcr]

233. They're only lies if you believe Grayson

Is she attempting to flip a congressional seat or is she defending herself in a divorce? What is she supposed to do? Roll over and give him what he wants and just go iive in a cardboard box?

[stevenleser]

236. No, no faith in Grayson is required. We have her abuse lie on video, her divorce case we can look up

in Broward county. Those are massive pieces of evidence that make it clear what we are dealing with here.

[kcr]

238. Nothing, including the video, shows these things.

All I see is evidence of a divorce with one side using his powerful lawyers he can easily afford to throw up as many charges as they can to wear the other side down and get them to give in. It's a common tactic. I understand the compelling need some have to defend him because he's a dem. But it doesn't change the fact that what he and his lawyers are doing is scummy. Does it mean I hope he loses his seat? I wouldn't go that far. But I'm not blind to what he's doing.

[stevenleser]

239. Yes, it does. And she and her attorney know it, thats why they immediately dropped the request

for a restraining order and other actions against him in it's wake.

[kcr]

241. You choose to believe his lawyers and the scummy tactics. Whatever floats your boat.

It takes some mental gymnastics to do, like ignoring the fact that it means absolutely nothing that the request for the restraining order was dropped. You keep repeating that like it's a slam dunk talking point that proves you're right. Grayson must be the good guy because she did *somethingthatvictimsactuallydoallthetimejustignorethatfact* See! She's the bad guy! And you just keep repeating that thinking it makes you right. Yet I'm the desperate one.

[stevenleser]

242. LOL, "don't believe your lying eyes, believe me!" No, sorry. All evidence is with Alan Grayson here

We have the video

We have her court case in Broward county where she was able to hire an attorney to end her first marriage but supposedly was too waifish to take care of it in the first place, oh and she hid it from Alan and never told him anything about it. http://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=1044346&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE93027215&SearchType=

We know in the wake of his attorney letting her attorney know that he found out about the first marriage, that is when she alleged the abuse in order to counter the effects of that information.

And you are buying her story.

And lets not also forget, that she is now attempting to flip the congressional seat to Republican in a vindictive effort to hurt him, which would hurt all of us.

This is a real wonderful person you are backing here kcr. You really should take a step back and re-evaluate.

[kcr]

244. Again. No evidence.

Where is the evidence he didn't know? Where is the evidence she lied about it? All that shows is she responded to an action filed by her ex in 1994.

[stevenleser]

247. See my #245 below in response to your other post. What you assert is ridiculous

on multiple levels.

[kcr]

290. I saw it. Nothing at all ridiculous about what I'm asserting.

The evidence points exactly to what I'm asserting. This is a couple together for a long time in a very messy contentious divorce with one side very powerful and rich using very powerful lawyers further inflaming the mess. She is actually not the soap opera villain those pricey lawyers are making her out to be. The logical, reasonable evidence based scenario is more likely.

[stevenleser]

298. It's completely ridiculous and by now, you know it. nt

[Cha]

222. FWIW.. I don't think you sound "desperate" at all. I've enjoyed reading what you and dilby have

to say about this.

[kcr]

235. Thank you

[stevenleser]

252. Of course she does Cha. Their attempts to explain the bigamy away require magical thinking.

There is no narrative they can put forward regarding that bigamy that remotely makes sense.

[kcr]

299. You are the one ignoring the fact that marriages happen when divorces weren't final

You're ignoring that it's a possibility in this case. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility and insist the only explanation for the divorce in 94 is that she is a liar, despite the fact there is no evidence of her lying. No magical thinking going on here on my part.

[stevenleser]

303. Nope, I never did that. I object to your magical thinking for the events after that. nt

[kcr]

309. There's a whole thread of posts of you doing that. n/t

[stevenleser]

310. Nope, I never once said that. I said that her actions afterward shows that she knew. nt

[kcr]

317. But you don't say what actions those are.

What has she said or done to show that she knew but he didn't?

[stevenleser]

319. Yes I have repeatedly. And I brought them all together in #302 below. nt

[kcr]

321. No, you haven't. Not once.

Not one shred.

[stevenleser]

323. I'm very happy to stand on what I wrote in #302 to let people see how insane your argument is. nt

[kcr]

324. As is your right. But it doesn't show any evidence that she lied.

[stevenleser]

325. I'm very happy to stand on what I wrote in #302 to let people see how insane your argument is. nt

[kcr]

326. Yes, totally insane.

Thinking a divorce was final when it wasn't. Craaaaaaaazy!!!!

[Nay]

271. I don't know about Florida's laws back at the time when her first marriage was

legally dissolved, but isn't it possible that common-law marriage laws would kick in? Sure, the Graysons never were officially married, but after a period of time of living together (after she was officially divorced) they may be considered married in the common-law sense.

She sounds like a real lying asshole, but he is being crazy in his vindictiveness. It does no one any good, least of all his kids.

[stevenleser]

272. No, Florida has not had common law marriage since 1968.

http://marriage.laws.com/common-law-marriage-florida

Even if it did, its pretty hard to believe that a court would recognize a relationship as common law like this where the basis for the relationship was fraud. Courts tend to frown on such things.

[JVS]

581. Could she be charged with bigamy?

[LawDeeDah]

81. If she really is on food stamps and the house mould conditions...

what kind of person would allow that to happen to his family? If this is true then Grayson is a despicable human being. He has milliions and he is going to withold basic comfort and safety from his family?

I hope this is not true, because if it is he is a filthy scumbag loserman.

[kcr]

83. But there's an article in an Orlando paper showing a divorce judgment from 1994

and that somehow justifies this behavior. I don't get it.

[LawDeeDah]

91. I noticed, like that has anything to do with mould and food stamps.

[stevenleser]

120. She has no right to be in that house. She needs to get out or pay rent. nt

[LawDeeDah]

122. Wow. Women who have been homemakers and child rearers for years have no rights.

Wow.

Even if the guy has millions in the bank.

[stevenleser]

124. So now you compare all women to this woman who lied and committed bigamy and subjected

the children she then had to that situation?

Do you really have such a low opinion of women to compare them to her?

[LawDeeDah]

126. Why do you hate This Particular woman so much?

[stevenleser]

130. Two reasons. #1 As I just said to you, she subjected her children and Grayson to the consequences of

her lies. She didnt care, she went ahead and did it. Do you have kids? Can you imagine subjecting them to the consequences of this kind of lie? That is what you are defending.

and #2 she is lying and trying to get away with it and in fact trying to profit from the deception while tarring Grayson who it doesnt appear has done anything wrong.

and I am sorry, a third reason, she has already lied about being the victim of domestic violence. That is a slap in the face to anyone who has experienced DV and another nasty thing to do to Grayson.

[NanceGreggs]

552. It would seem apparent ...

... that the consequences the children are being subjected to are being caused by Grayson.

He's the one refusing to properly maintain the home his children live in.

He's the one refusing to provide sufficient support so that his children don't require food stamps and free lunches. I would imagine that's pretty humiliating for the offspring of a public figure who is known to be a multi-millionaire.

He's the one waving the "your mother was never my legal wife, therefore I owe her nothing after a 29-year relationship" banner in public.

He's the one pursuing money from his children's mother, when his children are in the best possible position to know that the woman who bore them, raised them, cared for them, etc., has no financial resources of her own - while dad, on the other hand, has millions in assets, in addition to a substantial income.

While I don't agree with your assessment of what went on in this marriage, and who is to blame for what - let's put that aside and focus on the "consequences to the children" as a separate issue. Because when one does that, it seems obvious that the children have been humiliated by their father's actions, are living in an unhealthy house due to their father's actions, and are using gov't assistance in order to eat due to their father's actions.

As I've said before in this thread, Grayson is a self-serving douchebag. And any man who holds the mother of his children up for public scorn and humiliation is apparently NOT interested in what the consequences to his children are in doing so.

[msanthrope]

576. Sorry, Steve....I respect your opinion in many things. But no good father

would air this shit in public about the mother of his children. And you have no idea what Grayson knew, and what he didn't because no one really knows what went on in someone else's marriage.

Having been through a very messy divorce recently, I can say that Mr. Grayson had many honorable options. He chose none of them.

[NanceGreggs]

604. On the money ...

"Mr. Grayson had many honorable options. He chose none of them."

[snappyturtle]

289. Did Grayson know of her divorce in 1994? If so, why didn't he re-marry her?

Seems to me he knew that should there ever be a divorce he could continue to control and keep all. In summation, for 20 years Grayson had his way out planned should he need it. THAT is worse than what she did by not divorcing before she married Grayson???

[kcr]

292. Call me crazy, but most people don't think in terms of their eventual divorce. They just don't.

So the fact they didn't remarry isn't evidence he didn't know.

[snappyturtle]

300. I'm not saying that. I think he well knew of the divorce....so he perpetuated the

situation by not re-marrying her. Is that love? Concern for his kids to do right and set straight his marital status? I don't think so. I'm sorry but I think people do think about divorce...that's why there are pre-nups and because we have a huge divorce rate.

[kcr]

301. See, I think he knew about the divorce and now that their marriage is ending

he's using it to screw her over. He's one of the richest congressmen in the US, using a situation he knew about and lying about it to screw over his ex of 29 years and the mother of his children.

I agree. I think people think about divorce in the abstract. I don't think they think about it as an inevitable eventuality in their relationship. I think people get married and view their relationship as forever. That is their intention. They don't think divorce might never happen. But they don't plan on it happening.

[tammywammy]

313. I tend to agree with you on this.

Rarely does anyone marry thinking about divorce. I don't think she's all that great, but he doesn't look good either. And if you're a multimillionaire and your taken care finanancially your partner for 29 years, you shouldn't purposely fuck them over.

[kcr]

316. Yep. To be clear, I'm not saying I think she's perfect.

It's a messy divorce and I'm sure they're both getting down and dirty. But there's just no defending his actions.

[snappyturtle]

314. Yea! We agree on all of it. nt

[PDJane]

479. It is to her benefit to be on food stamps,

And I don't suspect that she is going to allow someone into the house to make repairs. Mind you, that particular tactic can backfire; since she is living in Grayson's house, and she was not married to him (and lied about being able to marry him), at the very least, she could be declared non compos mentis. She could also be deemed to have been showing a pattern of lying and deception in order to avenge herself on Grayson. I don't recommend this kind of action, truly.

I am also going to point out that, if there is mould everywhere, why isn't she doing something about it? You can't say that she's a slave to Grayson, if the woman isn't doing anything but letting the mould grow and spread.

Yes, she lied about being single. That's just insanity, and you can't blame Grayson for that lie. Is he perfectly innocent? No, not likely, but he is not likely abusive (I'm sure his neighbours would have been willing to air that bit of linen, and the neighbours always know). Frankly, I would worry about his children, but I don't worry about a woman who lied herself into this position and is not, apparently, getting the one benefit she is entitled to, and that is child support.

Their entire life together has been a lie, and it wasn't Grayson himself who began with that lie.

[LawDeeDah]

482. People who claim she lied and Grayson does not, ever lie

and is the eternal victim in this relationship are deluding themselves. I've heard all sorts of awkward explanations about her previous marriage when it could be as simple as her first husband either screwed up with the paper work or maybe even deliberately messed things up for her - she seems to have terrible luck with men. For anyone to believe that she had this decades long plan to lie herself into an illegal marriage, give birth to 5 kids, all this as some elaborate long drawn out caper to eventually drain Grayson of his wealth (was he rich when they got married, I don't know)... that's nuts.

[PDJane]

487. Sorry, no. I didn't say Grayson never lied nor was a perfect innocent.

However, that marriage thing is a killer. So is living with mould. Why would she do that? Don't tell me that Grayson would let the house fall down, because it is his.

And no, I don't believe that the paperwork was 'screwed up.' In real life, should that have happened, both spouses know it can't be hidden forever. I don't believe in this kind of innocence, frankly. The first thing sensible people do is think about what you can do if you can't hide it forever, and find out if the second marriage is valid. And, I might point out, if she is naive, ignorant or dumb enough to believe that she should not have informed Grayson at the time, then she very well might be non compos mentis.

I don't believe in either perfect guilt....or perfect innocence. I might also point out that a woman who floats through life expecting to be taken care of isn't going to get much sympathy in this modern world.

[kcr]

492. No sympathy? Only from a certain kind of person

Don't project that on everyone. Not everyone is stuck in the 60s and assumes a stay at home parent is a worthless dependent.

[PDJane]

520. Nor do I mention stay-at-home parents. Do you get any exercise at all but jumping to conclusions?

If you choose to say at home with your children, if you choose to have four or seven or nineteen children, and if you don't wish to work, that's your choice. You have the right to make that decision, and you have the right not to be looked down on for making that decision. On the other hand, you can't then blame the children and her 'domestic slavery' on Grayson.

Please don't try to tell me that she didn't know the divorce was final. That is a very obvious condition. She would have received paperwork to tell her so. She would have been served with those documents if her estranged husband had started the procedure. No papers, no procedure. She wanted to marry Grayson, and did. You can't blame Grayson for the fact that they aren't legally married or for the fact that she apparently lied to him about her marital status.

It is the perfect innocence routine, the one that says that the divorce is his problem, and I didn't have anything to do with the paperwork, there was a mistake somewhere. No. Just no. Moreover, accusing Grayson of domestic abuse is iffy. Someone has to support that allegation, and so far no-one has. Believe me, it's been my experience that there are people who will testify to abuse if there is even a hint of it.

Do I think that Grayson is an innocent? No. Do I think he abused his wife? I don't have any evidence that he did, no. Do I think his wife is a perfect innocent, a naif? Um. Well, no. Do I even think such a state is desirable? Sigh. No.

Nor do I have any evidence that her condition is a result of anything that Grayson did to her, nor is there any evidence to say that's the case.

I really want to know who is busy bringing this woman into the public eye, and why. I do think she can be manipulated, and I really do suspect that there is someone doing so.

[kcr]

521. You can certainly blame Grayson's acts on Grayson

Please point to your evidence of who knew what. You are jumping to conclusions based on your prejudices that you made obvious in your post. An I really don't get why the choice to stay home is always on one partner and not the other. Both partners make the choice. He wanted a stay at home mom with his kids.

[PDJane]

530. How do we know that? What evidence do we have for that?

And where do I say that the person who stays at home has to be a she? I know several instances where the person who stays at home is a he, and both partners planned it that way. They enjoy it.

Understand something. I don't care what their domestic arrangements are, but saying that his wife is a victim of domestic slavery is an allegation that we can't prove, and that's part of your prejudices, which are really evident.

I don't care that she lived with him for however many years, I don't care when they got married, I don't care who instituted the divorce.

I do care that she was married when she decided to marry Grayson, and that she had to know that. That's an important distinction. Telling someone that you are single when you aren't is not an innocent mistake. A marriage contracted under those circumstances is illegal. Whatever Grayson did or didn't do, whatever we think he did or didn't do, he didn't know his marriage wasn't legal, and he didn't know his wife was still married to someone else.

You cannot whitewash this. She was married and she knew. The law isn't inclined to forgive that kind of lapse. Frankly, neither do I.

[kcr]

541. How do we know what?

I didn't say you said it had to be a she. And neither did I. Nor did I claim she was a domestic slave (no idea where that came from).

She didn't have to know she was married. She could have thought the first divorce filing went through. You have no idea what she knew. The fact there is a second filing kind of points to she didn't know. If she did, why is there a second filing years later? That makes no sense.

[PDJane]

553. No. Just no.

There is paperwork involved with getting married and with getting unmarried. No divorce goes through without them, and someone has to initiate that paperwork.

You cannot get married or unmarried in a first world country without some kind of ceremony and the incumbent paperwork. It doesn't happen on its own. At the very least, a phone call to the ex would have been in order. The fact that there was secrecy around that paperwork when the divorce happened tells me that she knew that she wasn't single...and didn't want Grayson to know that she lied. You don't just assume that an ex is going to do the divorce thing and there doesn't have to be any contact with you for that to go through.


No one wanders around with their head that far in the clouds. You can't blame Grayson for everything.

[IdaBriggs]

50. It says she is getting $592 x 5 kids, with no household expenses.

That is $3K cash money to feed and clothe them.

I don't know the details of their divorce proceedings (and am not interested), but it does sound like she is taking advantage of the system....



ON EDIT: 4 kids or 5 kids? From the article:

On the paperwork, she only claims $592 per child for her monthly income, but Nejame says Grayson is also paying the mortgage, utilities and phone bill for the home, a total of about $10,000 a month.

(snip)

"I'm doing this for me and our children, not for him, because I would like to have a good life again," said Lolita Grayson.

Very confusing story...also, mold in Florida...?

[dilby]

53. Probably one of the kids is over 18 so he does not have to pay child support.

But still $592 is less than I pay per child and I am not a millionaire.

[IdaBriggs]

54. No living expenses, either, if he is paying the bills.

Not sure why she doesn't call a mold remediation specialist and have the bill sent to him - seriously, at some point, you just have to ask

[laundry_queen]

214. I get more than that too

per child. And I also received alimony for 5 years on top of that. And my ex is definitely not rich. And I had trouble making ends meet while I was in school - it's not easy (I live in an area with a high cost of living, plus I had tuition that I paid out of pocket). When a kid hits their teens, $592 barely covers food, clothing and school stuff, never mind needing a bigger place, medical and other incidentals etc etc.

[stevenleser]

338. Yep, we're supposed to believe that constitutes being a deadbeat dad and justifies hating Grayson

despite her lie on the abuse allegation and despite lying about already being married when she and Grayson got married and hiding her subsequent divorce several years later.

We're supposed to think Alan is the evil one here.

[IdaBriggs]

418. Its an angry, bitter divorce. I quoted her line that she just "wants to live nice" --

which, once divorced, is not going to be happening unless she finds an income source.

If he gets custody of the kids (even shared), she will be expected to "get a job" and help pay for their support.

I am not privy to their private life, but her actions (lying about abuse, until a video surfaced; showing a reporter mold, but not calling to get it remediated; representing herself as "divorced" when she was still legally married; etc.) do not make her "credible" to me.

I believe they once loved each other. The situation is sad, but she is not behaving well....

[sabrina 1]

191. He is paying child support. What is she doing with that, she should be buying food for

the children. And she can get a job. I guess she doesn't want to work, HE is working which is the ONLY reason she can stay in a home that costs that much money.

This IS bullshit, and the timing tells the story.

If she doesn't want to do what is necessary, even with someone paying her most expensive bills, to take care of the children, then she should allow their father to take care of them.

[dilby]

194. So do you think she is a welfare queen?

She gave up everything for him and he is tossing her out like garbage and he pays less than I do per child for child support. Oh and if he wins and get the annulment he won't have to pay a dime for child support, you going to cheer for him then too?

[snappyturtle]

294. You betcha she is using the timing...wisely...it could be her only leverage. nt

[Iamthetruth]

200. If Grayson's children are on a school food program

Than he is the piece of shit most in Orlando said he was. Sad, I used to like him but he is the pure definition of a 1%er.

[dilby]

203. Agreed on so many levels, I am a father and can't imagine doing that. n/t

[Iamthetruth]

204. I am a divorced father of two

I won custody of my kids but it took seven years. During those years I lived in a two bedroom apartment and saved as much as I could to afford the best attorney I could and I'm not woth tens of millions like this scum is.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Grayson is paying 10,000/month.

So obviously there is some serious bullshit going on.

[dilby]

9. He is not paying 10,000 a month.

He is paying the banks, utility and phone company on a home he still owns. If he did not pay the 10,000 the home would be foreclosed on, so he is protecting his assets.

[stevenleser]

363. Courts consider that support. She is living there. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Whether true or not, my estimation of Mr. & Mrs. Grayson continues to plummet. I'll admit...

the timing of this report is highly suspect, but I think there's been bad behavior all around.

[brooklynite]

13. Why would anyone attempt to smear Grayson?

Despite his endless pleading for support (most of it here), he's in a SAFE DEMOCRATIC district.

[NaturalHigh]

18. I was never very fond of him.

He's worth a fortune but is constantly begging for money, not only on this board but with those "I need your help right now!" e-mails.

[dilby]

21. Rich people stay rich by spending other peoples money.

It's the first rule of being rich, never spend your own money.

[NaturalHigh]

25. Well put.

[former9thward]

36. Yes, its called 'leverage' in the financial world.

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. I've heard about his blue wall of "Donate Now" links. I don't click on his posts for that reason.

[stevenleser]

101. Well, so far, each time she has tried to allege bad behavior, it turns out she was the one

behaving badly.

We'll see. His attorneys have submitted court documents that show she willfully concealed from him that she was married, got married despite an existing marriage already in effect, and then several years later quietly divorced the existing husband.

That is on top of the lies she told about a domestic violence incident where it turns out she was the one being violent. When video emerged, she dropped the DV charges.

I'm willing to listen to anything folks have to say about him if it has some backup. But each time so far the backup that emerges turns out to vindicate him and further implicate her in wrongdoing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. It's a mess, and if nothing else, someone should be setting example for the kids.

Divorces are usually messes, with accusations flying back & forth, but couldn't he just pay her to go away? Although, it sounds like she really wants her pound of flesh, so money may not be the ultimate answer.

[FSogol]

6. "but this looks like bullshit to me" Then why spread it around 4 days before the midterms?

[Fla Dem]

15. Early voting in Fl. Hopefully he's already locked it up. But really disappointed he's not taking

care of his kids. I know he's providing shelter etc, but the pictures of the mold in the house is disturbing. That can really make kids ill. Just settle the damn divorce, and take care of the kids.

[cali]

26. because it's news and I'm so fucking tired of the ridiculous fucking claim

that posting something on DU will effect an election. grab a clue. it will not. period. but you know that.

[FSogol]

46. Maybe one day you'll find some "news" that hurts the GOP and post it right before the election.

And you know I disagree with you on whether posting stuff on DU can discourage voting. We talk about it before every single election.

[Ykcutnek]

10. Much like Weiner, Grayson is becoming a liability.

Should have replaced his ass in the primary.

His challenger was just as progressive.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

461. I tend to agree with this assessment. n/t

[closeupready]

20. She is a piece of crap, based upon

other threads that have been posted here evidencing that she is an abusive spouse. MHO.

[cali]

27. I've always thought he was a sleaze but that doesn't mean she isn't as well.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Or maybe some people are simply protecting a favored politician who is

bombastic with the opposition. Kinda like how RWers like Ron Paul and Chris Christie more for their "style" than their substance.

[Puzzledtraveller]

49. I think you hit the nail on the head.

[msanthrope]

577. Every pot has its lid. He stayed with her for 29 years. nt

[chrisa]

23. Before anyone kneejerk rushes to defend Grayson, know that we don't have the whole story.

We have one side - Grayson's attorney's. Of course he's going to try and verbally tar Grayson's wife.

[ChiciB1]

33. Don't Know The Real Story, But Who Really Is Smearing Who?

Apparently she's telling tales to. I live in FL, and I don't think he's in a safe district. Close to "church on every corner" area near Orlando. I need more information so won't say more. I only know he has fought for Democratic principles, or so it seems. He lost his election before he won it back again. THAT IS TRUE!

[stevenleser]

59. The one thing that is not in dispute is that she lied about being married and got married again to

Grayson, then had kids with him.

Now she is upset because that resulted in a bad situation for her.

[LawDeeDah]

82. which has nothing to do with house mould and food stamps.

a decent father and husband would not lean on that to get away with what is being done here.

[stevenleser]

97. Sure it does. It shows she lied like she lied when she said she was being abused. She is a liar.

Believe anything she says at your peril.

[LawDeeDah]

99. What I believe is that Grayson is not a decent man

if that mould thing and the food stamps story is true. Because she lied doesn't mean he never lied. Very weak defending point by repeating that. Try defending a father that lets this happen to his family, that's a bit more difficult, isn't it.

SHE LIED so whatever happens to the kids and her is fine. No, it's not.

[stevenleser]

102. Everytime wrongdoing has been alleged on his part, it has been proved false. Not only that

but it turns out that she is the one who did wrong. You have no backup for your belief. You believe it because you want to believe it, not because the evidence leads you in that direction.

[LawDeeDah]

108. and he has the money for lawyers and influence.

Can you really call that an even playing field between the two?

I don't know if any of this is really true, I've already said that. I am just saying IF it is, Grayson is a big jerk.

[stevenleser]

112. Which have nothing to do with her lies and her bigamy. nt

[tammywammy]

32. He's a multimillionaire right? How did he get such low child support? n/t

[former9thward]

37. Millionaires can buy good lawyers.

[tammywammy]

40. Yeah. I looked at the pictures.

Nothing is more disgusting than a parent that doesn't fully support their children. How could he allow them to live in a house with mold? Disgusting.

[Iamthetruth]

202. That is not the way it works in Florida

Childmsupport is based upon a formula that takes into account the number of children and the parents income. There can be no negotiations on it. What Grayson probably did is only count his income fron congress and not any investment type.

[former9thward]

217. His income from Congress puts him in the 1%.

So his so-called "child support" seems pretty petty.

[Iamthetruth]

223. I'm not arguing that

However maybe because he pays for the house and such reduces his actual child support. I admit I have no idea as to who's kids are from what but if they are his kids than he is a piece of shit.

[dilby]

45. I thought about this as well.

But they are not divorced so it is probably not court ordered child support. His lawyer probably told him to pay that amount so when they go through the child support portion of the divorce they can show she has been fine with that amount and he should not have to pay more. It's pretty messed up when someone like me far from a millionaire pays $600 a month per child which I am completely fine with and rich guy like that is paying less. He should be ashamed of himself.

[gerogie2]

167. Child support is based on your income

not your assets. When it comes to medical coverage and payments for the kids the judge can take the assets into consideration.

[tammywammy]

173. Just based on his salary of $174k/year he should be paying much more. n/t

[dilby]

291. Most likely it's not court ordered since they are not divorced.

I am guessing he is giving her that amount to show he is not a total dbag but it will be greatly adjusted once the judge looks at his income. Unless Florida is a deadbeat dream, I pay more per child than he does and make half what he makes.

[arcane1]

38. This is why I try to avoid the private, personal lives of politicians.

Actually, everyone, not just politicians.

[lpbk2713]

42. Rick Scott would help any way possible to make her look desperate.

... anything that would make a Dem candidate look bad.

[elleng]

52. She's certainly vindictive.

[stevenleser]

63. Oh, and by the way all, we all already know this person lied about Grayson abusing her.

Tons of DUers attacked Grayson until the video came out that showed in fact that she was being physically abusive to him.

[kcr]

64. No, not everyone.

Not everyone thinks the edited video taken by one of his aids is evidence.

[stevenleser]

70. LOL. Right, seeing her hitting him, that was just love pats. She dropped the DV charge after the

video came out.

You can excuse her domestic violence if you want. You can choose to believe her lies about the marriage issue despite the evidence http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-04-29/news/os-alan-grayson-accuses-wife-of-bigamy-20140429_1_alan-grayson-lolita-grayson-lolita-carson

But its only because you are ignoring the evidence out of some desire to ignore the evidence, not because you want the truth.

[kcr]

72. You can see jumpy, edited video that shows her shoving him away after the edited part

and spin that however you want to.

[closeupready]

77. +1 Steve. Not worth (I don't think) energy to wrangle with

Grayson's detractors here - they aren't interested in reflecting on the matter; their minds are made up.

Oh, and yes, he WAS attacked by a majority of those here at DU who posted about that earlier story.

[stevenleser]

87. You're probably right. They're trying to pretend they are oh so impartial. Yeah right!

[LostInAnomie]

65. So she has no living expenses, gets almost $600 per kid a month...

... for five kids (~$3000), and is claiming to be broke? Tough shit.

$36,000 a year is plenty of money if you don't have any expenses.

[dilby]

76. She is only getting $2,400 a month so I guess one of the kids is over 18.

But $28,800 is a lot of money and plenty to live off of as a single parent with 4 kids to take care of, how much do you think he takes in a Month?

[LawDeeDah]

94. Didn't he lose a huge boodle of money in some suspicious sounding investment couple years ago?

Maybe his monthly income has taken a dive to just a few million instead of a buncha million.

[dilby]

95. Well he has to be broke.

Because he is paying only twice what I pay in Child Support and I only have 2 children.

[LostInAnomie]

182. Damn right that's plenty of money.

He is essentially paying all her major expenses and giving her almost $30k a year. That comes to a total of almost $150k a year.

No needs more than that.

[dilby]

185. 24k out of 170k a year.

Yeah he is a real winner, keeping 146k to himself one person while he gives pennies to a woman and 5 children. But hey let's throw in the mortgage that he is paying because he doesn't want to lose his investment that he knows he will make money on and call him a good guy.

Is this guy a Democratic congressman or the owner of Walmart?

[LostInAnomie]

187. Bullshit.

It's closer to $150k out of $170k a year. If she wants more child support she could always move out of his house, and quit using the utilities that he is paying for.

You're working awfully hard to defend a liar/bigamist/domestic abuser.

[dilby]

188. A woman who was with a man for 29 years.

Who gave him 5 children and dealt with his shit, look how he is treating her and his children. And tell me who is worse, a little Asian woman who pushed a fat man or a fat man who lets his children live in squalor all while calling himself a victim of domestic abuse. Sorry but reality does not work for him, unless you support dead beats because they put a D next to their name. Hopefully we never have a Pedophile congressman because it would suck to watch the Democrats can't be wrong brigade justify it.

[LostInAnomie]

192. How many of those years were they legally married?

Oh, that's right... None of them because she perpetuated a fraud after hiding the fact that she was already married.

She looks worse. Without a doubt, she looks worse. There is actually a video of her attacking him, so she looks worse. If the squalor she is living in is that bad, she could always move out. You know, so she doesn't have to be subjected to the indignity of living in a $10k a month house.

It really is amazing the mental gymnastics some people will do on here. This woman is a bigamist, a fraud, a domestic abuser, and has been shown to be a liar every fucking step of the way, and yet, Alan Grayson is the one that hss to defend himself. It's like there really is no moral low or depravity a woman can reach that some DUers won't defend it.

[dilby]

193. Do you think he learned about this last week or maybe in 1994?

I have a feeling he has known for 20 years about her previous issues with her divorce not being finalized till after they were married. Which makes him double scum.

[LostInAnomie]

195. So she's a bigamist that tried to hide her marriage, but he's scum?

Oh, and don't forgrt that she's also physically abusive. But, somehow, he's scum.

Amazing.

[stevenleser]

229. Yep, that logic is special, isn't it?

And all of those lies and deception on her part would be bad enough if he was just some generic person.

In trying to hurt him here, she is trying to get him replaced with a Republican in his congressional seat screwing us all.

[TheKentuckian]

528. 24k with no expenses and crying poverty? 24k + living expenses and you are trying to cry deadbeat?

Where were you folks when my deadbeat father got his $25 a month reduced?

What bullshit, I know many single mothers who work hard at what we are told are "middle class" jobs that would trade in a fucking heartbeat.

Hell, I'll take 24k plus expenses all day everyday and four times on Sunday.

[stevenleser]

96. Yep, $36K/yr, no living expenses, lied about being abused, lied about not being married, committed

bigamy and we have a segment here rushing to her defense and calling him a bad guy despite all the evidence in the other direction and no evidence against him.

Interesting group, those defending the wife here.

[dilby]

100. $28k a year.

Which is twice as much as I pay for my two kids and I looked up his salary which is twice as much as mine. Let's not even include his stock investments that seem to turn a cool Million every year in profit.

[ancianita]

111. I hope he gets sympathy votes over having to extricate himself from this fraud. Yep, I do.

Last edited Thu Oct 30, 2014, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

One could easily conclude that he loved her all this time, and dealt with her ersatz laziness and misrepresentation somehow...but no one ever knows a marriage from the inside. Nor should they. This is personal and should be off limits as any kind of media campaign issue, in my view.

If this really is a campaign issue, I still want him to retain his seat, if for no other reason than to compensate for all those who the Repubs have forced into resigning over the slightest impropriety.

None of ANY Democrat's flaws can hold a candle to those of Republicans! The sheer massiveness of their individual and collective, utter ignorance and stupidity over science, women, minorities and LGBT worlds. Their evil slanders against even the slightest misstep of an opponent. They are evil and un-American.

Dammit, I want more Democrats! The man does a good job in Congress and should retain his seat. GOTV for Grayson, I say.

[lumberjack_jeff]

159. She is a domestic abuser.

And he's not leaving his kids in poverty, he is seeking custody. If she were principally interested in their wellbeing, she'd agree to it.

[dilby]

162. Man she beat his ass.

Yeah hopefully he gets the annulment so he doesn't have to pay child support or alimony.

[lumberjack_jeff]

164. Hopefully the court awards custody to the partner who isn't violent.

And she can get alimony from the guy she was legally married to.

[kcr]

174. I wonder if the court will have access to the unedited video n/t

[dilby]

175. I have a feeling the court will side with the Mom.

Who raised them, was home with them everyday and who is still taking care of them. But I could be wrong.

[lumberjack_jeff]

177. Of course they will. Because "male privilege". n/t

[kcr]

181. Male privilege. When it just burns one to no end that a woman just might prevail n/t

[dilby]

184. Male Privilege is having a woman give you 5 children,

Stay at home taking care of them for 24 years and then tossing her out like trash all while calling yourself a victim. I am the beneficiary of Male Privilege, my ex-wife gave me two beautiful Children, sacrificed her career and dreams while I followed mine and I gladly pay her alimony because I know what she sacrificed and I also want to know my kids will never go without. I don't look at alimony as a reward for her, I look at it as an insurance policy where I know she is taken care of and my won't have to stoop to marrying some piece of trash like this guy just to be able to make it in life.

[Generic Other]

211. And your kids will always honor you and remember this about you

They will use it as an illustration of your character, proof of your love for them. I know this from having had just such a father. It isn't in the long run about the money.

[laundry_queen]

216. +1 nt

[ALBliberal]

219. well put thank you nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

369. ^^ this. a thousand times. this. ^^

[lumberjack_jeff]

550. Welcome to HelenReddyUnderground.

Because when push comes to shove, "fuck the democrats in difficult reelection campaigns".

The world is a apparently a Loretta Lynn lyric.

[Generic Other]

210. She is a very tiny Asian woman

She does not look capable of hurting him, but if she has a bad temper, the hitting might be a cultural response. There are teenagers in the home who are probably struggling with Western vs. Asian rules. Many Asian "tiger" mothers would be labeled child abusers by Western standards. My mother could easily have earned such a label when I began to defy her as a teenager.

I am conflicted on this story. Joint custody seems the best solution until people closer to the facts have an opportunity to decide the case.

[stevenleser]

228. Someone that size could beat any human to death in less than 5 minutes.

A lucky/unlucky (depending how you view it) blow from any adult human, including one her size, could kill in one blow.

You don't excuse assault from someone because they are smaller than someone else.

[snooper2]

269. why do you automatically assume she is a "good mom", maybe she was a lazy angry fool?

Guess it will come out in the courts right?

One daughter is 18 so I'm sure she will give the judge plenty of insight-

[Nay]

293. There is a very good chance that Grayson will get the kids for that very reason;

also the fact that the marriage was invalid means no alimony. From another post, it seems FL has no common law marriage laws, so she's probably gonna end up with nothing and, from her behavior, probably deserves it.

However, he is seriously hurting his chances by acting like a moron. Now, if I were he, I would personally be enraged by her lies, her physical abuse, etc., but he is in the phase of legally getting her out of his life, trying to get his kids away from her possible abuse, and he's leaving his kids in a moldy house while paying the $10,000 mortgage??? He's really skating on thin ice here. Rent a large decent apartment for them (for a lot less than $10,000!), fix and sell the house, and proceed with the annulment with his head held high, knowing the kids aren't in horrible surroundings. I can tell you that judges do not like abusers (her), but they don't like vindictive assholes (him) who use their kids as weapons either, and his vindictiveness is hurting his kids AND his chances of getting them. His lawyer is not doing Grayson any favors by letting him do this stuff -- I'm sure he has been counseled to NOT act like this, so....he's just hurting himself.

[lumberjack_jeff]

551. Why would she move from the 5300sf house?

Of course he'd prefer to put them up in an $8,000/month house. Occam's razor sez she's staying there because it gives her a strategic advantage.

[Nay]

592. Oh, sure, it does give her some sort of advantage -- I guess. But if she insists

on keeping the kids in a moldy, falling-down house after he offers to move them to a better place, she looks like she doesn't care about the health of the kids. Just as an aside, IIRC, they have been separated for about a year, and one does have to wonder why such an expensive house is having problems like a leaky roof, mold, sewer problems, etc. That doesn't compute. Was it moldy and falling down a year ago when Mr Grayson was living in it? Or has he been gone for a longer time?

We have no way of knowing whether he has offered to move them out so they aren't covered in mold. I would hope so. I believe that having the house treated for mold would require them all to move out anyway; the chemicals, repainting, etc., wouldn't be so good for the kids.

If she has refused to move after he has offered to repair the house without them in it, she loses any advantage. Again, we out here have no idea what the lawyers have discussed back and forth. She has done some things that reveal her to be pretty horrible and semi-crazed person, so there's no telling what's on her mind. Mr Grayson is acting like a bullying MRA activist, right at the exact time he should be striving to be the rational one. His lawyer must be tearing his hair out.

The judge isn't going to like either of these weasels. Frankly, I hope he puts those poor kids with a foster family for a while so they can get out of the line of fire.

[lumberjack_jeff]

597. A gallon of Kilz paint costs about $20 at my hardware store.

The mold is there because the occupant wants it visible, apparent and on TV.

[Nay]

599. And the leaky roof and busted sewer? Like I said, If Alan had a brain in his

head, he would have fixed the house so she would have nothing to point at. He knows what she is like, and he falls for all her crap! All of these problems have cheap and easy fixes and he should have had them done immediately just to protect himself, if no one else. He'll do himself a big favor if he stops acting like a vindictive asshole, but he may not be able to stop himself. Even his lawyer seems unable to stop him from being an asshole. That says a lot about him, unfortunately.

Two dysfunctional parents -- like I said before, those poor kids.

[LawDeeDah]

588. and whoever edited that tape is an abuser of truth.

This video says absolutely nothing other than what Grayson and his lawyers wanted. What happened right before the slap is very relevant, but missing. Plus, where is the sound? What if he threatened her and the children right before the slap? What did he say?

Then some salesman looking graph shower employee of Grayson makes his presentation.

And that was no punch, it was a slap or a shove.

[lumberjack_jeff]

596. Help clarify.

Domestic abuse is justified if he says something you don't like?
Slaps and shoves don't count as domestic abuse?
The video was released as a response to Lolita's 911 call that he shoved her, causing bruises (that she actually got in taekwondo class.)

There is no apparent limitation to the absurdities that people are willing to believe in support of their stereotypes about domestic violence.

Apparently on no account should we believe our lying eyes.

[LawDeeDah]

598. without sound and the vid before the slap

this tape is useless, but lawyers that get paid well can make it sound like anything they want and so can people who wonder what happened before that moment.

What if he pushed or shoved her first? Why is That out of the question?
Anything could have happened before the chop of the video. If there was nothing suspect why isn't it included? Did the camerman just get lucky and turn on the vid just in time, pretty lucky for Grayson!

[ancianita]

161. Came back to say that his FB page has become nasty with heavy trolling. Any DU help?

I got overwhelmed trying to shove the jackals off, and his team doesn't seem to be dealing with them.

[dilby]

163. Sorry I am busy posting nasty comments about this dead beat on his facebook page.

I agree with Wonkette on him.

http://wonkette.com/547914/alan-graysons-divorce-just-got-even-grosser

[lumberjack_jeff]

178. Nice to see you're making full use of Democratic Underground.

Have you sent money to his opponent?

[ancianita]

179. Turncoat.

[dilby]

180. I am a father before I am a Democrat.

And I support Liberal ideals, treating a woman and your children like trash are so far from Liberal values.

[stevenleser]

234. Liberal ideas don't include lying about abuse and bigamy and putting your family through that.

Liberal ideas don't include flipping a seat from a Democrat to a Republican in furtherance of those lies and trying to profit from them.

Hate to tell you.

[dilby]

304. Steven, do you have an ex-wife or kids?

Have you ever gone through a divorce? I have and as a father my kids came first before anything else.

[stevenleser]

307. Divorced twice, child with the first, gladly paying to put that child through private college.

Voluntarily paying $700/mo to the 2nd ex for a couple of years to help her get by even though no alimony would have been ordered.

Neither of which would matter in this case. There was no marriage and she lied about it. Had my 2nd wife done that, I would not be voluntarily paying $700/mo.

[wickerwoman]

554. This +10,000

and thank you.

The only possible excuses for a multi-millionaire to have children using the social safety net are:
1. "I didn't know I had children"; or
2. "I didn't know they were using the social safety net but I will take immediate steps to ensure that they are adequately fed, clothed, educated and housed even if this means my unpleasant ex-spouse who I am justifiably very angry at gets something they don't deserve"; or
3. "My children were kidnapped and I have no idea where they are or what conditions they are living in".

Anything else, and you are a selfish, immature POS full stop.

The idea that Grayson shouldn't have to man up and pay adequate child support and pay to get the mold fixed in *his* house because his wife lied to him 20 years ago is straight out of the dark ages. What does any of that have to do with his responsibilities to his children?

If he had fucked a complete stranger 10 years ago and paternity could be proven he would still legally and morally be on the hook for supporting the kid so what possible difference does it make that his wife's divorce wasn't finalised at the time she married him?

If he was a landlord housing complete strangers in many places he would be required to have the mold removed where it was a threat to human health.

He needs to fire his attorney, apologise to his kids, grow the fuck up and start taking some responsibility for himself.

[dilby]

556. What is really sad is to think if he was an NFL Player

People would be asking for his head on a platter. I never thought I would see the day when the public held football players to higher standards than their elected politicians.

This man should be setting the standards on how you handle a divorce but instead I feel it's like watching a Hollywood divorce. He is more upset about losing a little bit of money to a woman he spent 29 years with than the $18 million he lost last year to a get rich quick swindler. If he ever loved this woman and had any compassion in his heart he would forgive the transgression of her making the mistake of thinking she was divorced. He would do the right thing and take care of his kids and give her what she deserves as an ex spouse.

[TBF]

190. Ridiculous comment - you put party

before the well-being of those 5 kids? Nice morals there.

[LawDeeDah]

198. sorry, dilby seems like a decent person that takes his responsibilties seriously

Grayson is the turncoat here. What he is doing are Republican-like values. They are greedy and shameless and treat women like shit.

[NanceGreggs]

218. Grayson is self-serving douchebag.

That's an opinion I have always held - and now he has proven my assessment to be totally correct.

To have lived in a married state for 29 years, with all of the benefits and responsibilities attaching thereto, and then claim the marriage was never valid - as a means to shirk those responsibilities after-the-fact - is truly reprehensible.

The man is worth millions. But he thinks his children should live in a house that poses a danger to their health, despite the fact that he can more than afford the remedies necessary to put an end to those health hazards. He is hopeful that his wife will vacate the house, and/or give him custody of the kids - in other words, he thinks it's okay to expose them to said health hazards as a means to an end. Any, hey, if they develop health problems as a result, tough titty - right?

I see people saying that if she would just "give him the kids, like he wants", they wouldn't be in danger, and things like food stamps and free lunches wouldn't be necessary. Well, I ask you: what woman would hand her children over to a man who is willing to put their health and well-being at risk in order to get what HE wants, without regard for said health and well-being until his demands are met?

He claims that he stands up for "progressive ideals". I'm wondering exactly what progressive ideal prompts a multi-millionaire to ignore the needs of his own children. What progressive ideal
supports a man who claims he stands up for millions, but won't stand up for his own family? What progressive ideal dictates that a "marriage" is solely defined by a piece of paper, and that 29 years of living as "married" can be negated by lack of a piece of paper that confirms that union?

We have seen this ploy before - used by RWers to negate same-sex unions on the basis that despite shared lives, shared domiciles, shared assets, shared responsibilities, and even the shared raising of children, such realities are to be ignored unless there is officially-sanctioned paperwork that designates them as a "married couple".

Grayson IS a disgrace. He is a disgrace to Democrats, a disgrace to parenthood, a disgrace to all of those who believe that a union between two people is defined by the life they have lived together, and not by what technicality affords them a "get out of your moral and ethical responsibilities for free" card that may become available to use when convenient.

[hlthe2b]

224. In past three decades, every time I thought I knew what was going on in a friend/colleague divorce,

Last edited Fri Oct 31, 2014, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

who was right (mostly) and who was mostly WRONG, who was worth defending and who was the creep.... I have nearly always been proven wrong or mostly wrong. I can scarcely think of any life event that engenders more attempts to manipulate the views of others and which results in more "gloves off nastiness".

Add the political implications and I would not put anything beyond the realm of what might be printed.

I absolutely don't know what the truth is in all of this, but I surely know I won't be making a judgement based on rumor and innuendo or from those who clearly have an agenda.

[adirondacker]

342. +1000. Best statement in response to this OP! nt

[NanceGreggs]

513. I agree that one can never really know ...

... what really went on in a marriage, when it gets into the he said/she said vitriol of a messy divorce.

However, Grayson's announcement that he intends to use the "we were never legally married" argument in order to be free of the responsibilities of a husband, AND is seeking money from his "wife" of 29 years as well, is not rumour nor innuendo - it is fact. And it is a fact that shows him to be petty and vindictive.

Grayson could easily have said that despite learning that his marriage was technically not a legal one, he is nonetheless prepared to meet the responsibilities that the dissolution of a 29-year union would entail.

I can only wonder what his children think of his putting their mother in this position. I doubt that "hey, turns out she was never even my wife, so I owe her nothing, and now I want money from her" would be seen as something a decent man would do by anyone, no less the children of that "never really happened" marriage.

Grayson is worth millions. The fact that he is pursuing money from a woman he knows has no financial resources of her own clearly demonstrates how despicable a character he really is.

[Cha]

558. And, there it is.. Thank you, Nance.

[snappyturtle]

312. +1 nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

360. How refreshing. You usually only crawl out of your self imposed (but not unappreciated) exile to....

..... bash DU and other DUers. How refreshing you rear your head to bash an elected DEMOCRAT.

Nice use of DU a week before the election.

[ancianita]

368. Seriously. The timing of this mess plays right into fair weather Dems agendas.

[Capt. Obvious]

438. Who is also a DU member if I'm not mistaken

Don't expect an apology from her.

[NanceGreggs]

557. I haven't "crawled" out from anywhere, thank you.

I am as free to post here as anyone, and don't require your permission to do so, nor your approval of what I choose to post.

Wow! I am "bashing an elected Democrat" on DU! Oh, the humanity! Maybe I should have posted an OP calling Grayson a "piece of shit used car salesman" - I understand that's now acceptable on DU when speaking of an "elected Democrat".

"Nice use of DU a week before the election." I wouldn't worry about it. I'm sure my post on this thread has little impact - undoubtedly lost among the many, many posts about how Dems don't stand for anything, the whinging OPs about getting too many emails from Dems asking for contributions to their campaigns, the "both parties are the same" posts, the "Democrats are spineless" posts, etc. - all of which have been posted a week before the election.

Yes, I BASHED AN ELECTED DEMOCRAT. There was a time I wouldn't have done that on a "Democratic site" - but DU is no longer a "Democratic site", and hasn't been for years.

If it is acceptable to bash the duly-elected (twice) Democratic President here, it would seem apparent that bashing any Democrat, including Grayson, is equally acceptable.

[Cha]

561. Well done.

[NanceGreggs]

563. Amazing how the ...

.... how dare you bash an elected Democrat on DU crowd have never, ever, in their entire lives seen a Dem-bashing post here on DU before.

[LawDeeDah]

600. You sure have a good way with words, NG

I think that is why some fear you and try to mock and belittle you. Typical of those kind.

[Cha]

560. Lots of people disagree with Grayson's actions here,Hass. Your "crawl out of your self-imposed..

blah blah blah.." is ugly and mean spirited. ConGratuFuckingLations to you. I'd clap but I think it looks stupid.

[TBF]

394. I've missed your posts -

on DU these days I feel like it has turned into a bad episode of American Idol with fan clubs clamoring for attention for their chosen one. Just a really low level of discourse. I'm glad you stopped by.

[Tarheel_Dem]

522. +1. Thank you!

[Nay]

595. Well, exactly. He's acting like an MRA asshole. His wife is an obvious mess, but

that doesn't give him the right to act like he is acting. But I suspect he is a bully, like many self-made rich men with huge egos. This is the whole "I make the money, so everybody's gotta do what I say!" shit, and it's why women aren't getting married at the rate they used to. Who needs this??

[Shankapotomus]

225. It's amazing how some humans

continue to walk into relationship minefields while I've remain unscathed. What a fucking stupid species.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

230. Mess indeed. But there are some seriously stupid comments under this OP.

Saying things like she was Grayson's 'slave' for 29 years.

For a woman who lied for years about the fact that she was still married to another man before she married Grayson, that rings pretty damn hollow. All she would have had to do to end her 'slavery' was to tell the truth and admit she was still legally married to someone else, and that her marriage to Grayson was a lie.

Sounds like she used him for 3 decades as much as people are claiming she was his 'slave'.

"I'm doing this for me and our children, not for him, because I would like to have a good life again," said Lolita Grayson.

Seems like she married Grayson because 'she wanted a good life'. While I understand that everyone 'wants a good life', that doesn't exactly sound like a love match, especially when she was untruthful from the start. It sounds like someone who simply found a way for 30 years 'to have a good life'.

[stevenleser]

237. Yep, that is a lie you cannot get past, although some here are trying real hard.

What amuses me is that some people are trying to use the 29 years and the kids as somehow bolstering her argument.

It is revolting that she chose to have kids within this fraudulent relationship like she did, necessarily putting the kids in the middle of that lie.

[kcr]

243. While others aren't trying at all. Where's the evidence she lied about that?

All I've received is crickets in response to that question.

[stevenleser]

245. As I keep telling you, your narrative doesn't work because she hid it. Here's proof...

OK, let's go down the rabbit hole with what you are pushing. You are alleging she didn't lie, right? That means according to you:

1. Alan Grayson married her knowing she was already married and that the marriage was meaningless as a result and frankly a waste of time.

2. Alan Grayson sat around not pushing her to do anything about it for several years.

3. Alan Grayson had kids with her knowing the marriage was invalid.

4. Even though Alan Grayson knew about all of this (according to you) they never remarried after she actually divorced her husband in 1993-1994 to make the marriage valid and neither seemed to object to this situation at all.

5. Alan Grayson and his attorneys went down the road of divorce up until the time of 'discovery' of the bigamy even though they knew no divorce was necessary.

And that is just the beginning of the problems with the "maybe Alan Grayson knew all along" theory. No, she hid it from him. She lied and she subjected her kids to the consequences of that lie.

The narrative you are pushing is pathetic. At some point you are going to realize this and give it up.

[kcr]

249. No

That means they got married thinking she was divorced. If you look at the timeline of events it fits. The initial filing before they're married. Then another filing in 94, likely when someone realized the divorce wasn't final. Who discovered this? Likely one of the married parties. Who would that be? The person who lets her husband take care of things? Which is more likely? I highly doubt he didn't know about that first marriage. It doesn't make sense.

[stevenleser]

250. Yes.

Let's continue to go with your theory. Lets assume they knew in 1993-1994.

So for 20 years, they knew their marriage was invalid and neither did anything about it or seemed to worry about that situation, when a quick one day trip to Vegas would have remedied the situation?

Please, kcr, again, spend some time reflecting on what you are pushing here. It doesnt come close to making sense.

[kcr]

257. That's what they should have done.

But the fact they didn't isn't evidence he didn't know. It might have been a We'll get around to it one of these days stupid blunder and now he's taking advantage of it.

[stevenleser]

258. Yes, it is evidence considering the other factors. They both went down the road of divorce knowing

there was no marriage?

Really? You are going to go with that?

[kcr]

259. Couples make decisions knowing they're going to divorce in the future?

No one thinks that way.

[stevenleser]

260. No, I mean now. According to you, they know their marriage isnt valid but they went down the road of

divorce why exactly?

I'll tell you why. Because Alan Grayson didnt know until it was discovered by his lawyer a few months ago, and Lolita Grayson knew but hoped no one would find out so she could get a big divorce settlement.

That is the only conclusion that makes sense.

[kcr]

265. Well, yes, now they know they're getting a divorce, duh. nt

[stevenleser]

267. A divorce from what? According to you, both know no marriage exists.

For your theory to make sense, you have to explain that.

[kcr]

270. Whuuuu?

Grayson thought there was a marriage, if you're evil lying scum scenario is true. So he would think there has to be a divorce.

But seriously. It's a marriage in name and a good faith marriage. He could decide not to bring up the faild divorce and recognize is good faith marriage. But that would be the decent thing to do.

[stevenleser]

274. No, according to you she told him she was still married to her first husband in 1993/1994

after her wedding ceremony with Alan. That would make their marriage invalid.

There is no marriage to dissolve.

Is that what the disconnect is here? Do you not understand this? No marriage is valid if it occurs when you are already married.

[kcr]

279. No. They thought she was divorced

They would have found out after. Probably around 1994, when the second filing happened.

[stevenleser]

281. And that means their marriage was never valid and both know that so why are they filing for divorce?

You can't make your assertion work.

[kcr]

283. Because it's a good faith marriage

They were together for 29 years. That actually does matter to some people. If Grayson were even half way decent it would matter to him.

[stevenleser]

284. Right, everything about this smacks of good faith from both sides. Yeah, thats the ticket.

Really kcr? Really? This is what you are going with?

[kcr]

286. Actually, it does

A good faith marriage that is ending very messily.

[stevenleser]

288. No, it doesn't. Your narrative requires magical thinking at every step. It doesn't work. nt

[kcr]

295. Hardly. You are taking it entirely on faith that she lied and he didn't know. n/t

[stevenleser]

296. No, I never take things on faith. Her own actions prove the deception. You can't get around that. nt

[kcr]

306. Her actions do not prove the deception. They do no such thing.

That judgment only shows that a judgment took place on that day. They do not show why or who knew about it. We can come up with scenarios and then judge which ones make hte most sense. And yours that claims she lied about the first marriage don't make sense. Why would someone marry a person with the intention of keeping a first marriage secret, but file not one but two divorce actions, one before the marriage one one after, years apart? That makes no sense. But it does fit with the expllanation that they found out the first one didn't take.

[stevenleser]

308. Yes they do. I lay it out in #302 below. nt

[TheKentuckian]

562. A good faith marriage? First I ever heard of any such concept and suddenly it is a base requirement

to be even "halfway decent"?

How the hell is lying about being given divorced "good faith" anyway?

Sounds like the desperate rationalization from someone with a whole fun king cemetery in the closet.

The scumbag is this lying ass, gold digging, con artist woman.

[lumberjack_jeff]

421. I've taken the liberty of showing your posts to the brick wall next to me.

The wall indicates that it understands and will try to explain it to KCR.

[stevenleser]

436. ROFLMAO

I have to admit that part of me doesn't believe that kcr actually believes what they are saying and at some point kcr is going to stop and say, "Ha, gotcha. Did you actually think I believed the nonsense I was writing"

which would actually be a fairly interesting and funny trick considering how ridiculous it is.

[kcr]

463. A brick wall has more compassion than someone who thinks it's okay

for the kids of a millionaire to be receiving free lunch. All the smilies in your posts are telling. More of them in each one, I notice.

[stevenleser]

467. They shouldnt be receiving a free lunch. Her filing is or at least should be fraudulent along with

many other things she has done. She has her housing and living expenses paid for and she is getting $2400-2500 per month to support the children.

Once again, you blame him for wrongdoing by Lolita.

[kcr]

498. Her filing for that is fraudulent? You have proof of that? n/t

[kcr]

261. The thing is, these things happen all the time.

Divorces that didn't actually get filed, or whatever else happens, and then people find out they need to get that taken care of. It doesn't mean they're bigamists. It was a good faith marriage. The fact that there was an initial filing before their marriage points to this scenario as being highly likely.

[stevenleser]

262. It is very infrequent. And it is completely rare to lie about it with your new partner.

She never told him and the evidence is there that she has been hiding it all along.

You just refuse to see it because you don't want to see it.

[kcr]

263. But again. No evidence of the lie

Why the second filing if they're keeping it super secret? Why not just lay low and pretend it never happened?

[stevenleser]

266. The evidence of the lie is there in her efforts to proceed with a divorce where no marriage exists.

Just for starters. The rest of the evidence I have already shown you.

[kcr]

268. But why do that?

If she's just a lying bigamist, do nothing. It's a secret!

[stevenleser]

276. For one reason. Because he didn't know, and she hoped to get a big divorce settlement.

She knew that if it came out that she had been married when their marriage occurred, there would be no divorce and no divorce settlement because there was no legal marriage.

So she kept up the lie.

That's my point kcr. No other narrative makes sense.

[kcr]

277. She hoped for this in 94?

When she had her ex file again? Just randomly in 94. Even though he'd filed initially before she was married. Why?

[stevenleser]

278. Nope, in 94 she hoped nothing would ever go wrong and her lie would never be discovered. nt

[kcr]

280. So why file again?

Explain, please.

[stevenleser]

282. I already explained. She filed for divorce from Grayson because she thought no one would find out

that their marriage was invalid and she would get a big divorce settlement. And if his lawyer hadn't done the due diligence properly to prepare the case for his client, they would not have found out.

[kcr]

285. It would make even more sense to do nothing at all if she wanted no one to find out

No. The second filing points to Oops, first divorce didn't work, better refile. It would be more damning if there were another marriage out there with no divorce filings. But a marriage with not one but two filings spread out over time looks exactly like what I'm saying it is.

[stevenleser]

287. No, it points to deception in the original marriage and deception now to try to get money. nt

[kcr]

297. The fact is people get married thinking a divorce was final when it wasn't

That is entirely possible and very likely here.

[stevenleser]

302. No, it is completely impossible given the chain of events. I'll take you through it again.

Let's take a look at two possibilities that you might be asserting. One I indicated earlier:
according to you:

Possibility one, she and he knew all along
1. Alan Grayson married her knowing she was already married and that the marriage was meaningless as a result and frankly a waste of time.

2. Alan Grayson sat around not pushing her to do anything about it for several years.

3. Alan Grayson had kids with her knowing the marriage was invalid.

4. Even though Alan Grayson knew about all of this (according to you) they never remarried after she actually divorced her husband in 1993-1994 to make the marriage valid and neither seemed to object to this situation at all. He campaigns as if he is married and lies to his constituents about it and she supports the lie to his constituents even though a quick 1 day trip to vegas to get married would resolve the situation.

5. She files for divorce and asks for a ton of money for alimony even though no marriage exists. She lies to the court telling the court that she needs a dissolution of marriage where no marriage exists. Her attorney suborns this perjury, putting their law license at risk for little gain.

6. Alan Grayson and his attorneys went down the road of divorce up until the time of 'discovery' of the bigamy even though they knew no divorce was necessary, again committing perjury and suborning perjury. Then abruptly stop.

Possibility #2 - She doesnt know about the non divorce from first marriage until 1993 and takes care of it and tells him at the time

1. Alan Grayson married her when both thought she was divorced.

2. She finds out shortly before 1993 and tells him about it.

3. She gets her divorce in the 1993-1994 time frame

4. They never remarried after she actually divorced her husband in 1993-1994 to make the marriage valid and neither seemed to object to this situation at all even though a quick 1 day trip to vegas to get married would resolve the situation.

5. They have kids not really being married and neither seems to have an issue with this. He campaigns as if he is married and lies to his constituents about it and she supports the lie to his constituents even though a quick 1 day trip to vegas to get married would resolve the situation.

6. She files for divorce and asks for a ton of money for alimony even though no marriage exists. She lies to the court telling the court that she needs a dissolution of marriage where no marriage exists. Her attorney suborns this perjury, putting their law license at risk for little gain.

7. Alan Grayson and his attorneys went down the road of divorce up until the time of 'discovery' of the bigamy even though they knew no divorce was necessary, again committing perjury and suborning perjury. Then abruptly stop.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, both of these possibilities are insane and do not explain what we have seen, but they are what you are trying to assert.

Its much simpler and makes more sense when you simply admit that she lied.

[kcr]

315. The possibilities are not insane

The "discovery" is Alan's lawyers talking him into invalidating his marriage by having it annulled due to that second final 94 divorce. He may have refused to do it at first because he isn't a complete bastard, but he decided to pull that trigger for whatever reason.

[stevenleser]

318. Yes, they are completely insane. Just from an Occam's razor perspective, its obvious that

the explanation that is simpler and fits all the pieces with zero requirements for magical thinking is that she lied and deceived him.

[kcr]

320. It's only insane if viewed through a very warped bias

Because it makes perfect sense. There's no reason for someone who's lying and hiding a marriage to file for divorce from it two separate times. Years apart.

[stevenleser]

322. I'm very happy to stand on what I wrote in #302 to let people see how insane your argument is. nt

[Nay]

393. AFAIK, his lawyer must proceed with the case, using the facts of the case. Neither

the lawyer nor Mr Grayson, once they found out Mr Grayson was in fact NOT married to Mrs Grayson, can proceed as if the two were legally married. They have to go with the facts on the ground.

This does not excuse Mr Grayson from acting like a total moron, but please don't act like he and the lawyer can or should go in front of a judge and try to hide the facts they've uncovered. It looks like there never was a legal marriage, there is no common-law marriage in FL, and the judge will have to rule on those facts. It would be nice if Grayson stopped acting like an asshole and acted like he gave a shit about his kids at least, but he's probably just a jerk who is getting lucky.

[kcr]

397. I don't think he has to sue her for all the money back and claim he doesn't owe child support

or stop maintenance on the house they're living in. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing turns out to be bullshit and they're legitimately married.

[Nay]

401. I agree, and that's why I have tentatively declared him a jerk. Maintain the stupid

house or move them to a decent apartment, fer Christ's sake. Stop acting like a bullying asshole.

[kcr]

403. Yes. His actions aren't helping him at all.

I said it before but I'm glad this isn't someone I have to vote for. Yeesh.

[LawDeeDah]

327. Must be great to be a mind reader.

Off the rails, very bizarre and strange your defense. Most of it doesn't make any sense at all. Absolutely true Mrs Grayson is a Liar and planned this caper tons of years ago so she could end up with Grayson money.

Lordy. I think there is something really, really odd going on here.

[stevenleser]

328. Nope, not a mind reader. The chain of events only supports one conclusion. See my #302. nt

[kcr]

345. Yes, post 302. Where you outline a rational, believable scenario

you lamely attempt to make it sound crazy. But it isn't, especially when we compare it to your 29 year long scam theory we're supposed to believe.

[stevenleser]

346. I will let what you just wrote, and my #302 stand for themselves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025735849#post302

I am sure the vast majority of DUers reading both things will come to the correct conclusion.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

329. Also rather astonishing how many folks think that marriage

is a guarantee of a perpetual paycheck and pension. Not the equal joining of two people who are able to decide for themselves how they're going to live while they're together, but is, for a woman, instead simply a job or 'slavery' or some form of prostitution that demands cash payments.

That she 'gave him children' and 'raised them for him' (although even though they're willing to use that language in talking about what 'she did for him', they don't think he should have 'possession' of the children after the relationship ends. So I guess she 'leased him' the kids.) as opposed to having had kids for herself. That she had no agency to decide if she wanted children, but that he simply 'forced her' to give birth to 5 children and made her their nanny.

It's truly bizarre how many people want to deny her 29 years of adult decisionmaking, and claim she chose nothing, that everything was imposed upon her for almost three decades.

Oh, and btw, there's now another thread equating anyone who disagrees with that point of view as 'MRA'.

[stevenleser]

334. And even if you believe that, which I can live with, there was no marriage here because of her lie

and as I outlined in my #302 above http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5739958 , there is no getting around that. There is no chain of events that supports the idea that she ever came clean before his attorney discovered the truth a few months ago. Everything supports the idea that she lied, she never told him and was trying to continue the lie to get a big divorce settlement.

Oh and by the way, we are supposed to think Grayson is a deadbeat dad when he is paying $600/month per child and also paying $10,000/mo for the house the non-wife and kids are living in. Thats what you have to believe constitutes a deadbeat dad to attack Grayson on this.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

337. Actually, it's possible there was later, depending on state law.

After her first marriage's divorce was finalized, she still lived with him for what, 20 years?

There are still 'common law' marriage laws floating around some places, dunno if Florida is one of them.

Ohio got ride of it's 'common law marriage' as of 1991, otherwise, for instance, my female housemate could make a claim on my estate after my death, given we're living together for so long, even though we're not involved romantically. (Which I'm fine with, she's probably going to be my primary inheritor anyway, but I'll have to formalize it in a will. I've got no kids, so it's not like I've really got anyone else to leave it to.)

[stevenleser]

339. No, there hasn't been common law in Florida since 1968 so even that doesnt work.

http://marriage.laws.com/common-law-marriage-florida

As I wrote to another poster, even if it did, its pretty hard to believe that a court would recognize a relationship as common law like this where the basis for the relationship was fraud. Courts tend to frown on such things.

[kcr]

340. You know what? Even if we go with your premise that she lied

They were still together all those years and those kids were still born. She was still at home with them and raised them. If it is true that he did indeed not know and discovered this in the divorce. His response is still grossly and cruelly disproportionate. I can understand being shocked and angered at his ex. I do not understand the reaction toward his children. And it's still an overreaction to demand all the money back from someone who hasn't been working. She doesn't have any money. That also tells me that it's phony baloney and is merely a high priced divorce lawyer bullying legal tactic to get her to back off.

[stevenleser]

341. That makes it worse, don't you understand that? Allowing that lie to go on for 29 years and

putting your kids in the middle of it is horrific.

[kcr]

343. No. I don't understand that.

I don't know any man that would do that. I could rob a bank. I could skewer babies on pikes. I could do just about the worst thing there is to do. And I"m pretty confident my husband would not do what Alan Grayson is doing. No way. Not in a million years.

[stevenleser]

344. Your husband wouldn't do that? Wouldn't pay support? Why are you with him?

Grayson is paying $600/mo per child support for 5 kids and is paying $10,000 to pay for the house where his non-wife and five kids live.

That is what you are asserting "your husband wouldn't do".

And after that $13,000 a month support, and her lies, Lolita Grayson is crying poverty and trying to flip an election to a Republican.

Again, kcr, take a few minutes and re-evaluate what you are defending.

[kcr]

347. He wouldn't leave his own children in mold and rot

He would maintain that home because they were in it, even if his ex was there. That's what most people would do. As for the support thing, that's one of the things he's claiming he shouldn't have to pay because of the annulment. Along with all the money he's claiming she should have to pay back. Really. How morally bankrupt does a person have to be to think that is fair? Even if she did keep that marriage a secret? I can understand being angered about that. But suing her to pay back money she doesn't have? The mother of his children? To ruin her? That is beyond vindictive. And shows that really, his claims may not be accurate, to put it mildly. He's not trustworthy.

[stevenleser]

348. She is getting $3000 a month and leaving the kids in mold and rot. What is she doing with the money?

She doesnt work and doesnt have to work. She is a stay at home mom, so she isnt paying for daycare. Her housing is paid for.

I am going to bet that most DUers have less than $3000/month after housing and would be able to take care of kids and themselves and clean their houses with that money.

[dilby]

349. Why do you lie about the amount? It's $2400...

And who owns the house? Is he paying that $10,000 for her or is he paying it because he does not want to lose his investment? And if he wins the annulment do you think he will continue to pay child support? He does not have to in the State of Florida, no alimony or child support if he gets the annulment. So he will get the house, no alimony and if he did pay child support it would probably be that laughable $2400 which is insane considering his salary.

[stevenleser]

350. I saw $595/kid posted elsewhere. And yes, if he is paying for the place where she lives, its support

Why can't she keep a clean house with $3000/month after housing is paid? You want to explain that to the large group of DUers who work hard to take in much less than that and manage to make it work?

[dilby]

352. Black mold is not keeping a house clean, that requires professional services.

Just like the septic leak in the front yard, those repairs will run into the tens of thousands. And one of the kids is 18 so he is not paying for them.

[stevenleser]

355. That's nice. He is still paying support and does not deserve to be called a deadbeat dad.

Nor do folks supporting him need to be attacked as 'supporting a deadbeat dad'.

That's bullshit. But then you knew that.

[kcr]

353. Her moldy housing is being paid for. Great.

Yes, it's easier to live in housing that's adequately maintained. Live in a large home that isn't being taken care of properly and that's another story.

[stevenleser]

356. She doesn't have to live there. There are great apartments in the area for $600/month.

I am sure Alan would be eager to pay for them for her for a little while. That would allow him to move into his house and fix it up and be with his kids.

[kcr]

377. So that excuses him letting the place deteriorate?

Is that what you would do?

[stevenleser]

378. SHE is letting the place deteriorate. He is paying her $600/child and she has no housing expenses

She should do whatever any other person who has that income level (or less) does when their house is moldy or requires cleaning.

[kcr]

381. She is?

She should just squeeze herself and their kids into a tiny 600 apartment so he ex can save money and take back the house. So, it's her fault that he's letting the place go to shit.

[stevenleser]

383. Yes, she is.

She should move into an apartment. The kids should move in with him wherever he is currently living. With the house unoccupied, Grayson can make repairs, then he and the kids should move back into his house.

It's not her house because they were never married. At best, she is temporarily there. She won't get the house because there will be no divorce. She should get used to living on her own by her own means. She deserves nothing. She brought this all on herself by her deception.

Custody should be awarded to him, because the kids should not be in the custody of the person who lied and put them in the middle of that lie. She should be given a few months to get settled before she starts paying him child support.

[kcr]

385. Or he could make repairs now. Because his kids are there.

The fact he isn't speaks volumes. It's common for one spouse and kids to stay behind in the family house. It isn't a given she should just move on out. He's being a vindictive asshole letting it fall in disrepair.

[kcr]

336. How does that not go both ways? How come the working parent's choice is never a factor for some?

Those who think it's perfectly okay that SAHP should be tossed aside on the streets with nothing like used garbage claim that opinion is valid because the stay at home parent made that choice. What about the working parent? They chose that arrangement too and benefited from it. Why should people be able to decide that one parent will stay home with all the benefits that entails, and then when the union dissolves, that parent will get nothing? Both made that decision and both benefited. Not just the stay at home parent. Divorce laws exist so that when marriages disolve, one partner isn't left unfairly damaged. Why should the fact that one parent stayed home not factor? It does. Why should that change?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

354. Why should the fact that you chose to stay at home

guarantee you a paycheck after a relationship ends?

Lots of people would love to be the one to stay at home, and not to have to deal with pulling in a paycheck. Does that mean if they actually manage to pull that slot, that they should get to continue to be 'stay at home' in perpetuity afterwards, still forcing the person who had to go to work day in and day out to continue to have to after the relationship fails?

That just because you got to be 'stay at home' during a relationship, you get to continue to be 'stay at home' ever after?

That seems like an anachronistic and chauvanistic viewpoint, in which a woman is reduced to something that has to be 'taken care of', and can't be expected to take care of herself.

The reality for most of us, of course, these days, is that no one gets to be 'stay at home', because it takes everyone pulling in money to support a family.

[stevenleser]

357. And of course, when you committed fraud to enter the relationship to begin with...

[kcr]

365. Fraud or not, the children don't disappear

They still existed and she still took care of them. shrug shrug shruggity shrug Supposedly he loves them, right? Shruggy shruggy shruggy. And they love and care about her still. Shruggington shrug shrug

[stevenleser]

366. And he is paying $600/mo per child and $10,000 per month to house them. Thats plenty...

... by any standard.

Sorry, every avenue you use to try to attack him doesn't work.

[kcr]

370. He's vastly underpaying for the amount he makes and is worth

and stopped maintaining the home. They are on public support and free lunch at their school. Sorry. Every avenue you use to defend him doesn't work.

[stevenleser]

372. $12500 a month is underpaying? No, I don't think so. Not even a nice try. nt

[kcr]

375. It sure is. He should be paying much more than that. n/t

[stevenleser]

376. LOL, yeah, you go with trying to convince DUers that paying $12500 a month makes you deadbeat

Good luck with that!

[kcr]

379. No problem. Not all DUers think child support is for gold diggers.

There are plenty of DUers who are progressive minded about child support, believe it or not. It's just that those who aren't tend to be vocal.

[stevenleser]

380. Yep, please tell DUers that she is suffering on $12500 a month. Please proceed. nt

[kcr]

382. No, hyou're doing a good job

I'm sure the image of those kids living in the mod infestation that 12,000 is paying for is more than enough. The free lunches they get at school are a nice break.

[stevenleser]

386. No, you keep going. Tell the DUers here making minimum wage and not much more that she is suffering

on what he is giving her. Please keep going.

[kcr]

389. You think people making minimum wage will think much of dads who leave their kids in moldy buildings

I don't. No one with a conscious does.

[stevenleser]

420. You think people who make minimum wage will think $12500 in support puts her in "poor me" conditions

[kcr]

423. He's not paying 12,500 in support. Hyuck hyuck. No one is buying that.

I love how you keep ignoring the free lunches. You think they're going to like the idea they're paying for his kids' lunches? A guy worth millions?

[stevenleser]

430. Hyuck, hyuck, Support is exactly how a court would see it. Hyuck, hyuck. nt

[kcr]

431. I thought we were talking about people making minimum wage?

What happened to them? We're not caring about their opinion now all of a sudden?

[kcr]

362. Why even have divorce laws, then

If people make their own choices as individuals, what are we even doing having things like marriage laws and divorce laws? It isn't about making a choice to "guarantee a paycheck" Do you think that's why people choose to stay home? It isn't.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

400. At a guess, we have divorce laws

for the same reason we have many other laws. To benefit society.

It's better for society as a whole if the tab for people who want to continue not to work is picked up by former spouses if they have the means, than for the state to be paying out to keep them afloat.

There might also be people who believe that it's a matter of 'fairness' that one partner should continue to support the other, even though it makes a mockery of the very concept of 'partner', and casts them instead as a 'victim' who deserves redress for having had to 'put up with the demands of' marriage. (Note that I'm not saying there aren't REAL victims out there, women abused by partners who escape such traps. They certainly do exist, but they are not the majority of marriages.) But not every divorce is a result of one spouse victimizing the other. Often, people just thought they 'fit' with a partner better than they did, and the stress of real life together is simply too much.

[kcr]

402. Your last paragraph. How is it not a matter of fairness?

It doesn't cast the SAHP as a victim. It acknowledges their controbitution to the partnership and family that BOTH partners agreed to. Because they will suffer a greater loss through the desolution of the marriage. That's just fact.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

409. I would suggest

that a marriage (partnership) is over when the partners agree it is as well. Both partners contributed during that period, and both enjoyed whatever benefits accrued during that period. Why do you assume that it is 'fair' that one partner continues to contribute to the other afterwards, but (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong) the other partner is not likewise responsible for continuing to 'contribute' to the other after?

The non-SAHP obviously was 'contributing' money during the marriage. You want them to continue 'contributing' money to the other partner after the marriage ends. So for 'fairness', surely the other partner should be 'contributing' whatever it was that they 'contributed' during the marriage, right? So what are you suggesting they should continue 'contributing' after the end of the marriage, for the sake of fairness?

[kcr]

411. A marriage is over. But there are divorce laws. Are you suggesting they should be abolished?

Both contributed and both enjoyed the contributions. So it isn't fair or ethical that one should be left destitute as a consequence of those decisions because the marriage comes to an end. That's why there is a law that addresses this.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

425. I see you don't want to answer my question.

How is it 'fair' that one person is required to continue contributing after the end of the marriage, while the other is not?

Is what the partner who contributed other than financially worth so much more than the one who contributed financially, that it takes years or decades after for the one who is contributing financially to finally 'pay off' the equal amount after the end of the marriage?

[kcr]

429. I am answering your question. It's an equitable settlement. How is it not fair?

One isn't forced to have a SAHP are they? You aren't assigned a spouse that you are forced to be with. So, how is a divorce settlement with alimony that ensures the partner who contributed as a SAHP isn't destitute unfair? If one never wants to be faced with such a settlement, one should never agree to such an arrangement.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

434. You keep saying things I agree with, then turning them on their head.

'One isn't forced to have a SAHP'. But then you turn around and proclaim that it's only fair that IF you decide to be one, you should forever after be financially supported by your ex.

Are you forced into being a SAHP or not? If you're forced into it, then yes, you deserve some sort of 'equitable settlement' for being forced labour for some period of time, although I would still argue that it should not extend into perpetuity, but should be a single settlement that takes into account the length of time you were essentially slave labour.

If you were NOT forced into being a SAHP, but made the decision, then I don't see why you deserve to continue to get a paycheck after you're no longer doing the work you did as a 'SAHP'.

Your idea of 'fairness' is that one one person should continue to have to provide the same benefits of marriage to the other person, while the reverse is not true. And no matter how many times you throw in the word 'destitute' nothing changes. That marriage should be a winning lottery ticket for one person after a divorce, while the other is forced to continue to pay and pay and pay while getting nothing in return after the marriage ends.

[seabeyond]

439. he is campaigning and living in wa. she is at home raising the kids. sure, she could work and be a

working single parent, when there is no need to put the 6 of them in that stress, see half of the 17 million is hers. and at the time of marriage, wage to maintain family home and lifestyle

[kcr]

444. No. You do not agree with me. Not one little bit.

BOTH people make the decision. Both of them. Together. Not just the SAHP. That is key and the part you are choosing to ignore.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

454. NO, I see that too.

Where we disagree is that you feel that someone who was a SAHP deserves to be supported forever after by the non-SAHP, even if the marriage crashes and burns.

[kcr]

457. Number one, I have never said forever

Number two, when the marriage crashes and burns, they no longer have the financial support of their partner. If they don't have alimony at least until they can support themselves, they're screwed.

[seabeyond]

435. give her half of the reported 17 million or whatever, and she can then take care of herself.

seeing how they have not settled on a financial agreement, cause he is trying to keep it all, no child support and kick her to the curb with noting, then... well, kinda leaves us where we are, right?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

450. If he earned it while they were married, sure.

I'm down with that.

[seabeyond]

453. then we are done. damn easy. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

460. Yup.

I think where the whole side-track went was in a discussion of alimony vs a 50/50 split. Wealth and income before the divorce vs income after the divorce. I tend to think if you're divorcing, the thing should end right there. (Obviously you don't divorce your kids either, so I do stipulate separate financial issues related to raising them to at least 18.)

[kcr]

459. But the damage occured while they were married

So basically, use a SAHP up while married and then end the marriage and toss them to the street. That's okay with you.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

462. What is this 'damage' you are talking about?

You've already agreed that both partners were involved in making such a decision.

Are you saying the SAHP is some sort of masochist who is voluntarily 'damaging' themselves?

[kcr]

465. The damage from being out of the workforce

That is damaging to a career. Usually lethal, in fact. That happens during the marriage. Not after.

[seabeyond]

466. yes. when i was married i owned own home, to last forever, income i could live on and

was running a business for five yes, minimal wage to prove myself then set up in own business.

5 yr mark, got married, preg, had baby decided to stay at home.

right there, i knew i gave up my earning potential that would allow me to be fine in old age. a decade to working to that. but. hubby and i could not see me not stay at home cause we could nad was the right thing

his earning ability for two decades went up

mine dropped to bottom.

yes. masochist if you choose, but yes, i took the risk and must trust, in my relationship.

and

i covered my ass

i get about 70 to 30, if need be.

that levels the field. not 50/50

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

480. 50/50 is shorthand

If you came to another proportion in advance, that's fine and dandy, and I applaud you for actually facing the possibilities head on and figuring out things in advance.

[stevenleser]

468. Yep. But they were never married. So...

[seabeyond]

473. lawyer cheap tricks. shady lawyer. everyone sees it. do not tie yourself to that and not expect

people to not think you approve

[stevenleser]

474. Nope, she willfully entered into a marriage already married and then tried to hide it. Here is

a link to her divorce case several years after she and Alan were "married" http://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/BCCOC2/OdysseyPA/CaseSummary.aspx?CaseID=1044346&hidSearchType=party_case&DisplayCitation=no&CaseNumber=CACE93027215&SearchType=

She hired a lawyer to get divorced and everything.

That's no cheap lawyer trick. That's bigamy.

[LawDeeDah]

358. The posts that say raising a family of 5 kids isn't real work...

You are worth nothing unless you bring in the cash from some corporation, you run on that hamster wheel making widgets or working at call centers or Home Depot or wherever while leaving your kids with someone else because that cash money is what it is all about. And when you come home you start your other job of being a parent and try to make up for the time you are away.

But being a stay at home parent (and looking after 5 kids, holey smokes!) doesn't have any value. Everything has to be measured in dollars.

That is disgusting beyond belief. If the volunteers of the world and the others that are unpaid that do valuable work, if they all quit, the world would stop in its tracks. Valueless work my butt.

What a mysogynistic viewpoint.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

361. I haven't seen those posts.

Raising children is indeed work. But it's work you do for yourself. You decide to have kids, you have to raise them. And presumably you had them because you WANT to raise them. Knowing full well that you're not going to be paid for doing so. Because you wanted to have children.

Your pay for raising kids... is having kids who were worth raising, new people you can be proud of. If you're having kids in order to get a cash payout of some sort... Well, I won't go as far as you do and call you 'disgusting beyond belief', but it's certainly a warped idea.

[kcr]

367. The posts that say the SAHM isn't entitled speak for themselves

The working parent didn't decide to have kids and have their partner stay home to raise them?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

405. Only in really old-fashioned chauvanistic marriages.

If you're claiming that the only one who had any input into decisions as to having kids was the guy and he then forced the mother to stay at home and take care of them, then yeah, 'the working parent decided it'. If both partners actually were partners, and not some caricature of 'Father Knows Best' out of the 50s, then both partners decided it together.

You can't simply allow one of them to wash their hands of responsibility for the decisions made unless you really are claiming it was a one-sided relationship and one partner was dominated by the other.

I certainly would like for people to do what they can to help out their former partners, heck, it would be great if they could even work through their differences and stay together. But I'm not going to buy into the worldview that women have no agency to make their own decisions, and should be tied to former partners forever, even if only financially. That's a Rightwing worldview.

On the left, the response should be 'strengthen the social safety net'. If anyone, including an ex-wife (or ex-husband), is unable to afford to live with dignity, help them to do so, and help them learn skills and find employment that will let them not only live with dignity, but even live better than whatever the safety net provides.

[kcr]

406. Hardly. But even if that's the case

They still made both that choice for whatever reason. Why is it then okay to toss the stay at home parent aside and let them fend for themselves? I'm not claiming only one had input. I've repeatedly said that both do. So why it that the SAHP should be left in poverty and that's okay because it was their choice?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

410. By agreeing to a divorce, both partners are 'tossing the other aside'.

Why are you assuming that only the person who didn't contribute financially during the marriage is 'being tossed aside'?

Are we to assume that money is the central post of a marriage? That the goal of a marriage is to forever after tie two people together financially, even if they later divorce.

And, btw, did you notice I said strengthen the social safety net to the point where you can live with dignity, no matter who you are?

So why it that the SAHP should be left in poverty and that's okay because it was their choice?

They shouldn't. Society should provide enough income so that no one lives in poverty. It shouldn't be left to the whims of divorce courts, state laws, and whether or not they chose a rich person to marry.

[kcr]

414. But that's not all that's happening.

Divorce does more than that, doesn't it? Do you think that divorce should just mean "tossing aside" and nothing else?

If so then what does that mean for marriage? That becomes pretty lopsided legally speaking, doesn't it? If we have marriage as legally binding but no longer a legal undoing, then creates a whole host of problems, doesn't it?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

428. Are you reversing what you want?

If so then what does that mean for marriage? That becomes pretty lopsided legally speaking, doesn't it? If we have marriage as legally binding but no longer a legal undoing, then creates a whole host of problems, doesn't it?

Requiring one partner to support the other forever after seems to pretty much point to the fact that divorce does not in fact represent a 'legal undoing'. It's saying 'well, we'll half of the marriage, but you're stuck with the other half'.

[kcr]

433. How is that "reversing what I want?"

I already have what I want. There are divorce laws in place. You are the one that seems to think they're egregious. By the way, it's not forever. Almost no one gets alimony forever anymore.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

443. You both claim that marriage is

an 'undoing' while at the same time saying that there should continue to be a financial tie that doesn't 'undo' one part of the marriage, ie the financial commitment.

Glad to hear alimony isn't forever. That's a step in the right direction.

[seabeyond]

445. 50/50 give her her money. are you saying a couple should not split assets 50/50? nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

448. Assets gained during the marriage?

I'm fine with that. Even assets before the marriage, if they want to go the whole 'with all my worldly goods i thee endow'.

Assets gained AFTER the end of the marriage? No.

If it's over, it's over.

[kcr]

446. Marriage is a type of contract. Both parties cannot just walk away scot free.

If you make divorce as such, then it essentially gets rid of marriage because you're destroying it as a contract. Marriage no longer exists.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

449. Again, you say something that sounds like something I could agree with, but you don't mean it.

So you've told me how one party doesn't 'walk away scot free'. One party has to keep giving money to the other.

So now how does the other party 'not walk away scot free'? What do THEY have to keep giving to the other party?

[kcr]

452. How do I not mean it?

One party has to keep giving money to the other because they agreed to an arrangement that put the other at an economic disadvantage. What is hard to understand about this?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

476. If they actually agreed, there would be no fighting.

If it's that contractual, produce the contract. Show me the pre-nup (or mid marriage contract) in which they both agreed 'this will put you at a financial disadvantage, so I'm going to keep paying you, even after we break up'.

What really likely happened is that both people simply 'did it', without discussing the implications or possible outcomes. Without even considering the possibility of divorce. If they actually had sat down and 'agreed to an arrangement', then they would be fools not to have written something up that specifically stated that money would continue after a divorce.

[kcr]

485. Well, of course. But there you are. Divorce.

So, the one that stayed home shouldn't have to end up destitute. Divorce laws are set up so that one does not end up destitute. It's also why we tend to have social safety nets, even though regressives argue and fight those as well. We manage to hold on to them to some degree for a reason.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

503. I still don't see why the onus is placed upon

the one person who helped support the SAHP for the duration of the marriage when you say the 'harm' comes from businesses who are unwilling to hire a SAHP afterwards, as opposed to such support coming from the state, since the 'harm' is structural to our capitalistic business system. It seems to be yet another way to set people against each other, rather than having society support labour against business practices that hurt workers or those who want to work.

[kcr]

505. I don't get what's so hard to see

If you end the marriage with a SAHP, an arrangement you agreed to as well, you're putting them in a pickle if you don't provide some cointinued support until they can support themselves. Why should we get rid of the law that does this?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

515. Because I don't see it as 'you' (the non-SAHP) as being the one causing the pickle.

The 'pickle' is a societal structural issue. And thus it is my contention that fixing it should be a societal issue, not left up to the vagaries of individuals. As you yourself pointed out, not everyone is a millionaire. And since you love the word 'destitute', what happens when the non-SAHP is 'destitute' as well? Are we simply to in that case leave both parents to be 'destitute', because you can't squeeze any money out of the non-SAHP? I'm going to guess you'll say no.

So I'm going to say why should you take money from one guy to support someone he no longer is involved with, but not from another? If someone is going to wind up 'destitute', shouldn't society be the one who addresses the problem of BOTH women? Not just the one who happened to be lucky enough to marry rich?

[kcr]

518. Alimoney is based on what a person makes. So if one is destitue themselves they won't pay.

When the US isn't cutting the social safety net to the bone then maybe I'll consider. But I still don't see why we should have to strain a safety net further when both partners decided this. Why should the working partner walk off scot free while society is further burdened? No one made them decide to have a stay at home spouse who they the dumped to the streets.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

451. btw, seabeyond brought up a good point.

I'm fine with the 50/50 sort of dissolution, especially if it's 50/50 of money or items gained during the marriage.

In this case, for instance, if Grayson brought in 18 million during the course of the marriage, I'm fine with her getting 9 million of that in the divorce as a settlement. I just don't buy into an ongoing set of payments taken from earnings made AFTER the divorce.

[kcr]

455. Not everyone has millions

Most people who get alimony don't. And half the assets won't be enough. Especially now in this economy with employers who won't hire people who have large gaps in their employment history. Once those assets run dry they're screwed.

[seabeyond]

458. correct. and this is when a different story is told. as a matter of fact, he will probably have to

make payments on that 9 million owed cause he dies not have it in liquid form.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

464. Then he should be paying interest as well.

for not being able to provide the 9 mill up front.

[seabeyond]

469. yes. absolutely. i would be throwing all that stuff in. sure. but. right now, until divorce,

he is stranglin her in lack of funds. the longer he can wait out the papers, the more desperate she becomes, that she will take penance. and this is a wrong often employed.

he can be the good guy saying he is paying 12,500 a month. looks good? damn straight. no one is gonna feel for the woman.

it is really 2,400 a month for 6 people, use to millionaire lifestyle, in a million dollar income home trying to keep it up.

it is nasty

[stevenleser]

471. There is no divorce. They are not married. nt

[kcr]

489. Actually, they are still married. There's been no ruling yet. n/t

[stevenleser]

548. That's like saying someone isn't dead until declared so. They are not married. A dead person is

dead whether or not someone official declares it so.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

470. I sympathize.

I don't have millions. And the last paying job I had was in 2011, the last full time work I had in something like 2008 or 9. I'm still looking for work with that 'large employment history gap'. But I'm not going around saying that decisions I made jointly with others means they should be paying me because I've been unable to find new employment, even though my decision at the time was made largely for their benefit and my own sense of loyalty.

I wish I'd made a different decision, one that was more self-centered and benefited me, rather than them. But I'm not going to simply abdicate my own part of the responsibility and lay everything that resulted at their feet.

[seabeyond]

456. grayson chose this cause it makes her cash poor, and takes away any option for herself, to get

herself out of the situation she is in. the lawyer did it like this for a reason.

[stevenleser]

472. Grayson chose this because they are not married and she lied and committed bigamy

making her entitled to nothing. In fact, she owes him for any way she might have benefited from the fraudulent relationship.

[seabeyond]

475. he is lookin really.... greasy now. keep it up, steven... off to lunch.

[stevenleser]

478. I see, so if someone already married marries one of your kids, you will blame your kid.

Gotcha

[kcr]

488. He doesn't realize that the harder he defends him, the worse it looks

He should have quit long ago. I actually feel worse about Grayson than I did when I came into this thread.

[kcr]

486. The kids owe him too, I suppose. That explains why he's punishing them. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

424. exactly. nt

[stevenleser]

248. You really ought to see what you are defending before you level accusations. nt

[JTFrog]

253. All I needed to do was read this thread.

It's vile and vicious. But I'm glad it's out in the open for the rest of DU to see.

[stevenleser]

256. I am glad it is out in the open too, because the outcome is obvious. Alan is in the right. nt

[SidDithers]

251. Bookmarking...

For the next time "Grayson" comes to DU looking for campaign donations.

Sid

[stevenleser]

254. Sid, regardless of what any of us think of Grayson, he is going to be vindicated 100% here.

All you have to do is look at the evidence.

[SidDithers]

273. Steve, you know I have the utmost respect for you...

but I think we're going to have to agree to diagree here.

Paying only for the shelter needs of your own kids is not enough. The kids should be supported financially, regardless of the situation between the parents.

Sid

[stevenleser]

275. He is supporting them with $600 per month each. Plus paying $10K/mo for their housing.

I can explain this all in PM, but basically everything that has been alleged against him is pretty easily shot down.

[randys1]

396. Yes, either he is paying that much per child PLUS all the other expenses or he isnt, and if he is

then all divorced dads should properly be doing what they are told to do.

EVERYBODY, remember, the Koch Bros and Karl Rove and Reince Priebus would pay millions to destroy Alan Grayson.

NO american politician including even Bernie Sanders has said out loud in the descriptive ways he does (well maybe Bernie) the truth about the cons.

Like I said elsewhere I am surprised he is still alive or like Don Siegelman not in prison by now.

[JTFrog]

255. +1 n/t

[Sunlei]

305. That's what food stamps are there for, so use them.

[CrispyQ]

311. Never let Grayson for Congress get your phone number.

They will hound you mercilessly.

[maced666]

332. LOL what an idiot. And watch him get re-elected.

Repukes will vote for him just to keep him in office. So this issue will never go away.
He's always carried a 'creep' factor to me.

[TBF]

390. He's way ahead in the polls -

running against an unknown republican woman.

Smh.

[dilby]

351. One thing I always say.

"Behind every welfare queen is a deadbeat dad." Something I usually toss out to dbags who complain about women who collect social services to feed and house their kids.

[stevenleser]

359. One thing I always say. Each situation should be investigated on its own for its merits.

To do anything else is lazy thinking that will leave you in the wrong far too often.

[LawDeeDah]

364. Grayson is acting like a Repuglican would. Progressive ideals? ha!

If any Republican had a story like this there would be absolutely no defense of the guy here who appears to want to squeeze his family out of the home by leaving the conditions there unlivable. That is bordering on endangerment and criminality and a whole load of self centered selfish assholioism.

What an atrocity that he calls himself a Democrat/Progressive or whatever he calls himself. He should call himself a sorry human being. All for the love of the golden calf.

[dilby]

374. I think most progressives see him for what he is.

I am just grateful that he is not my Congressman, at least if he gets re-elected I can sleep better at night knowing I had nothing to do with it.

[MineralMan]

373. I'm troubled by this thread.

In the first place, there's no time to determine whether this candidate is, indeed, guilty of anything. After reading the thread, I still cannot make any firm judgment. Clearly, the news report was designed to hurt Grayson's chances of election. That seems quite clear, since smear stories this close to the election are almost always in that category.

I don't follow Grayson closely or know that much about him, except that he is a Democrat and he is running for office. Personally, I wouldn't post a smear story about a Democratic candidate on DU this close to an election, since there's no way for the candidate to resolve this before the election, one way or another.

The story is essentially a local one, as is the election. The voters in that congressional district will decide on whether he is elected to office or not, not us. And they may have a better understanding of this situation than any of us do. So, it's not my district, and not my decision to make.

I do know that last minute smear stories are a strategy often used by Republicans to attempt to win elections. Is this one of those? I do not know, but I suspect so. Too bad it's getting strong exposure here on DU.

I don't like it. I don't like it one bit.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

384. Since he is the one running/holding public office, I would think he would want his actions to be

so far above suspect where his children are concerned that there would be no reason for this thread because there would be nothing to question about his sincerity.

[stevenleser]

404. I think he is completely above being suspect and no one should have any questions.

First of all, T.A., we've seen this movie before, with the Graysons, right? I am sure you remember the hoopla about the abuse allegations just a few months ago. DU had multiple OPs, people were screaming about it, many folks attacking Grayson for being an abuser.

And then it turned out her allegations were bullshit. There was a video. She put her hands on HIM, not the other way around and she and her attorney quietly and sheepishly dropped the allegations right afterward. In fact there was some question about whether she would be charged, but Alan declined to pursue it.

So now, we find out, that she lied about having divorced her first husband such that her marriage to Grayson was invalid because she was still married to her first husband when she married Alan. Several years after the marriage ceremony to Alan, she quietly hired an attorney and got divorced and never told him. This was found back in April by Alan's attorney when he went through the due diligence of investigating everything to prepare a case for his client. That revelation, and their confrontation with Lolita, is what precipitated the bullshit abuse allegation, by the way.

So since then, we find out she has been living in the original family home, he has been paying for the home ($10,000 a month) and $600/month per child under 18. She and her attorney are still trying to pursue divorce and a large settlement from a marriage that never existed. And now she is alleging that the amount he is paying is leaving her in squalor and poor her and please vote for the Republican to punish him.

Now there are some folks that are trying to allege an alternate scenario and I addressed those in #302 http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025735849#post302 and to save you the trouble, the long and short of it is that any suggestion that Grayson already knew about the bigamy not only doesn't make sense, it only implicates her in additional lies (lying to the kids, lying on the campaign trail with Grayson, etc.)

So, to be on Lolita's side and find fault with Alan you have to

#1 - Forget about the lie on the abuse allegation, or believe it was true to begin with in spite of the video.

#2 - Forget about the lie about the bigamy or believe one of two impossible scenarios that Alan knew about it.

#3 - You have to believe that paying $12,500.00 per month in total support makes Alan a deadbeat dad.

#4 - You have to think that all the underhandedness I outlined plus trying to get a Republican elected in Alan's seat to vindictively punish him is OK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apply Occam's razor and what do you get?

She knew she was still married when she married Grayson and didn't tell Alan because she thought she would lose the relationship. She decided to quietly take care of the previous marriage a few years later without telling him hoping that nothing would happen. When the relationship fell apart, she filed for divorce asking for a big settlement hoping no one would discover the previous marriage and if Alan's attorney hadn't done the due diligence, she likely would have gotten it. When discovered she hoped the abuse allegation would force him to settle. And I'll bet that after the discovery of the bigamy, Alan's attorneys warned him to videotape every encounter with her and that's how the video happened.

With the abuse angle out the window, that didn't leave Lolita and her attorneys much in the way of options, so now they are trying to force him into a settlement with allegations he isn't adequately providing for his kids when he is paying them to live in a $10,000 a month house (Do you know what $10,000 a month buys in Florida, one of the cheapest real estate states/markets in the country?) and on top of that is paying $600/month per kid for each kid under 18 (Florida stops child support at 18) while this is all sorted out.

Now, I will admit, that $600/mo per kid is an average to slightly below average amount, but not when the guy is paying for the housing on top of it and certainly not when that housing is $10,000 per month.

So, yeah, he is above being suspect and no one should have any questions. We have a person in Lolita who has lied and manipulated and put her kids and family in the crosshairs of a particular lie and is trying everything to get a big settlement.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

407. Her actions do not concern me. Not my business. She is not seeking office. However, since HE is

seeking public approval for a job elected by the taxpayers - He should be so

far above reproach that there is no need whatsoever, for this conversation.

Evidently, there are questions. Else there would not be this thread.

[stevenleser]

408. Please, there are folks that believe all kinds of crazy things. The fact that...

... "a few people believe something" is hardly a reason to do anything.

The facts are as I laid out.

And what is this nonsense about "Her actions do not concern me". The entire situation is regarding a relationship between two people. You cannot take the actions of one in a vacuum in that situation. That is behaving disingenuously.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

412. steven. you do not tell me what I can and can not do.

her actions are her responsibility. his are his ... and Mine too, BECAUSE he is seeking public office.

That is the long and short of it.

That is NOT being disingenuous. That is being honest about why there are QUESTIONS about his private affairs.

perhaps you would like to speak to his seaworld debacle ....

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson intervenes in probe of SeaWorld trainer's death
August 19, 2010|By Jason Garcia and Mark K. Matthews, Orlando Sentinel

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, a vocal supporter of SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, acknowledged Thursday that he intervened in a federal investigation into the death of a SeaWorld killer-whale trainer.

Grayson, D-Orlando, personally contacted the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration earlier this week to discuss the agency's probe of the death of Dawn Brancheau, a SeaWorld Orlando trainer who was drowned Feb. 24 by a six-ton killer whale named Tilikum.

OSHA is in the process of finalizing that investigation. The agency must issue any citations, proposed fines or recommended remedies by early next week.

Grayson would not answer questions about his exchange with OSHA when reached on his cell phone Thursday, and his office said he was unavailable for an interview later in the day. But Grayson's chief of staff, Julie Tagen, said in an e-mail that Grayson wanted to learn "first hand" the status of OSHA's probe and to "share his own views and impressions regarding the matter."

more at link:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-08-19/business/os-seaworld-osha-grayson-20100819_1_dawn-brancheau-killer-whale-performances-marine-parks-and-aquariums

[stevenleser]

415. I can tell you exactly what you should do, and you can try to tell me what to do, as long as

a jury doesn't find it over the top. That's what a discussion forum is for.

And bringing up a Seaworld issue now? Really? And you were just trying to tell me about not being disingenuous?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

416. I am only asking questions, Steven. Tell me again. I love it when you lord over me, my master.

so sexy, you are.

[stevenleser]

417. Awww how sweet.

What is it you want me to tell you again?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

419. Tell me how Seaworld has nothing whatsoever to do with Alan's character referral, snookums.

[stevenleser]

427. Bahahahahahahaha

[Tuesday Afternoon]

437. !

[MineralMan]

387. Alan Grayson is also a member of DU.

That troubles me further with regard to this post. Why? Because it's an ugly callout of a DU member. He's one of the few candidates who is actually a posting member of DU.

Here's his most recent DU post, oddly enough posted on the same day as this smear news story from his district:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251382515

[LawDeeDah]

392. I don't think Grayson should get protection in that way.

He is a public figure and we should be able to discuss his decisions and actions like any other. Using DU as a shield against criticism is wrong, in my opinion.

Does he engage in conversation here on DU? I have read about his links for asking for donations that are posted here apparently quite frequently, which could be done by staff and not himself personally.

[kcr]

399. Agreed. He is a public political figure.

He should not be off limits.

[seabeyond]

395. i am bothered that this has been allowed to become his very playground on possibly screwin his

family and we are not allowed to challenge. what a way to get his story and defense out on the net, at the expense of his kids....

no thank you.

[TBF]

398. There is a rule about respecting members privacy -

in the TOS but I think he doesn't fall under that category since he is a public servant and has put himself out there. He (or rather his staff that is actually posting here) would realize that as well. He's ahead in the polls and will likely win.

So, I wouldn't be worrying about Poor Al. I do wonder about the mold in that house though and what kind of effect it is having on his kids. You'd think he'd wonder about that as well. I would also hope other so-called progressives would worry about that. ??

[IdaBriggs]

413. It must be hard to be his poor soon-to-be-ex-wife with BROKEN FINGERS that can't dial a phone

and arrange for mold remediation specialists to come to the house (if that is necessary, which in Florida it might be), and then have them send the bill to her soon-to-be-ex-husband.

Oh, the horror - able to dial the phone to arrange for a reporter, but NOT find a service to fix a problem that is endangering the health of her children.



But someone actually taking responsibility for the house she is living in like that would really ruin the "poor her" narrative, wouldn't it?

[kcr]

422. The backflips and twisting to make her the villain. It's amazing.

So he's stopped maintaining the house. You think she's deliberately not doing anything about it to make him look bad. When he's doing the thing that's making him look bad in the first place. There couldn't be other reasons. Like the fact it's a very public divorce and he canceled the maintenance contracts couldn't possibly explain it. No, it must be the poor woman on public assistance's fault. Not her millionaire ex who made a deliberate choice to stop maintaining the place.

[IdaBriggs]

491. He is not living there. She is and KNOWS there is mold. If you can't fix it yourself --

CALL A PROFESSIONAL.

This is not about being a villain - this is about being a responsible grown-up. She can have the bill sent "to the landlord" if she doesn't have the funds, and then the court can fuss about who is going to take responsibility for it.

Children should not live with mold. If she can't figure out how to fix that, she probably shouldn't have custody.

No one has to live in "slum lord" conditions - there are legal remedies to correct the situation, and the fact she is NOT availing herself of them makes her look like an idiot to anyone with half a brain.

Mold = Bad. Phone call to Fix = GOOD.

You seem to have an agenda, and frankly, it doesn't appear to be "the best interests of the children" (who shouldn't be living in a moldy house).

[kcr]

495. Those are his kids, too.

It's his house. Of the two of them, guess who I'm going to hold more responsible? The owner of the house and the one with millions.

[IdaBriggs]

496. The point is this: She doesn't HAVE to live with Mold.

He isn't MAKING her live with Mold.

This is a CHOICE.

She can pick up the phone and make the mold go away.

She can have the bill sent to him, and it won't cost her a dime.

Is there a reason you keep trying to portray her as a helpless victim? And why on earth would you want children living with someone with a "helpless victim" mentality when the behavior is obviously endangering their health and well being?

ON EDIT: Just did a yahoo search for "Orlando Florida Mold Remediation" and ONE-HUNDRED-THIRTY companies all came up, with "free estimates" being a big deal. This is ridiculouis!!!

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVxni41NUQB8AXzpXNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3lmcC10LTMxOARncHJpZANXSDN5VkdOTlRXT3diVFRmT1lYS1ZBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMxBG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDBHFzdHJsAzMxBHF1ZXJ5A29ybGFuZCBmbG9yaWRhIG1vbGQgcmVtZWRpYXRpb24EdF9zdG1wAzE0MTQ3ODQwMjk-?p=orland+florida+mold+remediation&fr2=sb-top-search&fr=yfp-t-318&fp=1

[kcr]

497. He isn't doing a damn thing about it. On purpose.

And he's a politician on top of it, so he should know that's going to look bad. And he still doesn't care. His need for vengeance is that strong. That is what she is dealing with. You would think one of the richest politicians in America would take great care to make sure something like this didn't happen. On top of that he way underpays child support. You think that's her fault, too?

[IdaBriggs]

529. You keep repeating the same stuff, and now I am, too.

I do not think we are actually communicating.

She can use a phone. She can fix this. I think child support will get resolved, and if it is being underpaid, it will be rectified as he is very collectable.

The anger between divorcing spouses is normal - if they could work things out in a reasonable fashion, they would most likely be staying married.

Your investment in their relationship status, including her media portrayal of him (who she picked) as a "slum lord / dead beat dad" is simply over the top. At this point photos could surface of her sucking the lifeblood of kittens and puppies, and your take would be "see what he has reduced her to!"

I have no knowledge of any wrong he has committed, while she has publicly slandered him as an abuser, is a bigamist, and apparently a neglectful, abusive parent who can't type "mold remediation" into a device connected to the Internet or look in one of those old fashioned yellow books with ads in them, yet you seem to be personally invested in blaming him only for their marital difficulties.

Neither one of us can fix their mess. Best we end our discussion on the matter, and part on friendly terms.

May you have a blessed Halloween.

[kcr]

532. The fact that she can fix it is irrelevant

For one, you have no idea whether she's done anything to fix it. You're just assuming she hasn't without any evidence. But it's still irrelevant because he's wrong in the first place, whether she's trying to fix it or not. He should not be letting that house fall in disrepair in the first place. I'm not invested in her side. I'm simply stating the truth.

[IdaBriggs]

537. No, it is NOT irrelevant.

Houses require maintenance. If she knows about a problem, asked him to fix it, and he refused, then the next step of a RESPONSIBLE ADULT who is concerned about the safety of their children is Fix the Problem.

Let's try a different example. Let's say he doesn't come in and change the batteries on the smoke alarms, and they are all dead. Let's say the house catches on fire.

Should she leave the kids in a burning house while screaming about how he neglects the property? Or should she make sure the batteries are all working (sending him the bill if she has to buy them), and get the kids out if the place is on fire?

The principal is the same - it is up to her to make sure the place she and her children are living is safe. If it isn't up to code, then fix it and present the bill, or get the hell out and complain (with evidence) to the courts later.

[kcr]

543. Yes, it is. He should be maintaining that house and he isn't

Why would a politician who should be extra careful about these things do such a thing?

[stevenleser]

549. You're arguing with someone who is not interested in the facts here.

They have decided that Lolita is right based on nothing other than wanting her to be right and any contrary facts are ignored.

[IdaBriggs]

555. I was a little slow on the clue train.

Some of these comments could have been written by Koch supporters. They are embarrassing - if these gossip hounds really are Democrats, it is no wonder we lose elections.

We eat our own.

[kiva]

564. Irrelevant?

So it's horrible if you think he is making his children live in a moldy house, but it's perfectly OK if she could fix it and is, instead, making her children live in a moldy house.

She is not paying rent. She is not working. She is receiving $2400+ plus per month. And she can't be bothered to call and have the mold removed because, why?

I think he's being a jerk, but she has also indicated that her desire to live a 'good life' is more important to her than doing what is right for her children, like improving their living conditions.

And yes, I've had to deal with mold in a house, and taking pictures to post online really does nothing to solve the problem - well, except make your ex who is running for office look bad...which may, after all, be the point.

[dilby]

499. So you support slumlords who do not perform the necessary repairs on buildings they own.

He owns the house, he needs to perform the maintenance as any landlord would be expected. When she owns the house then you can tell her to fix it.

[IdaBriggs]

533. Actually, I can tell her to fix it now, and send him the bill....

Which is what anyone dealing with this type of situation should be doing.

If he really is a slumlord (as opposed to having a soon-to-be-ex-wife who is neglecting a maintenance issue) there are things she can and should be doing to address the situation such that she and their children are living in a safe environment.

Walking a reporter around the property is not one of them - that is simply a "revenge tactic" in a bitter divorce, and frankly, I found 130 companies in Orlando who deal with this type of situation in seconds.

Her behavior borders on abuse and neglect. If she can. Not provide a safe environment for them, she needs to lose custody.

He can be sent the bill. There is simply no excuse for letting this situation continue.

The fault is not his - bluntly, it is hers.

You may disagree. My life continues.

[kcr]

547. Why don't you then? n/t

[tammywammy]

426. I doubt she had to call a reporter.

In herast court filing she discussed the house's issues. I'd more likely think a reporter went to her.

[IdaBriggs]

493. Are you missing the point? She can walk a reporter around the "moldy place"

but can't flip through a phone book to find a mold remediation company?

It's Florida, so I'm thinking there is more to the problem than scrubbing things down with bleach; I believe there are companies that deal with this type of situation on a regular basis down there, and the fact she hasn't hired one is borderline child abuse/neglect in my opinion.

If it isn't safe to live there, move into a hotel, and send the bill to their daddy. There are many ways to solve these types of problems that don't involve whining in public about them.

I am *NOT* impressed with her.

[stevenleser]

432. Excellent point. You would think she would have an estimate to show us. It doesnt cost anything to

get an estimate.

But she has no interest in actually getting the mold removed, if in fact it exists. This is about trying to force Alan into a settlement she doesnt deserve because she knowingly and fraudulently married him when she was already married.

[LawDeeDah]

440. you said: But she has no interest in actually getting the mold removed

with such authority and certainty!

[stevenleser]

441. Actually taking the history of someone's actions into account allows you to do that, yes. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

574. I'm in the construction business. If I had a dollar for every time someone threw "mold"around as a .

..... weapon or threat I would be wealthy.

It's a common tactic to throw the mold bogeyman around to try and scare people.

What I saw in the news clip was a leaky skylight with moldy drywall. Maybe there is mold in the house but the rest of the pictures the house looked pretty nice. Somehow that became mold in every room.

One of my condo neighbors was fighting with another neighbor whose furnace A/C leaked in to yet a third neighbor's house I was doing some work on. I was there when queen instigator came in the unit that had the water damage and she started the "sniff, sniff, I think I smell mold" - she was trying to cause trouble for the upstairs neighbor because she was feuding with them. I put a stop to that shit right away. I offered to cut out and replace a couple pieces of soggy drywall to keep the peace. $20 bucks in materials. Done.

About 3 months ago, queen instigator's toilet overflowed and damaged a different neighbor's (she is feuding with them too) ceiling. Funny her sense of smell for mold disappeared when her bacon was in the fire. Yeah I fixed that too.

[kcr]

442. Was she asked to show an estimate? If not, it might not have occured to her to whip one out.

If she wasn't being confronted by a Grayson defender and being interrogated as to what she was doing to fix it.

[ancianita]

477. Damned right. We need Democrats, period. This is exactly the wrong time to withdraw DU support!

Why do DU'ers here hate Democrats so easily?!

DU doesn't know all the details of his personal struggles, so personal problems should be off the table.

This thread's divisive bickering about his personal life is what's wrong with this party -- exactly at a time when we should get on with campaigning to fill congressional seats. Any challenges to Grayson, here or in media, should be based on his job record -- a good one by most standards -- not his personal life.

[MineralMan]

481. Well, the reasons may be complex. I won't say what I think the reasons

are for some, though, because I don't know those people, and don't actually know what they believe.

[dilby]

502. The Party is more important than one Candidate.

How does it look to Independents or potential Democrats when we can't keep our house clean? Backing a bad apple may win this years election but it can cause us to lose the next two. For me there is no such thing as an election that is too important to vote against my morals. Grayson will be a liability for the party, his divorce is only going to get messier and draw more negative attention. If he wins this Election then fine but he should be told he is not running again and start looking for the candidate for the next election. If he loses just step away from him and cut your ties.

[ancianita]

510. Bad apple? You presume standards that used to be off the table, now put front and center by cowards

cowed by the loud jackals of Republican PR machinery. This is corporate straw man bullshit.

If one's marriage were on the table (which it isn't 99% of the time) as a moral standard for voting, most governors, state reps, mayors -- hell, most of Congress -- wouldn't be in office. We all know this.

And yet they are. Because most Democrats understand that there's a greater morality at stake for this party. Most Democrats believe that no marital struggles should be exploitable by the Republican Party in an attempt to subvert the Democratic Party's greater ends. Do others do it for them? Sure. But the party principles are historically solid about politicians' marriages.

Every day, Christians remind each other of what Jesus said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

The party of FDR is made of people who mostly think in the way Shakespeare had Hamlet speak to that governmental weasel, Polonius:

"...use every man
After his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?
Use them after your own honour and dignity: the less
They deserve, the more merit is in your bounty."

Even Republicans understand this. This thing called forgiveness, and getting on with larger issues.

And here you are, forgetting; trying to act as if one man's marital struggle is part and parcel of the morality for the masses that this party must uphold. It's important to you right now because some people always say that anything is on the table. In the long run, no one's marital problems are as important as all our problems.

Making marital success the measure of one's leadership capabilities is trifling.

Let's all support Democrats! Now is not squabble time! We don't have to like them personally to support their politics.

Get them into office, first. Attack their personal lives later. You simply refuse to separate a politician's work from his personal life. Thank the god I don't believe in that we've had Democrats who've done good work for this country in spite of your standards.

[kcr]

544. Supporting dems does not have to mean supporting acts one finds abhor ant.

I will never support parental deadbeats, no matter who they are. It isn't okay the way he's treating his kids at the very least.

[steve2470]

447. no clue what the whole truth is but....

Last edited Fri Oct 31, 2014, 03:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Mold: I live in Florida, mold does not spring up instantly. It takes time to grow. If Mrs. Grayson has asked Mr. Grayson to have the mold removed and he refused, that's not good. Of course, documentation required of all the above.

Septic leak: Same point as above, documentation required.

Child support amount: Kind of low for a man with his income and assets, but again I'm not privy to all the facts. eta: The real child support figure is the $10K a month for the house and expenses, plus the $592 a month. It might have been wise for Mr. Grayson to provide some pre-divorce support for her separately. I would have, but that's me.

I'm sorry Mr. Grayson, but somehow you and your lawyer allowed things to get to this point. If he loses the election, this story will be one of the main causes. Yes, the timing of the story is suspect but this is politics and she's angry with him, rightly or wrongly. Most people aren't going to parse legal technicalities and will only look at the septic leak and the mold, and the fact he's a millionaire.

If he loses the election, I will not be surprised. Sadly. We need Dems in my area and across the country.

[stevenleser]

483. I've contacted the Florida Attorney General's office to find out if they plan to prosecute Lolita

for Bigamy, which in Florida is a 3rd degree felony. I will post any response.

[ancianita]

484. Good luck with that Republican's 'timely response.' I wonder if Nejame has contacted her, as well.

[kcr]

494. Are you rubbing your hands together in eager anticipation? n/t

[LawDeeDah]

504. crikies, that's borderline worrisome, stevenleser.

Her incarceration and humiliation seems like it would be a Christmas present to you! You take such delight, it's, uh, a bit disturbing, man. Where will the children go if she is imprisoned, like it seems you wish her to be? To Grayson, but who will look after them while he is off working and pretending to be a progressive?

wtf.

[kcr]

506. It explains a lot n/t

[ancianita]

517. "Christmas present." What a trifling interpretation toward someone who has made the best case

on this thread about both the legal facts and the chronology of this amplified sordidness. What fluff. What an effortless, glib post. While you exercise your first amendment rights here, you might..

1. Try actually reading stevenleser's posts, because it's obvious that you haven't.

2. Knock off the personal, cheap shots.

[LawDeeDah]

535. Best case? I and others disagree. You can have your opinion tho, that is quite fine.

I happen to think that a Father should be more mature and responsible and not a flesh eating vengeful storm of punishment.

[ancianita]

540. I've said it to dilby and I'll say it to you. Support your fellow Democrats and stop falling for

corporate tabloid PR machinations.

This is corporate straw man bullshit. If you can't see that, read MineralMan.

Again:

If one's marriage were on the table (which it isn't 99% of the time) as a moral standard for voting, most governors, state reps, mayors -- hell, most of Congress -- wouldn't be in office. We all know this.

And yet they are. Because most Democrats understand that there's a greater morality at stake for this party. Most Democrats believe that no marital struggles should be exploitable by the Republican Party in an attempt to subvert the Democratic Party's greater ends.

Here you are, trying to act as if one man's marital struggle is part and parcel of the morality for the masses that this party must uphold. If how one ran his/her marriage and family were the voting standard in this country, most of those now in office would be gone and women -- women! -- would be running this country. In the long run, no one's marital problems are as important as all our problems.

At this point, making marriage or children the measure of one's leadership capabilities is trifling.

Don't succumb to divisive judgment right before an election. Help get the man into office -- he really has had a good voting and bill development record -- and attack what you think are his family man shortcomings after.

That's what Democrats fail to do -- in the name of family morality issues -- and that's how we are held in contempt by the very opposition who know better than to eat their own right before an election.

You don't have to agree with Grayson's family issues to support his election and the interests of the larger party. This thread's pushed a lot of values buttons, but we all know that in the end the truth will come out. He'll probably set up trusts for the kids (as direct beneficiaries), she'll probably get the house and the rest.

If you and the Grayson haters here don't realize that you're being sucked in by this Republican PR attack, then you haven't been paying attention to their attack strategies over the last twenty years.

[stevenleser]

546. I've actually gotten a couple of nice PMs from DUers thanking me for taking the time to go through

it all, the chronology and facts as you mentioned and I thank them for that. Lots of folks do not want to participate because they don't want to have to go through fending off all of the crazy responses like those I have gotten from folks who are trying to push a narrative so ridiculous it really doesn't merit a reasoned response.

I thank those who have PM'd me to offer support and I thank you ancianita, closeupready, valerief and various others. I think the majority of folks here who have read through this all agree with me and can see that all of the facts are in Alan's corner, and Lolita is a habitual liar who has really hurt her family through those lies. Lets not forget that their 18 year old daughter completely backed up Alan when the abuse allegations came out and her recounting of the details completely corroborated the video.

The facts are all with Alan Grayson here.

[seabeyond]

565. is grayson pm'ing you what to say, lol. come on steven, you can tell us

[ancianita]

568. Not cool.

[seabeyond]

572. Cool or not, I think it is relevant enough for me to ask.

[ancianita]

573. A joke about it is relevant. To ask if he's speaking for another DU'er who's more than capable

of speaking for himself casts a shadow of distrust and doesn't come across as relevant at all.

I could take it either way, but why make a kidding-on-the-square point about his motives at all. Has he ever given you probable cause. He's as trustworthy as you, me or anyone else here in the give and take of discussion.

Now that Democrats are down to the wire, it's time for us to first, support The Win now; second, deal with the personal later.

I'm done. Going out for a smoke and leftover Snickers.

Happy Halloween.

[stevenleser]

569. Nope, but I've reached out to his folks. He was on my show last year around this time if you recall.

Sept 2, 2013 - Congressman Alan Grayson on Syria http://kcaaradio.celestrion.net/kcaa-podcasts/leser/20130902.html

[seabeyond]

571. No. I do not recall. Though I am not surprised with your manner of defense.

[ancianita]

567. They are. DU history is also that Democrats support their candidates near voting time.

I and others thank you for your persistently effortful posts.

Happy Halloween.

[cherokeeprogressive]

519. If I didn't know better I'd say someone was on Grayson's payroll.

Some of the posts seem more than a little bulldoggish.

[IdaBriggs]

582. By the same logic, are you implying we have Republican employees in this thread?

A nasty insult either way.

It is a gossip thread about someone else's personal life, with false accusations of abuse, actual real life bigamy (seriously, how often does that happen?), public assistance/welfare fraud, and divorce with a bonus "Vocal, Effective Democrat running for Office" who is Rich.

Highly unlikely anyone is being paid to discuss, although hoping the Democrat loses his job for having the bad judgment to marry this nut does seem like something the Koch Brothers would support.

But implying Steve is getting paid by the campaign for participating in the thread is Not Nice.

Maybe a self-delete is in order?

[cherokeeprogressive]

585. This might be the first time I've ever seen someone post over 100 times in a single thread...

So, no. But thanks for looking out for me.

[IdaBriggs]

586. I am glad you know better.

We have multiple someone's posting a lot in this thread; juicy gossip we all seem to flame about.

Wish I wasn't as guilty of it myself!

Now, after learning way too much about this, I find myself wondering how much danger this idiot woman (assuming her fraud was caused by ignorance/stupidity and not intentionally criminal) may have caused the country by being able to be blackmailed.

There is no evidence anyone attempted to influence Representative Grayson through his "fake" marriage by either threatening to expose it or threatening her with exposure of her lies while she was theoretically "happily married" but ....

[dilby]

559. Be sure to ask them to investigate how she benefited.

Was she sleeping with both husbands? Filing joint tax returns with both husbands? Have multiple assets shared with both husbands? Receiving money from both husbands? Because generally people who intentionally commit bigamy do it for gain, people who accidentally do it, do it because they thought they were divorced.

But that doesn't matter to you, you know she never benefited from having two husbands. Just like he knows his wife never benefited from it, it's just a legal loophole he is hoping to exploit that would get him off the hook of splitting his assets, paying alimony and paying support for the children.

[stevenleser]

570. No. nt

[dilby]

575. Proves my point.

You don't care if your man is right or wrong, all you care about is if he wins the election. Guess that's the difference between you and me, my income is not affected by who gets elected.

[IdaBriggs]

583. Actually, it doesn't prove your point.

He said he wasn't going to ask the very STUPID QUESTIONS you were asking because no one cares.

She benefitted from committing bigamy because "she has had a nice life" (her quote) for the last 29 years. She has been treated like Alan Grayson's Wife when she was Robert Carson's Wife (and should have been living with him instead), and then was A Single Person living with a partner who she was lying to about being his wife.

She took assets from her relationship with Mr. Grayson, and used them to hire an attorney named Mr. Gordon Charles Brydger in 1994 to end the first marriage. She did not disclose this to her "second husband" most likely in hopes it would never be discovered. I am frankly surprised none of the Republicans running against Mr. Grayson from 2004 on didn't try to get her thrown in jail, but apparently it is only Democrats who like to attack the VICTIMS OF CRIMES while sympathizing with the criminals who commit fraud.

According to THIS article http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-lolita-grayson-files-for-divorce-from-alan-grayson-20140107-post.html SHE filed for divorce, and they have been married for 24 years. (Maybe they lived together for the other 5?)

She benefitted from the fraud. We have no idea what she was doing while still married to Mr. Carson - was she a scammer sending him money? Did she have a secret life with him? Was she sleeping with both of them?

Ah, but honestly, who cares? In this country you can only have one spouse at a time, so she and Mr. Grayson were NEVER legally married, and thus can't get a divorce. He isn't her husband. Now the courts get to sort it out.

It is a mess that Lolita Carson created and I think your post insulting Steve was obnoxious.

[ancianita]

589. Thank you. Glad for all your persuasiveness and new information here.

[dilby]

594. do you view women as property?

Because you make it sound like she belonged to the man she thought she was divorced from.

[IdaBriggs]

602. And now you are insulting ME by implying I think women are PROPERTY?

What is wrong with you today? Is this a reading comprehension issue, or do you just like to insult people on the Internet?

In what century do you think stating that "people should live with the people they are married to" implies anything resembling an OWNERSHIP situation?

She was married to Carlton through 1994 despite having participated in a not-legal fraudulent marriage ceremony with Grayson several years before. She should have been living within the means of the relationship she and HER HUSBAND had financially, instead of Grayson.

If it was an "oops - paperwork problem!" it could have been disclosed and repaired (instead of being hidden from the man she was sharing her life with); the more I think about this, the angrier I get with her (and I don't even know her) because this could have created a blackmail situation that might have caused problems for this whole freaking country based on his role in the Federal Government.

Grayson could have paid her to go away; frankly I appreciate the integrity he is showing by being open and honest with ALL OF US about the facts of the case, including the fact she lied to him about such important issues. That had to have been a serious blow to both his self esteem and pride.

As for you, your intellectual dishonesty and insinuations about the character of the people discussing this case (which I have only a "not my circus, not my monkeys" interest in) has been frustrating and not-enjoyable.

My participation needs to end for now.

Good day.

[msanthrope]

578. Did you ask for prosecution of Mr. Carson, too? nt

[ALBliberal]

580. it's not about him being a millionaire

It's not about politics. It is not about bigamy. Lolita is choosing to live in filth. What parent allows their kids to live in filth? At this supposed 10000 per month home surely she could find a clean safe smaller house or apartment for well under half that to raise her kids. Alan Grayson isnt the type of person to allow her to bully him which is what she is trying to do. All he really can do is seek custody. If she cant pick up the phone and get the house in shape or move out altogether she is being vindictive and the kids are paying the price sadly.

[LawDeeDah]

587. She does not have that 10 thou a month, Alan pays that directly.

So what you suggest can't be done unless she doesn't feed or clothe the kids, she has got no money to go shopping for other homes. Grayson can afford to clean up the mess, and he won't, like a miserable and spiteful little Scrougeman. Think what you like of Mrs Grayson, maybe she isn't the perfect anything like most of us are not, but Grayson is a mean piece of work.

[ALBliberal]

606. he is mean

But she needs to take this to court waiting is making her look worse and worsr

[seabeyond]

591. he is not giving her 10k a month. he is giving her 2k a month. how much for a place 6 people

in the area they live in?

she cant buy. i am sure she has not credit, nor job that would allow her to buy

so she has to rent a four bedroom. how much a month do you think that would be? then utilities, then living expense. oh and hte kids lifestyle is millionaire. now, though grayson is sending their lifestyle to poverty, it is going to take them a bit to get to that mentality. and start letting go of the things they are use to in the previous life.

tell me how much a month this would be

as you point the finger at a woman taking care of the kids, while the man you praise has millions.

at least be logical in your accusations.

[ALBliberal]

605. and I praised him how?

And she can't get the house in shape either? She is doing nothing to improve the situation

[seabeyond]

607. i do not know about hte house, the shape it is in, what is required, if she can hire,

her abilities in knowledge in maintenance, ect....

do you?

of course not.

my point, is you talk her getting 10k a month. my point. she is not getting 10k a month.

[True Blue Door]

593. How is this relevant?

If the argument is that the state isn't paying her enough to support herself, that's probably true.

But if the argument is about whether Alan Grayson isn't paying her enough, that's a private matter involving the two of them and whatever legal avenues are pursued.

[randys1]

601. Has the truth about this come out yet? Has this harmed one of the ONLY real liberals in our

political process enough to get him out of the House?