General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy the hell is Alan Grayson going after his wife for bigamy?
He was with her for 24 years. He has 5 children with her. The only reason would seem to be money. But this just strikes me as a horrible thing to do to his kids. Not to mention that it'll kill any possibility of his running for higher office and may just kill his career in Congress.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)His claim made to her -divorce- attorney is she that she married him while still being married...
Seems to be another example of divorcing as un-friends.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Doesn't he care? Wouldn't it be easier on them if he just game her a little bit more to get by then going to court and ruining his chances to be elected again. He was quite popular when he was a House Representative (Dem) because he really spoke up to the Rethugs...
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I think that years ago he posted on DU.
But hurt feelings ... they can motivate things which don't make rational sense.
Even to the point of estrangement with children
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
wordpix
(18,652 posts)that will solve that
Grayson should try to settle and keep this BS out of the papers!
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)The only divorce papers found were the ones filed four years AFTER her "marriage" to Alan.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Maybe she doesn't want to be on food stamps and her kids are embarrassed about it.
We just don't know.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)
PCIntern
(25,541 posts)
whathehell
(29,067 posts)greed is a necessary trait, e.g. There's never enough?
bluedigger
(17,086 posts)Whatthehell, indeed. 
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and I have no ideas as to what you're talking about
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)As someone said, "it's easy to get rich--if that's ALL you want to do."
So anyone with an attitude that doesn't place much importance on wealth, is unlikely to get rich.
That certainly includes me. And guess what?--We're quite happy not to be on the path to riches.
I think maybe your own biases are intruding here & placing some implicit values.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)I feel the same way as you regarding wealth.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)My point is another 15m after that wouldn't change my life all that much...
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)However, I WOULD mind becoming the person I would need to become in order to do the things I would need to do in order to acquire 15 million.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Unless you are an elite athlete or entertainer then you can make money hand over fist without really compromising any of your principles.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I'd be stuck with making it the old-fashioned way: Figuring out how to take it from other people.
Anyway, athletes pay a very high price, measurable in health problems and shortened lifespans, for their fame & wealth.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Basketball is a so called non contact sport yet many ex players in their forties have the gait of a seventy year old man.
cali
(114,904 posts)
elleng
(130,865 posts)'A hearing on whether the Graysons' marriage was legitimate was held earlier this week. The hearing is to be continued at a later date.
Grayson said his wife, Lolita, was still married to another man when she and the multimillionaire congressman married in 1990 in Virginia.
She has said she was divorced at the time.'
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-ap-alan-grayson-divorce-20150313-story.html
His constituents may or may not want to keep him. What's their alternative? 
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Divorce lawyers tend to laugh at TV shows where divorce lawyers fall in love with their clients.
Divorce lawyers don't like being in the same room as their own clients, that's how ugly that stuff gets.
And, of course, divorce litigants often seek out the most aggressive, toxic, assholish lawyer they can find.
cali
(114,904 posts)and people who give a shit about their kids, keep in mind how it all effects them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And, given Mr. Grayson's rather confrontational disposition to begin with . . . not that surprising in this instance.
She of course called police on him at one point, etc etc.
No one looks better with their divorce proceedings being publicized.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Joan and Ted Kennedy are the perfect example.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)He was good friends with Orrin Hatch.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Imagine finding out the person to whom you're married was still married to someone else when you took your vows. Now imagine that this person, to whom you're not even legally married, wants half of everything you own.
I don't blame him for his scorched earth tactics. He should provide amply for his kids (fyi...I think one is already eighteen), but I don't think he owes Lolita anything.
cali
(114,904 posts)still married when the two of them wed? She stayed at home and cared for the children and the house. He damn well does owe her something for 24 years of that.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)If their marriage was never legal, though, she's certainly not entitled to half of his fortune. She can get a job to support herself like everyone else.
If she "married" him while she was still married to someone else, that would tend to show that she had larceny on her mind.
cali
(114,904 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)per month in child support. That seems pretty generous if they were never legally married. Grayson is trying for custody which means he would support the kids full time, although she should be on the hook for child support if they're with him. Some sort of settlement will probably entitle her to some of his assets, but she shouldn't get alimony if they weren't legally married.
I'm not a fan of Alan Grayson, but he's right on this. She allegedly lied about her first divorce, and she definitely lied (as video proved) when she accused him of abuse. If I were in his shoes and had his resources, I would definitely fight this to the end.
cali
(114,904 posts)and child support has jackshit to do with whether or not they were legally married- it's CHILD SUPPORT.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Also, I believe one of the kids is over eighteen, so he's not obligated to pay her support for that kid. Six hundred per kid every month plus a place to live is pretty good.
cali
(114,904 posts)The State of Florida sure didn't see it as enough: she qualified for and received food stamps with that amount being taken into consideration.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)$2400 is a LOT for child support if there aren't many who are minors
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Basically he's paying child support for four kids, $600 per kid.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Wow and to think he is worth 30 million. If he were a teacher, making 60 thousand a year with a net worth of 80 thousand then yes that is generous but there is nothing generous about this situation married or not.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Details...
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Is he paying all utilities for the home? Schooling costs? Clothes and food for the children? Sorry but 2400 dollars after living a life of a millionaire is not enough. Ask someone who was making 60K a year and then got laid off and now gets maybe 30K a year unemployment how generous it is. Ok I will throw in the unemployed parents picking up the mortgage for this scenario. Still good?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)when they were together. And I don't know Florida's laws about common law marriage, so your claim that she isn't entitled to any alimony may not be true.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)If the kids move in with him I don't see how she will be entitled to support, but like you, I don't know Florida law
dawg
(10,624 posts)Parents with the means should be required to pay enough child support to support a middle-class lifestyle for the children. If the working spouse can afford it, the non-working spouse should be provided with temporary income support to ease their transition back into the workforce. And, of course, property accumulated during the marriage should be divided in an equitable manner.
But no one should have the right to a much higher than average income just because they *used* to be married to someone.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Kids are notorious at asking for money constantly. mom got a 20 for lunch. I don't want what's on the menu today. Mom I forgot to say I need 40 bucks for the school trip for next Friday. oops Mom forgot it is your turn to make cookies for the class and your turn for buyin paper products. Oh Mom the Lecross team needs 300 dollars for the season need that'll in two days. Mom friends are going to the movies and pizza need 40 bucks. Oh Mom, remember Suzies birthday is on Saturday we still need a gift and it is at chucky cheese so I need money for tokens. Get my drift?
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Too bad. Eat it or go hungry.
Guess you're not playing lacrosse this year, you should have given me more than two days notice, or you should have gotten a summer job.
Then you're not going.
I grew up poor, and these are exactly the kinds of responses I would have received had I blurted out such ludicrous statements. I also grew up to be a hard-working teen on the farm, a college student who worked two part-time jobs while earning a bachelor's degree in biochemistry, and a devoted husband and father.
You don't have to indulge your child's every request. Doing so HARMS your child. I'm not saying never indulge them, but most of your examples are bunk.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I understand the job part but depending on age these examples are very factual. I know we didn't get everything we wanted, but it is really different today.
eShirl
(18,490 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Sometimes I have to say no. I don't think Grayson is responsible for making sure their every whim, or his wife's every whim, is satisfied.
MH1
(17,600 posts)For someone with average income and little accumulated wealth, that would be generous. For a wealthy person, 'adequate' might be accurate, but I don't think 'generous' applies.
I've often liked Grayson's actions as a congress critter, and I don't know much about the divorce shenanigans. Just pointing out that in context, I would not consider $2400 / month 'generous'.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Every penny doesn't have to go through Lolita.
MADem
(135,425 posts)the house? He let his CHILDREN live in that environment as a multi-millionaire?
Come on. He's just pissed, and he's acting like an ass.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/how-did-alan-graysons-wife-get-approved-public-ass/nhtMk/
When there are children involved, you put aside the posturing and machismo--if you have to "take a hit" you do so for your kids. He should have been "the reasonable one" and settled this in mediation.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)She was awarded $1700/month in alimony plus the house (he didn't fight it because he wanted out that badly). I gotta agree with those who say $2400/month (house or no house) with 5 kids when one is worth $30 million is nowhere near "generous." My dad was a working stiff, making $100K at that point in time.
Nay
(12,051 posts)Carson guy when the divorce was initiated. Lolita also accused Grayson of domestic abuse in a certain incident at the door of the house, but one of Grayson's aides was taping the whole interaction (unbeknownst to Lolita) and the tape shows that it was Lolita who whacked Grayson several times and abused him while he backed away.
IOW, it's been acrimonious and Lolita is quite the liar and setup artist. Grayson, however, is acting like an idiot -- he should stay the hell out of her way, let the court hash it out, keep his fat mouth shut, and make sure that his visits to pick up the kids are chaperoned by somebody so everyone stays honest. As far as money distribution, it depends on the courts. She should get some, of course, for being a SAHM, but the courts may not grant alimony if it's determined the marriage is void. It would behoove him to be gracious, but I don't know if that's gonna happen.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)let this go.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Nay
(12,051 posts)case -- and sure enough, she charged him with abuse. Alan is no dummy. I assume he knew what was likely to happen and was protecting himself with a witness and a filming. A partial filming? Better than nothing.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)and the court has to treat her as a wife with a wife's rights...
If he knew she was already married and not divorced, he's part of the bigamist triangle, not an innocent bystander....
I might take his side that she's a bigamist if it can be shown that there are a couple more illegal marriages in her resume....
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
napi21
(45,806 posts)There was never a legal relationship to begin with.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
fredamae
(4,458 posts)interest in researching and considering Anything but the politics of politicians these days.......
I honestly don't care about stories proving they go through the same "life stuff" as the rest of us do....
cali
(114,904 posts)"stories proving they go through the same "life stuff" as the rest of us do....".
avebury
(10,952 posts)All her attorney needs to do is publicly release copies of marriage certificate #1, Divorce certificate # 1 and marriage certificate #2 then the dates show whether or not marriage # 2 was valid. If she claims she was only married once, then his attorney needs to release the documents.
I don't see why people get into tit for tat arguments on issues that can be proven one way or another with public records. You can always figure out which person is lying.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)avebury
(10,952 posts)smart enough to get their version of a certified copy of the divorce certificate. If she didn't get it then she was just flat out stupid.
Since Guam is a territory of the US I would think that someone would be able to get a copy of the divorce certificate.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)She insisted in a sworn statement last year that officials in Guam must have thrown them out because they were old.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-alan-grayson-divorce-bigamy-hearing-20150309-story.html
avebury
(10,952 posts)time of the divorce. If she ever wanted to get married again, she would need them to prove that she was not married. You never know when you need to provide pertinent records on your life. For example, there was a time when if a state employee in Oklahoma was filing his/her retirement papers, he/she would have to provide copies of every divorce or marriage certificate to prove rights of survivorship.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Now you can't register to vote or get a driver's license without proving your legal name from time of birth. So in order to get a Florida driver's license, she would need her birth certificate, the certificate for her first marriage, a copy of the divorce decree, the certificate for her marriage to Grayson, and soon she will need her divorce decree from Grayson - all of these papers must be certified copies direct from the appropriate government agencies. Which is why a government agency would NEVER "throw away" the copies!
Has this woman never had a driver's license or been registered to vote? If she has done either, how has she provided all the paperwork that is now required to meet state and federal standards? Maybe it was when she couldn't under the "new" requirements that Grayson became suspicious?
and government officials throwing records out is not credible. Are there any records from that same time period on other people is what I'd check out first.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)And a woman named Lolita were divorced in Florida years after she married Grayson, or she is telling the truth and the government officials in Guam did not provide her a copy of her divorce papers and conveniently lost the official copies.
The most charitable thing I can think of is that there was an attempt at a divorce (or annulment) in 1981 in Guam but for some reason it was not properly completed. Then, after she had married Grayson Lolita or Carson figured it out and went through the process in Florida. But if that is what happened, why not tell Grayson, go through a quiet marriage with him to make their marriage legal and clear it all up?
Of course, if she were a Phillippine citizen when she married Carson, a one year marriage would not have been enough time for her to become a legal US resident. So it may have been in her interest to NOT complete a divorce in 1981. Then when she met and married Grayson, she may have lied to him to get him hooked. Since the divorce was in Florida, where Carson was a resident by 1994 he may have been the one to put that through and she may not have wanted to come clean with Grayson.
There is something hinky about the whole thing and while Grayson is not handling it as well as I could hope, I don't think I believe what Lolita is saying.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)lying again about the divorce. As you note, her story is very hard to believe even if she didn't have credibility issues.
I don't know all the details of their marriage, but if what both of us suspect is true regarding the bigamy, he is handling it much better than I would. Perpetrating a 20+ year long fraud on me and the resultant children from our relationship would have me madder than hell. Particularly since what it portends, and this is reinforced by her behavior since their relationship went south, is that it was all about the money from the beginning.
cali
(114,904 posts)her an order of protection against him.
Furthermore, I suspect he knew of the problems she had with her divorce. Also, most of their marriage was post divorce- like 20 years of it. so she sure as hell wasn't committing bigamy for those 20 years..
I can't believe that you're defending this shit. He's a man with all the power. She's an immigrant minority who stayed at home and raised their children for nearly a quarter of a century. That damn well should count for... a lot. And for all we know, she thought she was legally divorced.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Shrike47
(6,913 posts)He doesn't want to give her half his money, and probably alimony. That's the way divorce often is,in my experience.
cali
(114,904 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)I wouldn't want my divorce details to be the topic of public discussions, especially if my character is being judged by it.
This is the realm of gossips and busy-bodys.
cali
(114,904 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)She may have believed she was divorced, and her ex never submitted the papers.
We just don't know.
She's the mother of his kids, their primary and principal caregiver. He's a multi-millionaire, the 11th richest person in Congress who is gone more than he's home. He is acting like a bully and an ass and victimizing his children in the process.
cali
(114,904 posts)and according to his attny, she was divorced in 1994, meaning that if that is correct, most of the time she was with him she was not a bigamist. In any case, this is about the kids as much as anything else. He has the power to make this situation much less painful for his children, but he cares more about money and power than his own kids.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It takes quite a stretch to make him the bad guy here.
cali
(114,904 posts)and he isn't even paying enough for child support. She qualified for food stamps. Secondly, she stayed at home and raised his kids for 24 years. Thirdly, that he's doing all this in public to his kids, is revolting.
I think it's a huge motherfucking stretch to see him as anything but a bad guy.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)I can't believe she qualified if she's getting a free house and $2400/mo. child support, albeit I don't know if that's for 1 or 5 children or a number in between. When you apply for the SNAP program, they take into account your assets. A husband worth $30M is certainly something the program staff would have to consider, as well as the child support $ and the house.
cali
(114,904 posts)Not that the timing makes it any more egregious, but six days after being named the 17th richest member of Congress, it’s being reported that U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson‘s estranged wife has been issued an EBT card to help feed his children.
Lolita Grayson was approved for public assistance by the state of Florida, and their four minor children — they have five children altogether — are also enrolled in the free lunch program in Orange County schools, according to ABC affiliate WFTV
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/10/29/wife-of-alan-grayson-named-17th-richest-member-of-congress-receiving-food-stamps-to-feed-his-kids-155394#ixzz3UObbqMlY
dsc
(52,160 posts)with an income of $30,000 even with four kids. I am not saying that one shouldn't qualify for them just that I am amazed she does qualify for them.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Florida specific guidelines:
http://www.myflfamilies.com/service-programs/access-florida-food-medical-assistance-cash/food-assistance-and-suncap
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Besides, why can't she get a job? If the situation were reversed, and HE was the unemployed bigamist complaining about not getting enough money from her, would he be the good guy?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)her career… he would be the "good" guy.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)If we cared so much about these kids, we wouldn't be publicly calling either of their parents "bad". They have enough to deal with already, without being pawns in an argument by strangers for whom this is none of their fucking business.
Is this DU or TMZ?
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)because she's a nervous wreck from living with him, and rundown besides. We don't know why, but she does have a one minor at home yet...
MADem
(135,425 posts)There's a substantial age difference between them.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 15, 2015, 10:08 AM - Edit history (1)
selfish jerk.
namastea42
(96 posts)Seems it's okay for democrats to do republican like things if it is suitable at a particular time.
Coventina
(27,106 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)He's not thinking about the children, HIS children. His anger at his wife is blinding him. That's not a good look for someone who, in his public life, is on the side of social programs and services.
It's like the shoemaker's kids going barefoot, frankly.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)unless he's changed parties since last year. He ran for something and didn't win. So he's blaming her I suppose.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Because, call it a hunch, that might be why.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Thanks for that bit of logic that so many people are intent on ignoring.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Imagine it, a woman with $30 million is being divorced by a guy and she finds out he was still married to his previous wife when they got married but the guy wants half of her money.
People would be making fun of the guy and would be totally unsympathetic to his charges he wasn't getting enough alimony and child support if he had temporary custody of the children. This attack on Grayson is definitely gender biased.
It's wrong to lie to someone and say you are divorced and marry them and subject that person and childred to that lie.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)I would feel precisely the same way.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)that pretty much renders everything about the marriage invalid, as long as they raised the kids?
Urgh. No.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)married and getting married again, just to nab the woman with a ton of money.
That's all this was about. The bigamy was about making sure to marry the guy with the money and the whole issue of divorce for her is about the money.
No one in Lolita's position is, or should be regarded as, sympathetic. Not a woman who did this to a guy, not a guy who did this to a woman, not a woman who did this to another woman, or a guy who did this to another guy, to take the heteronormativeness out of this. If you are still married, the least you owe whoever you intend to marry is to get divorced first. And to carry this lie on for 20+ years and involve children in the lie is totally screwed up. Again no matter the gender of the partners.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)she has pulled out every dirty trick in the book to try to get money from him from the moment they met. She so wanted to lock in the money she married the guy before bothering to get divorced herself. When things start to go sour, she plays the domestic violence card when she is the one who was violent towards him to ensure the divorce case and settlement starts to go her way. And now that she is caught about the bigamy, she is crying that she isnt getting enough child support and maintenance while their case is being tried.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Interesting.
You pull out that crap about her being violent. LOL! When the video just happens to have been done by Grayson's aide and is only a partial bit of that episode. Hmmm, who set who up there? Sounds more like Grayson and his taping aide. Who goes to visit their ex-wife with an aide ready to tape PART of an encounter?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Lie about being divorced, lie about domestic violence, lie about being in a terrible financial condition, she isn't by the way, and it all points to the same thing. It all was done for financial gain by her. She didn't want to risk losing a rich guy, so she married him without getting divorced, and without telling him she was married. She lies about the domestic violence to get the upper hand in the divorce so she can get a better settlement, and then she cried poverty, when she is definitely not in a poverty stricken state to take the focus off of the growing outcry about her bigamy, again, to try to ensure she gets a big settlement from him.
All of her acts point to the same thing and for over two decades now.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Maybe they got married when she was pregnant with HIS child and didn't want the kid to not have a dad.
It's embarrassing, especially back then, to list "I can't tell you," when the father's name is asked by the hospital for the birth certificate....maybe the hospital bill would not have been paid if she didn't lie, and he went along with it, so the bill would be paid by his health insurance...
Maybe she raped him? At least 5 times?
Get out with your accusations about her. You may be right, but then again, you may not be and Grayson is the bad guy.
We don't know. If more comes out about the case when and if the case goes to court, we'll see if she's the devil's spawn as you make her out to be.
You and your missus have a nice day.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)married. She knew she did it and so now she gets nothing. And she will be lucky if she is not slapped with a felony bigamy charge.
MADem
(135,425 posts)VA and FL don't have common law marriage, but plenty of other states do. Even if her marriage is invalid, because the divorce was not granted when she says she thought it was, if they lived for a year in another state with common law marriage after the divorce was indeed finalized, they're married. Even if that's not the case, there's precedent for palimony if similar conditions are met. He calls her his "wife." All her documents use his last name. He is "divorcing" her. It's also a tough bar to prove she didn't know that she was not divorced.
This woman stayed with this guy for two and a half decades, gave birth to five of his children, and raised them. She was the primary caregiver to their children, unless he commuted to DC every day Congress was in session (and we know he did not do that). They might be having problems at this stage in their relationship, but this was hardly a "golddigger" arrangement where ya get in, hang around long enough to make a claim, take the money, and run. He clearly "liked" her enough, and she him, to produce five kids. And she hung around for 25 years, raising those kids.
"She knew she did it and now she gets nothing?" Really? That's your attitude?
Ugh. What kind of person would want to see the mother of their children tossed out on her ear after a quarter century, with nothing? No matter how disagreeable the relationship is at this stage?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This guy wasted 24 years of his life with someone who lied to him and committed felony fraud to be with him and who involved the kids in the lie. His lawyers discovered that she tried to cover it up with a hushed quickies divorce from her first husband 4-5 years into her invalid marriage with Grayson.
Sorry but it doesn't work that way. And even in a state that had a common law statutes, a common law marriage would not be in place in a situation like this where there was a fraud to establish the relationship.
And she never came clean to him. Some folks here want to give her some kind of credit for being in a relationship that long. She never came clean to him. She intended to maintain the lie forever. You don't get credit for that.
kcr
(15,315 posts)This is what doesn't make sense. Why would one decide to twirl their evil mustache of fraud and marry two people at the same time, but then change their mind and finally get the divorce without telling them and stay with them for years and years anyway? What would they gain from that? What makes more sense is she didn't know the divorce wasn't final when she married Grayson, they found out in 1995 and fixed that mistake and he's now using this fact to screw her in this divorce.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)What you should be asking is, at some point, why didn't she come clean and beg for forgiveness. I would expect any man or woman in a straight or gay marriage first off to not do this in the first place, but if they did do this, come clean as soon as possible and take the consequences from their partner, or their forgiveness depending on the partner's decision.
She planned on getting away with this lie forever but knew at any time it could blow up and throw their family into complete chaos.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Why would someone intentionally marry someone else while already married and wait till divorce in secret? You still haven't answered that. Why would I ask myself why someone would do such a nonsensical thing when I don't think they would do it in the first place. You haven't explained the rationale behind the halfbaked theory.
MADem
(135,425 posts)McLean doesn't know how to run a background check or write a pre-nup? He's the "smart one" in the relationship, with advanced degrees. He WANTED to marry her, he liked her enough to have five children with her, and he can't even fix the septic system, broken windows and house mold in the residence of his children...just because he's "pissed" at his wife?
And he calls himself a liberal? He sure as hell isn't the kind of liberal who gives a crap about his kids if he lets them live in those conditions. He should be ashamed of himself. And you should be ashamed of yourself for not seeing what's important here--the KIDS.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)like Lolita Grayson. Back in the good old days, we knew how to take care of people like her. What has this country come to?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Wouldn't you?
Or is this your opinion exclusive to this case because the person who committed the fraud is a woman, the person she committed it on is a man, and she should be excused by default and he deserves it because he is a man?
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)It's been quite entertaining.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It says a lot.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)I called for the return of racks and thumbscrews! I thought we agreed on that.
namastea42
(96 posts)If you defend a republican husband in the exact same situation just as heartily.
This is about Politics, not People, isn't it and that is sad beyond measure.
As long as he/she is on your team, whatever it takes to defend him/her whether he is in the wrong or the right or somewhere in between no matter how bad the behavior.
namastea42
(96 posts)and spent time between the two in secret. That is what bigamy is. After 25 years of being together, if my wife came to me with this problem of not having papers to prove a divorce, I sure wouldn't act like an animal and spurn her. We'd solve this together. Grayson has another reason he isn't telling us why he is doing this. It's not the bigamy, that is for certain.
He is acting more like a cruel Repuglican than what we hope a Democrat would act like. He wants to take her children, throw her onto the street and have her wait tables for minimum wage and pretend she wasn't an instrumental part of his successful life (I certainly would not call him successful but it is measured in dollars by too many). How many loads of laundry, how many dishes washed and put away, trips to dentists and doctors and sport and music for the kids. Countless hours of sitting up with a sick kid, picking them up from school, making costumes for Hallowe'en and getting ready for Christmases and holdidays. and he wants to just throw that away as useless. That is cruel and cowardly and nasty. What a terrible person would do this to his family.
This devalues women, this dismissal of her worth as a human and as a productive individual contributing to the welfare of others. It's saddening to think that only money makes one worth anything. It's sickening.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Halloween costumes alone are something that one remembers forever. You make one for $3 or buy one for over $50....If you remake a garment you can even save the $3...
Kids take so much love and care. We never expect to be paid for these things, but neither do we expect to be dismissed so easily as gold-diggers. Living with this guy was no picnic.
kcr
(15,315 posts)It doesn't matter if the divorce from the first marriage wasn't final. This is beyond a shitty thing to do to a person. Yes, some people do behave in ugly, hateful ways during a divorce, but not all people. The people that do were generally that way before the divorce. No one with compassion and empathy would treat another person this way.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)namastea42
(96 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Felony fraud on the entire family.
namastea42
(96 posts)I don't think you and I will be reaching for any understanding or compromise on this. I will not accept that it is okay to treat a woman like she was a slave for 25 years over this.
I hope your deep conviction of your interpretation of right and wrong are consistent and not dependent on political party and/or individual.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There is zero chance you feel the same way if the genders were reversed or if it were two men or two women. It's only because Lolita is a woman and Alan is a man that you want to excuse her behavior.
If someone perpetrated this bigamous fraud on one of your kids or a member of your family, you would want to skin them alive and justifiably so. If a man does to my daughter what Lolita did to Alan, they better watch out is all I can say.
namastea42
(96 posts)Sorry to be rude but how the FUCK do you know that about me or anyone else here. Take a break, you are popping at the seams.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)a person could commit 25 years worth of felony fraud against their partner, demand large amounts of money and custody of their children from their victim after discovery, and still have support from the public.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Would they stand for this. In fact with the same situation in any other gender configuration, they would want the person inLolitas position to fry. If anyone did what Lolita did to THEIR children or a member of their family, they would want that person to be thrown in jail and get nothing.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Quite a few people seem to be basing their support on nothing more than mommyhood, and the fact that she's (assuming the documentation is correct) committed a felony crime against her partner is irrelevant.
and then there's those who never met a Democratic scandal/bashing they didn't like. 
kcr
(15,315 posts)Because that isn't relevant, right?
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)No. I'm interested in hearing why you feel motherhood is more relevant than the above, and why anyone should be rewarded/paid for the above.
kcr
(15,315 posts)than twenty years of parenthood and partnership? Because that's all this is. If I were married to someone who had been previously married and found out that their divorce hadn't actually been finalized, they would finalize it and we would move on. I wouldn't use it as an excuse to rake them over the coals, divorced or not, because I'm not a sociopath.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)The 20+ years of partnership were based on a fraud that invalidates the marriage itself and leaves her open to a well-deserved felony charge. If this were a business that someone had been convinced to invest in based on fraud, do you still feel that the victim owes the perpetrator?
I don't like liars. Every partner I've had that's told a major lie has been kicked to the curb. If you're ok with that in your relationships it's your problem, but please don't pretend your feelings have any effect on the legalities. Bigamy is a felony.
kcr
(15,315 posts)How often do you accuse people of fraud over technicalities they weren't aware of? Discovering that a divorce wasn't final doesn't mean that one has committed fraud. Fraud is a criminal act that requires intent.
CatWoman
(79,296 posts)sanity
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)If the marriage was entered into through fraud, their fulfillment of domestic duties during the fraudulent marriage matters exactly zip. Bigamy is also a felony.
treestar
(82,383 posts)How often will a woman be worth so much more than her husband. From thence comes the difference, so I'd guess anyone not liking that would be all for women's equality to the point where there are plenty of women richer than their husbands.
And the excuses men use for their behavior would be up and running: he needs two wives because men just need variety in women. Can't help it. He just forgot to get the divorce papers. Come to think of it, if the man were the one with the prior wife, he'd probably be lucky because she'd have gotten the paperwork taken care of.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Barbara Hutton comes to mind--I don't recall her being penurious with her spouses when they split up. She had seven of them too--she had a custody fight with the first one, but the rest either left with a smile or died on her. Oprah isn't married, but she's the Big Money in her relationship.
This guy should just put his kids first. Father UP, dude--he's making an ass of himself. I always regarded him as somewhat of a quirky firebrand, a rabble rouser, but he usually rabble roused for good. Now I regard him as a blowhard who doesn't take care of his family and allows his kids to be disgraced by this public display.
I'm guessing he never suggested the couselling/mediation route. One of them got mad about something (and maybe it was cheating or something equally betraying) and that was the end of that--it escalated to this ... insanity.
treestar
(82,383 posts)When half your estate if 15 million - it's like what do you even do with 30 million? If you are a politician, you don't need this type of publicity.
hack89
(39,171 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)you're only going to get entry-level work, probably for the prevailing minimum wage.
If she lied about being divorced, that's not very nice, but they were together for more than two decades, had five kids, and she stayed home to raise them. Her being a stay-at-home mom would also have made his career path much easier.
cali
(114,904 posts)sammythecat
(3,568 posts)plus she's probably at least 50 with no work history. And those kids are his and divorce doesn't lessen his responsibility to them one bit. Though blameless for their parents problems, they will suffer emotionally. Financially he has an obligation to ensure they can live the lifestyle he has accustomed them to. I don't know what the law says but morally, I believe he has that obligation to upset their lives as little as he possibly can. He's a multimillionaire, and if he's complaining about 2,400 dollars a month for 5 kids, then shame on him.
I like Grayson in general, but I hope he loses this suit. It isn't right.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Dems frown on bad husbands - (Edwards, and a few others), but R's accept this stuff, and will probably give him credit for making/saving money if he cheats his wife...
Didn't some fella in a high office down south who took hikes with a girlfriend win some high position, Gov. or Sen.? I forget his name..
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)her payday.
cali
(114,904 posts)and his evidence for her bigamy is a divorce certificate dated 1994. So even if she was a bigamist for a couple of years, she wasn't one for the vast majority of the time they were together. She put in 24 years raising their children and keeping house. Some golddigger.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)That is a long time to just wait for a payday. Isn't all the bank accounts in her name too? Why is she being deprived?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'm laughing when I hear stuff like that, because as I noted above, if it was a man who had done that to a woman, no one would be sympathetic. Everyone would be calling for his hide and justifiably so.
No one should profit for pulling that crap. Not a woman who does this to a man, not a man who does this to a woman, not a man who does this to a man, and not a woman who does this to another woman.
namastea42
(96 posts)What kind of dad would do this to his kids because he is angry at the mom? Happens all the time in fights like these - people are selfish jerks too often thinking of only themselves.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Putting up with him for all these years, having babies and raising them...I wonder how much he contributed to their care.
That's like having a slave have your kids and keep house for room and board - like in the South years ago. Even that Republican senator, a racist, who had a child by a black woman sent money for their care...can't think of his name....
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The kids, the length of time, all of those things, I consider to be aggravating factors, not mitigating factors in the defense of a person who did this.
namastea42
(96 posts)Who is going to look after them while he is doing whatever he does? A stranger nanny?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)To put them in the hands of someone who would perpetrate this fraud and involve them.
cali
(114,904 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Yeah, she was a stay at home mom to a guy with a lot of money, which means nannies, governesses, private schools, drivers, etc. it's equally possible given that situation that she spent all her time shopping and he spent more time with them.
Every statement I have seen from the kids has been more supportive of their father than their mother. That tells me a lot.
cali
(114,904 posts)How the fuck do you know that she had nannies, governesses, etc? YOU are the one making shit up. She was the primary caregiver. Period. Make more shit up, Leser and then accuse others of doing what YOU do.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)all kinds of things that you don't know about.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)You don't get the big payday on a little couple or three years.
She is a liar and a bum.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and a possible recoup of anyway the person profited from the faux marriage.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)at the disgusting audacity of wanting to hit the lottery in the exchange.
I can't believe the nerve some are pissed he won't provide a larger slush fund either, she can't manage to feed the family on what is a 28k grocery fund. Some well off people don't spend that in a couple or three years but she is on free lunches to pad up her pockets instead of feeding her kids.
namastea42
(96 posts)
Will you be there for the party?
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)and put 5 kids thru potty training, walking, talking, helped with homework, and did all the things that go along with motherhood.
I'd like to know how she looks now. Maybe not young or pretty enough for him? He's a creep. I bet she looks haggard because of an unhappy existence with him.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)but apparently she wasn't providing a service but rather being a phony "real house wife" but at least being the mother to her own children or did she fake that too?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)
CTyankee
(63,904 posts)first husband, that I should have my divorce papers (it was no fault) handy but they were never asked for when we applied for a marriage license. I was relieved. I was afraid I'd have to go thru some rigamarole...
bravenak
(34,648 posts)What a stand up guy! Best way to punish your wife is by letting your kids go on the dole. Yay!
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)I think it has to do with money, and for all of his pandering to those of us who identify as "not moderate," he has always seemed a little too much of a hypocrite to me.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)The wife sounds like an asshole too.
Divorce really seems to bring out the asshole in people....... or is it marriage?
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Maybe bc he doesn't appreciate being married to a woman for 24 years, having 5 kids only to find out she lied & has been married the whole time.
It's kind of a shitty thing to do to a person & none of our damn business.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)This is ridiculous.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and I think it's relevant and revealing.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)You claim it's news but didn't provide any links so are we referring to TMZ or E! as news now a days?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Let us know.
trumad
(41,692 posts)You don't have the slightest fucking idea what is going on in Graysons personal life...except what you read in the fishraps.
It really is none of your Fucking business.
Your obsession with Grayson is weird.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Over a completely personal matter that is none of our damn business.
cali
(114,904 posts)and yeah, I think he's a creepy phony. Just like I thought about Edwards and all the blind true believers gave me shit.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He has no hope of running for higher office, and unless he's got some dynamite constituent services and a secure seat, he should be worried about his future as a legislator.
Personal lives shouldn't necessarily matter, but they do. He's coming off like an asshole in the press:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-ap-alan-grayson-divorce-20150313-story.html
http://wonkette.com/547914/alan-graysons-divorce-just-got-even-grosser
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)when an article is entirely from the perspective of the wife's attorney.
But I do believe the bigamy angle is being overplayed -- she married a US soldier in the Phillippines twice her age so those making the case she lied for money & slow playing him for his money when Grayson appears to be using the 1994 divorce evidence record which is right but I can't imagine he was seriously hurt by the revelation or she was actively living a double life. The divorce in Guam may be true but either she didn't forsee this moment or assumed it was taken care of because she could have said wait until my divorce is settled but for whatever reason she didn't get around or if her Guam claim is truthful but this 1994 record screws with things. Overall doesn't it make her look bad and if the Guam is made up or if it isn't, made the mistake of not staying on top of things but Grayson appears to be more about the money than either of them considering why this dispute -- which Grayson claims he was unaware of this 1994 divorce & given for all of intents & purposes didn't have a double life going on.
If she is making up Guam then it looks really bad but I can see why saying "I never got around to it" but for some reason wasn't unaware that this is problematic was aware but choose to say "I'm still legally married or we can't get married til this is taken care"
You probably get this gist of what I'm saying but for all the "if this were a man" I'd see it the same way, different if it was a double life situation. I had to wait for my wife officially divorce from her legal marriage which life got in the way of finalizing (I got divorced probably about 1-2 years after the relationship ended but I signed the paper & moved on but Arizona lets you fight it for some reason meaning fight to stay married which I don't understand or why this is a good idea regarding divorce law.
MADem
(135,425 posts)not be on food stamps.
He orchestrated a dramatic confrontation with his wife and had his AIDE stand back and film the thing, and then "excerpts" were released. Hmmm.
He should pay for the support of his kids, and he should pay for the support of his wife/palimony partner/what-have-you during the time they were together. He's pulling a Mick Jagger and that makes him a cheap asshole to my mind. Jagger, if you remember, tried to claim that his wife Jeri Hall wasn't his wife because they got married on some godforsaken island. Never mind that he presented her as his wife and had several children with her.
Here's my attitude--if he called her his wife, if he introduced her as his wife, then she's his wife.
Marry in haste, repent at leisure, I guess. He wanted a young bride, and he got one. Now he's in a He said/She said mess.
I think he's a lousy human being if he puts his children through this--that IS their mother, and the odds are EXCELLENT that the younger ones, anyway, are closer to her than him, simply because he has a job that keeps him away from home. He's ringing bells that can't be unrung. He's setting a LOUSY example. He's acting like a bully, a jerk, and an asshole. He should stop dragging this out and take responsibility. Come to an amicable conclusion that puts the kids FIRST and move the hell forward.
I like the idea of the CHILDREN having a house, and both parents live elsewhere. The parents take turns moving in for a week or a month at a time and caring for the kids, but the kids don't have to pack suitcases, travel, disrupt their daily lives. As far as the kids are concerned, the only thing that changes is the caregiver.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)I don't know how much of it is orchestrated but lucked out on in discovering a technicality from 1994 to avoid paying money which is his right but I don't see her as some terrible person because of what looked like an impulse marriage which was temporary. I commented more than I felt was appropriate, I just think the idea she initially lied for money & slow playing for 24 years for money is hard to believe.
I have no idea regarding who is lousy or what the mother is like or even what the kids opinion is, given that I'm currently poor & this is probably a reason for that but I think this can easily be handled more in line with the intents & purposes of the marriage as you see it which it was for all intents & purposes. It wasn't like she was living a double life so this "bigamy" thing doesn't make Greyson look good but unless she is making up Guam -- she doesn't look as bad as some DUers see her.
cali
(114,904 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Her leaving with nothing feels wrong. Ideally they can agree on some figure between $0 and $15m to spare the kids any more of this. The whole bigamy thing seems more like a technicality than a deep emotional trauma. The lie, if indeed she did lie, would sting a bit. And my guess is she'll pay dearly for that issue in the ultimate settlement. But leaving with nothing? Nah, that's cruel. Maybe I'm being optimistic in thinking he doesn't really intend to leave her destitute, and it's just a ploy to get her lawyers to settle.
If he did leave her with nothing, it will cost him socially. He'll be the multimillionaire whose wife is broke, and that's just not a good image as a high-profile person
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)Trying to take down a great progressive.
irisblue
(32,969 posts)On Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:42 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Looks like a bunch of trolls in this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6366386
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calls the majority of DUrs in this thread"bunch of TROLLS" - please hide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 14, 2015, 11:49 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There are "a bunch of trolls" in many DU threads.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is trumad's opinion, and he is entitled to it. Leave it alone.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
cali
(114,904 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)I know a little bit about him...far more that some keyboard warrior.
cali
(114,904 posts)I doubt you have much more access to information than I do. All I know is that someone who goes on about the inequity of wealth and allows his own children to go on food stamps when he's worth 30 million, has a serious credibility problem. What's that old saying? Oh, yeah: Charity begins at home.
trumad
(41,692 posts)No. But it doesn't stop you from being all expert on the dudes personal life.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They can be selfish, angry, and childish in their personal lives too.
No one is trying to "take down" anyone. By their words and actions we know them. This is an ugly divorce and the rich guy ain't taking the high road--that much is apparent.
trumad
(41,692 posts)You don't.
Its really nobody's God Damn business.
MADem
(135,425 posts)FDR treated Eleanor like shit. Bill was "a hard dog to keep on the porch" to Hillary. Edwards betrayed his wife and embarrassed his entire family. Eliot Spitzer humiliated his family. Anthony Weiner behaved like a complete and total dog towards his wife Huma.
So yeah, I do know--it's not like these things are secret. And Grayson has eagerly lived his drama out in public--to the point of leaking that video, taken by his aide. It IS everybody's "God Damn business" because GRAYSON, himself, has MADE it everybody's "God Damn business."
He isn't trying to be private about this at all--instead, he is playing to the media in the hope of getting an advantage; it's not resonating with me, especially when his little "gotcha" tape has no discernable audio and is edited and missing nearly a minute of material.
Someone with that much money doesn't have to be so cheap and miserable. He doesn't need to give his wife so little money that she needs to take food stamps to feed her children.
His hatred of his spouse--and, sketchy divorce or not, he held her out as his spouse for nearly a quarter century-- is blinding his judgment. He needs to get correct, resolve this, and move on, not try to cut the mother of his children out of their lives like he's doing.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Can you even believe that you are caught up in the gossip game.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Grayson could have solved this quietly. He escalated the situation--why, I have no idea. He's a multi-millionaire, he can't hire a sheriff to go with him when he goes to collect his mail/laundry following domestic violence allegations? Instead he uses a government employee, hiding behind a tree, filming--no film in the house, and just an excerpt released. No sound can be heard so we don't know who said what. HE released the film (with a break in continuity) so HE is the one urging all of us to be "caught up in the gossip game." He wants to make the woman he married in VA, a mother of five--count them, five (you think that's a walk in the park? I don't) kids into some kind of monster-bigamist, who was in it with him, for 25 interminable years, for ... what? The money? She should have made THAT move while she was still young, were that the case.
I am not insisting that the wife is Saint Lolita--I don't know her any more than I know this guy. I do know how it reads, though--she is a small, uneducated Filipina woman, he is a very large and wealthy lawyer/congressman/investor with multiple degrees. She is left home to be primary caregiver to five children; he's off in DC living the high life. He called her his wife for a quarter of a century, and NOW he wants to cut her off without a dime and take the kids from their mother? Naaaah. If the oldest is 19, he hasn't had a problem with her caregiving skills for nineteen years. He's being vindictive and he has all the power.
Do you HEAR yourself? You're excusing bad behavior because the guy has a (D) after his name. It's like Edwards redux around these parts, lately.
Frankly, I don't give a shit if he gets divorced and starts dating showgirls or Sea World fish feeders--it just doesn't matter to me, that aspect of his personal life (though I'd laugh if he started going after fish feeders). What does bug me is his releasing that video like he's looking for a media trial, not trying mediation first, and dragging the mother of his children through this process unnecessarily. Even if the judge doesn't buy it, she'll always be labeled as a bigamist. That goes to his common sense--and it seems like he's lacking some in his handling of this matter.
He could give her a reasonable settlement, something that acknowledges a quarter of a century (actually almost thirty years if you count the time they were together before their wedding) of marital devotion and child rearing, and not let his kids have to see this shit every time they google their parents' names.
Anyone who would give his children so little to live on that they qualify for food stamps is a penurious shit. He's a lawyer, so he can't claim he got bad advice from his attorneys. He KNOWS better. I have to wonder if he's got medical issues that affect his judgment--he seems bloated and florid in recent photos.
He should have wrapped this up in mediation and moved on with his life. No one would give a crap if he divorced, that happens all the time--it's this spectacle that makes me wonder "What in hell was--and is-- he thinking?" He's starring in a Train Wreck Soap Opera that is being played out, not on the "gossip" pages, but on the political news pages--and he could have avoided that.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bigamous marriage.
You cannot get past that. It is beyond disgusting to have had children in that situation and involved them in her lie and her fraud. She and only she bares responsibility for that and everything that came afterwards as a result.
She had to know that At any moment her fraud could be discovered and the entire family thrown into complete chaos.
That is all on her.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You do know how essential biology works, don't you? Does someone need to explain to you how babies are made? The whole "two to tango" routine? And you still have the moxie to say But She is the one who involved the children when she had them in what only she knew was a Bigamous marriage? Here's what you are missing--they BOTH had those children. You think he should tell them they're mistakes, is that it?
You don't KNOW that she knew her marriage was bigamous, and it's news to me that sperm will stop what they're doing if they suspect a marriage license might be sketchy.
"At any moment her fraud could be discovered?" She was with him for TWENTY NINE years, she has been married to him for 25 of those years. That's a LOT of "any moments." This isn't a quickie relationship--most marriages don't last that long. She's been the principal caregiver of their FIVE children for nineteen of those years.
And what's wrong with him? Big shot investor, multi-millionaire, owner of a big McLean law firm--and he didn't run a background check on his young, divorced, Filipina bride to be? And no pre-nup? What is he, stupid? Or maybe he recognized this woman as his WIFE--up until he decided he didn't want to, anymore.
Apparently, he hasn't had any problem with her, nor she with him, for most of those 29 years they were together. Plainly, something happened in the relationship to destroy the family dynamic, but it's not like he was hating on her, or she on him, while he was making all those babies with her--at some point in time, they were happy enough to reproduce....FIVE TIMES.
I've lost a lot of respect for you with those comments of yours, I have to say. I'm rather surprised at your readiness to cast blame on the person in the relationship with less education, less power, and no money. This isn't about politics, this is about essential decency. The guy refused to fix the septic shit running all over the front lawn, and the house was full of mold-- with his KIDS living there. There's something wrong with someone who would allow their children to live in those conditions when he had the means to correct it, just to play "divorce games."
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)to you or a member of your family.
It is unacceptable and people shouldn't be making excuses for it. What you should be thinking about is why you are making excuses for it. Would you be making the same excuses if the genders were reversed or if it were two women or two men.
I think the answer is no.
MADem
(135,425 posts)1. We don't know if she knowingly deceived this guy. We just do not know. You pretend you know, but you don't know.
2. If she were the mother of a member of my family's kids, then she would be a member of my family also. That's how my family plays it.
3. If this was a same sex couple, or the genders were reversed, and the roles were reversed, it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. If Alan was the uneducated one caring for five children and keeping house, and Lolita was the multimillionaire with multiple degrees, university teaching experience, a wealthy investor, and the owner of a high end law firm, I would most certainly expect her to do right by the person who did the heavy lifting raising her children. And if she left her kids in a house with shit running across the front walkway due to a broken septic system, water pouring in the house due to a leaky roof, and black mold running up the walls, all documented by Channel 9 news, I'd excoriate her like I'm excoriating Mr. Grayson.
He should be ashamed of himself. You should, too.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I will never believe that you are OK with that.
No one I have talked to in my life about this thinks what she did is OK or should be excused and that is men and women all over the political spectrum.
They all think she should get nothing and most think she should also be prosecuted and lose custody.
None of the folks think that Grayson has done anything wrong here. I think that position is completely indefensible.
MADem
(135,425 posts)because it's entirely possible that she didn't. You have no PROOF, of either the supposed "crime" or the intent to defraud, yet you've already convicted her.
I could never be like you, and I'm glad of that, frankly.
Why aren't you convicting HIM of letting his kids have to walk through sewage to get in the front door? Why don't you have a problem with his maintenance of the home his kids live in that is so poor that there's black mold and a leaky roof?
I have to say I am very surprised at your comments--in an horrific way, mind you. You really are a very different person than I imagined you were--and I'm sorry to tell you that my estimation of you has been lowered precipitously by this exchange. I find your remarks disgusting, in fact. When a parent provides insufficient support when he can well afford it, and is allowing his kids to live in a shithouse that is a shithouse due to MAINTENANCE and not housekeeping (as he falsely claimed, but the photos refute convincingly), then the millionaire is showing us all just how little of a shit he gives about his own five offspring.
If none of the "folks" around you think he has a problem here, I wouldn't want to hang around with your set. That kind of attitude is unsavory, to put it kindly.
Ugh.
namastea42
(96 posts)Controversial House Democrat Alan Grayson lost $18 million as part of a criminal scheme run by a Virginia man that bilked more than 100 investors out of more than $35 million, according to federal court documents.
He is probably trying to make up that lost money by squeezing it out of his family. That fraud scheme, he must have been the whale investor if you look at those numbers: 18 million lost by one person out of 100 investors, the total bilked was 35 million. Guess that would put anyone in a real bad mood, but taking it out on your family, that takes a special kind of slug.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)
namastea42
(96 posts)and the many details that involves for 25 years, as useless, worthless work.
I'd say that is pretty hateful, yes. I'm surprised this kind of cruelty is so supported.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)But yeah, money. Hell yeah. I think it's funny that only women are supposed to get everything they can in a divorce.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)It's like men aren't supposed to look out for themselves.
There is one poster on this board who says that the woman should get 70% in a divorce. Why is that? Some people seem to think that men are throwaway characters when a marriage dissolves.
Rincewind
(1,203 posts)a) She really is a bigamist, and he didn't know it when he married her. b) He is an asshole. and c) a and b.
ALBliberal
(2,339 posts)But disappoints here... pay the alimony and child support so you can continue being the leader we need and admire.... don't let us down! Bigamy .... don't go there
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Grayson is a narcissistic creep.
I have never seen what other progressives see in him. He has a loud mouth but he is a loose cannon and I've never liked or trusted him. To see the grotesquerie of his marriage splayed out like this is further proof. He's no ally. He's all about Alan Grayson. If we stopped paying attention to him he'd embrace the far right just to get his name in lights.
With friends like that....
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Oh wait....
cali
(114,904 posts)Not that that should make any difference.
Someone who didn't want to post in this thread just sent me a pm in which they said one of things that they found ironic in many of the posts, is that no one is acknowledging the huge power imbalance between the two. He's a Harvard educated multimillionaire and she's an immigrant with no resources.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)progressive Democratic politicians. Good job.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm a progressive. I support progressive pols- but some of them just don't resonate right with me- John Edwards didn't. And neither does Grayson. I don't think a genuine progressive would behave as he's behaving.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)well exceeds 2400 a month. that does not include the activities and lifestyle of these five kids that they have been living up to this point. not to mention providing food and clothes for the kids. and fuggin' the other living expense for the kids at this age.
when a woman, that has raised the children, in divorce, is left with the house to maintain, her hands are tied. she is cash poor, living in poverty, in a huge ass house without any control.
if this woman was to go out and get a house or apartment to accommodate her 5 kids and herself, she would have already used up that 2400.
as far as the bigamy, from what we read on a previous thread, it was early 90's that she found her divorce had not gone thru like she had thought or been told it had. probably, but not knowing as none of us know for sure, grayson was well aware of the blip in the divorce process and it was taken care of. two decades prior to the divorce.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)$600/month per child seems low. My friend's ex was ordered to pay $550/month and he isn't making $174k/year as a congressman.
If he gets the marriage annulled to avoid splitting the martial assets and paying alimony, I wonder if he would still pay for the house if he doesn't have custody (he's trying for full custody too).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)or, is that included in the 2400 he has calculated as payment for the children. he pays 2400 a month.
as far as per child, it would solely be the amount of his paycheck. but, this is just a separation and has not gone to divorce court yet, so is it just a number he decided was good, or the courts.
5 children, 4 under 18. at his pay of 175k?
$68220
http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport/florida
see what you get on the calculator.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)He says he also pays the mortgage, utilities and phone bill in addition to the $2,400.
cali
(114,904 posts)I think it's likely he knew but I haven't seen anything that corroborates that.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)thru. she addressed it and remained married another two decades.
i do not have a source and not interested enough in this shit, to hunt it down, lol. i hate this stuff, .... but i think we need to address even this in a balanced manner and not just vilify the woman.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Most people seem to be giving Lolita a pass for her two and a half decades or bigamy.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)didn't you once post that the woman should get 70% in a divorce? If so, your comments on this matter have to be viewed as somewhat less than objective.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)clarification
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Post 236
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025722826#post236
just about there. not quite. actually, i am not the fan of maintenance/alimony.
with liquid assets, i would prefer a 30/70 split. or something like that. having looking at individual needs and abilities. then there is not a lifetime of payment.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I mean, you did ask me to be more clear, right?
Post 236
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025722826#post236
"just about there. not quite. actually, i am not the fan of maintenance/alimony.
with liquid assets, i would prefer a 30/70 split. or something like that. having looking at individual needs and abilities. then there is not a lifetime of payment."
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Your bias on the subject seems to color your opinion on the Grayson divorce case. Presumably you think that Lolita, to whom he was never legally married, should get 70% of the marital assets.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)get a response from me. hence, me not bothering the first time you replied. you are not much into reading what is being said, and considering....
adn that is what that subthread was about.
so
i guess i wont wait around for you to tell me where i am wrong, in that conversation?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Seriously? You can't see a flaw in that sort of thinking?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)my lack of participation
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)How do you think I knew about your 70/30 philosophy to begin with. I remembered that thread from some time back.
Generic Brad
(14,274 posts)This is a personal matter and none of us have any idea what has transpired with them behind closed doors. I don't feel any of us here have any right to judge people on their private situations any more than we should be subjected to the same scrutiny on our personal relationships.
So Alan Grayson is a public figure? Then judge him by his public actions as a Congressman and business man. This rampant speculation on his private and personal situation is uncalled for and should be out of bounds. Things are not always as they appear to the general public.
cali
(114,904 posts)how this is a private matter.
He is the one that's chosen to make this a public matter.
Generic Brad
(14,274 posts)Don't speak for me. Thank you.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,325 posts)It was her who went on local news crying about her "dilapidated" mansion.
It was her who went on television crying about being on food stamps -Sitting next to her divorce attorney. If that wasn't an orchestrated publicity stunt I'm the King of Prussia.
It was her who filed bogus "assault" charges. He only released video to protect himself.
Other than than her publicity stunts and bogus criminal charges, everything else is lifted from divorce filings, afaik.
Do we even know who initiated the divorce?
Do we even know what her life, as the wife of a multi millionaire, was like raising kids. I'm sorry but I have to laugh at the sob stories of "making 3 dollar halloween costumes." That was my mom. Not the wife of somebody with $30,000,000 in assets.
Do we even know the level of support Grayson provides the kids outside the court mandated interim support payments? Somehow, I highly doubt the kids are going hungry or without extracurricular school activities as someone hinted up thread.
There is a ton of information we don't know.
So far, we know she is a bigamist who filed phony assault charges and goes on TV airing their dirty laundry to perform publicity stunts.
Gee, I wonder why that marriage isn't working out.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)If she never divorced a prior husband, they aren't married, and her rights are different in the "divorce" case. She's making legal arguments; he's making legal arguments. It's how the law works. Why should he not be permitted to argue their true legal status in the context of their respective property rights?
Also, she's a nasty piece of work who tried to punch him during a visit, and then filed a false report accusing him of doing the hitting. An assistant caught it on video and busted her. His daughter also backed him up on that.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/alan-grayson-altercation-video
cali
(114,904 posts)as proof that she committed bigamy. she says she divorced in Guam prior to her marrying Grayson. But say that the former is true and she wasn't divorced until 1994. That means that she spent 19 years with Grayson NOT married to someone else. And who's to say who is abusive in that relationship? The court granted her an order of protection against him.
I see him as a piece of shit abusing his power. He had all the power. She was an minority immigrant and he was a wealthy Harvard educated businessman and lawyer. She bore him 5 kids and kept his house for 24 years.
And sorry, but quite often children don't know everything that happens. Just because this daughter hasn't seen it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also, she's tiny, and he's a big hulking guy.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I don't know the merits of the bigamy claim, but it is a legitimate legal argument. He is not "going after her for bigamy."
There's no wiggle room on the abuse claim. The wife not only wasn't abused, but abused Grayson, then lied about it to the police.
It was one incident, and in addition to the daughter's statement, there is a video (link in my prior post). Grayson was visiting the home. As he stands on the porch with his arms full, the wife shoves and attacks him repeatedly as he backs away. Then she called the police and falsely claimed he hit her -- inside the house -- and caused an injury. It was an outright, detailed, deliberate, criminal lie.
The daughter's testimony simply reinforces that.
Ugly stuff all around, but the last thing that makes sense is backing the ex-wife here.
cali
(114,904 posts)occasions. She got a restraining order against him.
and the wife is tiny. she shoved him. hardly abuse.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)speculate as to imaginary possible abuse no one even suggested on Grayson's part, just in order to side against him?
That's some profoundly dedicated anti-Grayson bias you're working with there.
Where does it come from?
Here's how she described the incident in which she shoved him around the porch, as seen clearly on the video, to police:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/alan-graysons-wife-files-for-protection-after-alleged-domestic-dispute/
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Would you say the same thing if there was video of him shoving her?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Also, there's no real audio.
We don't know if he goaded or provoked her to get that reaction. I have to say, having your aide hide behind a tree filming in the hopes of getting a "gotcha" moment is a bit OTT. A smarter plan, to avoid any hate or discontent, would have been to hire an off-duty sheriff to accompany him, instead of having a government employee--his aide--involved in his personal dramas. That seems to me to be a bit of misuse of a public employee--and a guy worth tens of millions can afford to hire an off duty cop--they run about sixty bucks an hour, a bit more or less, depending on the state.
The wife, good, bad or indifferent, was his partner for nearly a quarter century. She kept his house, she had five kids with him, and she was their primary caregiver. There are no winners here, but his being so cheap that she qualifies for food stamps tells me that he is being vindictive. There's no need to be that way.
He has more money than a normal person could spend. He doesn't have to be such a jerk. Cut a deal and move on--don't drag the mother of your children through the mud. Take the high road.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Some folks really ought to spend some time examining why they are backing up Lolita. The arguments in favor of her don't make sense at all. I'm particularly appalled by the arguments that the time factor makes things better for her somehow. The fact that she pulled off this fraud for over 20 years and didn't say anything to her partner or try to make things right for the kids is an aggravating factor as far as I am concerned, not a mitigating one.
Every piece of this issue one looks at, Lolita comes off as lying and scheming.
Pathwalker
(6,598 posts)Had a second wide for 7 years. his first wife divorced him and gt absolutely everything including ALL his pension. Their 2 surviving sons never spoke to him again. The ironic thing: his first wife's name was: Karma. Seriously, he should have known better.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Lolita should not only get nothing, she should be in jail, and Grayson should get custody of the kids.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)has probably been involved in divorce and custody cases. In the end, the public decided the Clintons personal business was their business and the attempt to oust a president over a private matter, failed.
Same thing here, the pubic are not as hypocritical as political operatives are and think THEY are.
I care about where they stand on the issues absent something criminal.
Nothing criminal so far in this case, just another ugly divorce where we have no idea who is the 'good' or 'bad' person.
I would absolutely support Grayson for public office, he has proven how effective he is at taking down the REAL hypocrites in Congress.
We need more like him in Congress.
cali
(114,904 posts)I think he's a hypocritical creep. I'll take real progressives like Bernie and my own congressman, Peter Welch.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I will take Grayson over any Third Way candidate any day, and I wish them both a speedy divorce settled in the best interests of the entire family. Other than that, it's not my business.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If Monica bore Bill Clinton five children I would have been the first to argue they deserved to be brought up in the same manner that Chelsea was.
But I still would have argued it wasn't an impeachable offense.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Damn the hypocrisy, damn consistency, you'll defend the Democrat every time, period. But that doesn't extend to Grayson, for some reason. Why?
You're not the only party-firster I've noted around here bad mouthing liberal Democrats. I've noticed the people who are most into the idea of party loyalty never seem to extend that loyalty further left their very tiny political Goldilocks zone.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)-Hillary's e-mails
- Bill and Monica
-Alan Grayson's alleged cupidity
-my response
-and what the responses of the voters will be...
Let's tackle Hillary's e-mails first. I said if I were a partisan Republican I would try to make as much political hay out of it as possible but when I put on my political pundit hat I don't believe it's a huge issue.
Now let's tackle Bill and Monica's affair. I said if she bore him five children he should ensure those children grew up in the same manner as Chelsea was accustomed to but I would not think it was an impeachable offense. If he refused to support them and Monica the way his income allowed him to I would say he's a huge asshole
Mrs. Grayson , a poor Filipino immigrant bore and raised five of Mr Grayson's children while he accumulated a thirty million dollar net worth. I would literally bet my ear the Family Court doesn't allow her to walk away penniless...
I lived in the district next to his. If I was in his district I would vote for him but he wouldn't be someone I held out as some beacon of compassion and empathy, the sine qua non of liberalism, without possessing those qualities no person can call himself or herself a liberal.
In closing I would have Mr. Grayson and Mr. Clinton as my congressperson and president but I am not sure at all I would want either gentleman marrying my sister. However Mr. Clinton would be a gas as a friend.
cali
(114,904 posts)the responses here would be very different.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)The response here would be very different.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)As a political observer I would realize the limits of it as an issue.
Folks can bookmark this post...I am trying to avoid the "he said, she said" aspects of it but no family court judge is going to let Mrs. Grayson walk away from the table with nothing. It's just not likely...
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I like some of the things Grayson says but I'm not what you would call a fanboi.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I do have some idea of what is going to happen in family court and that the family court judge is likely to decide whatever the merits of the bigamy allegation they have been together over twenty years and she deserves something, especially since Grayson has a net worth of thirty million dollars.
namastea42
(96 posts)and some people don’t. Some people are called Democrats and some people are called Republicans.”
–Alan Grayson
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Alan Grayson who is a REAL liberal, BTW
...jesus christ...amazing
Alan Grayson, you have committed the crime of being a real liberal, a no apology liberal too. A no bullshit liberal.
A REAL liberal...
Therefore, you will be attacked by certain people...
yep
cali
(114,904 posts)And I have never trusted Grayson- anymore than I ever trusted John Edwards. And Grayson is acting the 1% bully.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)I don't trust him a lick, and I don't give a damn if he graces DU from time-to-time soliciting donations. Con artist.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)2) Divorces of alpha male one per centers is often ugly. Specially when the woman wont just mind her own business.
There seems to be a contingent who believe very few progressives can do anything wrong. Not saying you. Some here have even determined, without all of the facts, that Assange is a victim. It is a fault of personality, not a fault of ideology.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Clinton, see no need for doing that here. And then there is the none of my business part.
Are you this concerned with all of the women that Bill Clinton has dallied with, one way or another, over the years, and what that has done with his relationships with Hillary and Chelsea? Do you look down on Hillary for staying with Bill despite the infidelities?
Just trying to figure out why this one is more important.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)He appears to believe she misled him by lying about being divorced, participating in what appears to be a marriage ceremony with him, then actually secretly GETTING A DIVORCE from husband number one several years later while she was publicly married to him.
She has subjected him to public humiliation and falsely accused him of assault - charges which would have been believed if video evidence hadn't been made proving she was lying. Opposition research on the topic could have made him a public joke, and frankly, I understand his fury at the betrayal from someone he trusted.
Some people advocate forgiveness either on behalf of religion or children; others prefer that people who deceive them and treat them terribly do not benefit from their bad behavior. There are arguments to be made for both viewpoints.
I think the kids will be fine. I am not worried about her. Honestly, I am kind of impressed he is sticking to his guns about this, rather than just paying her off to keep quiet. Bet she did not expect that, eh?
Personally, I am sticking with "not my circus, and not my monkeys" because it is NOT my (fake) marriage, and really, it doesn't concern me. I like the man as a Congressman and support his efforts in the House.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-alan-grayson-divorce-bigamy-hearing-20150309-story.html
On Monday, Alan Grayson's attorneys spent nearly three hours trying to prove that Lolita Grayson's first husband, identified on their marriage contract as "Robert A. Carson," is Robert Allen Carson, 68, of South Florida, who got a divorce from a woman named Lolita Carson in Broward County in 1994.
cali
(114,904 posts)bearing 5 children, raising them, and keeping house for him. He is a powerful man. She is an immigrant minority. The power imbalance here is stunning.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's a Powerful v. Powerless dynamic, exactly.
If she's done wrong, well, that should be taken into account, but these "Toss her out on her ear without a dime" and "She needs to reimburse him" stuff is insane.
cali
(114,904 posts)they don't want to get it. Forget that she spent 24 years with him and bore him 5 children and was a stay at home mom. Forget that he's a powerful wealthy white guy and she's an immigrant minority.
I've never trusted Grayson. I think he's a phony self-serving blow hard. And I think his behavior here is despicable, whether she was married for the first 4 years of their relationship or not.
MADem
(135,425 posts)REGARDLESS of their tiffs, spats, or knock-down, drag-out fights with their spouse.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)in the first place. It was a deception. Stop defending it because it makes it look like you are just biased on behalf of the woman.
She is a liar. Period. It may be a "like attracts like" situation where he is bad, too, but frankly, there is no evidence of that, and your outrage on her behalf is just ... Not credible. If you want to talk "power imbalance" it seems to me she had most of it (or thought she did) with the secrets, lies, potential for blackmail/public humiliation factor, slanderous accusations of abuse, etc.
Marriage is a legal state. It entitles people to legal protections if dissolved. She does not have clean hands and is not married; she is not entitled to the proceeds from the non-existent marriage.
If she was legally divorced in Guam, her lawyer should be able to get copies of the paperwork (apparently he can't because there was no finalized divorce in Guam or the dog ate it or some such nonsense), and then the bigamy claim goes away because her second marriage was legal.
It is a pretty simple situation. Either she was legally married to Grayson, or she wasn't. If she wasn't, and he thought they were, he can choose forgiveness or not as pleases THE VICTIM.
I am not going to argue with you any further because you just aren't logical about this. His personal life at this level is not my business, and it doesn't change my opinion of him because I think HE was the one who was wronged.
cali
(114,904 posts)It's about right and wrong. He doesn't need to drag his children through this. And she spent 24 years bearing and raising his children and keeping house for him.
Again, back to the power imbalance. He's a white Harvard educated lawyer. She's a minority immigrant.
He's a pig. He's not credible at all. And I don't believe a word out of his mouth about anything.
I don't think YOU are logical about this and if he was a repuke I have no doubt that you'd have a different opinion.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)And since the courts and I think the question of a DIVORCE SETTLEMENT starts with the first question of whether or not there was a LEGAL MARRIAGE TO DISSOLVE, you will undoubtedly be upset with any legal decision that comes down.
We have figured out where we disagree, and there is no resolution to our different opinions. Have a nice day.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)She lied to him. She lied about him and was caught when the video came out. I don't see why he should feel charitable toward her, especially since it turns she was never actually his wife.
Yes the kids need to be taken care of, but she shouldn't get a free ride for life just because she's a con artist who managed to live the good life on someone else's dime for 24 years.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)He is also a frequent Poster...
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)I would be curious to know more about Mr. Carson.
The victim was usually a military member and the woman had married several of them. Some were foreigners who after they got to America looked to hitch themselves to a more lucrative horse. Some were just crazy. Some were using the same baby to get money out of multiple husbands or their families. One guy thought his "wife" was going to kill him for life insurance and wanted the "marriage" unambiguously off the books.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Were any of them well known politicians?
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)I'm asking about Mr. Carson's circumstances.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Young guys stationed overseas, away from their families, and in places where they can't even speak the language, get very lonely and are vulnerable. Sometimes they get talked into a marriage, and when they get their wives to the states, they often find that their new spouses aren't necessarily committed to a lifetime of monogamy. Once they get their green cards, they don't need the husbands any more, but they still want a piece of his paycheck.
It's not a new phenomenon.
