Alan Grayson called cops on wife for allegedly using his credit card

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Politico

Florida Rep. Alan Grayson recently called his estranged wife a “gold digger,” but a review of the potential Senate candidate’s soap-opera divorce case shows he unsuccessfully tried to have her criminally charged for far less: ringing up grocery, gasoline and car-repair expenses on his credit card.

Grayson’s previously unreported effort to have Lolita Grayson arrested on credit-card fraud charges was revealed in one of her court filings that complained about the wealthy Democrat’s tactics to withhold money from her.

“The Husband has denied the Wife access to marital assets or funds that could be used to pay for attorney’s fees and costs, even going to the extent of filing a criminal complaint against the Wife for her alleged use of a marital credit card account,” her attorney said in a successful March 13 motion to compel Grayson to pay up.

In previous court filings and interviews, Lolita Grayson, who’s now on her sixth lawyer, has depicted Grayson as abusive and so tight-fisted that she and their four minor children had to go on food stamps. She said she couldn’t afford to repair a leaky septic tank and broken windows that allowed mold to fester in the family’s Orlando home. Her situation and the corresponding images of the home’s disrepair aired on local TV in October 2014, just before Grayson — a trial lawyer worth about $31 million — won reelection to a third term in the House.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/alan-grayson-called-cops-on-wife-for-buying-groceries-with-his-credit-card-118112.html

[bravenak]

1. He gets on my nerves.

Shameful sad ass shit. Why not just give her enough money to live on instead of making her fight for every dime and calling her names?
I lose more respect for this guy by the day. I'm glad he was unsuccessful.

[SoapBox]

2. I used to love him...

But this stuff is really a mess.

[closeupready]

3. She's not his wife. Further, she's on her sixth lawyer. Proof right there

that she's radioactive.

[happyslug]

40. There lived as Husband and wife for 25 years....

In that time period they filed joint income tax returns. Being a Senator he and his wife traveled all over the country and had to stay at least one night in a State that recognized Common Law Marriages.

If she was married at the time of her marriage to Grayson, then that makes that marriage invalid. If the divorce became final after that date, that marriage is still invalid. If her first husband died after the marriage with Grayson, her Florida marriage to Grayson would still be invalid.

On the other hand, if Grayson and his wife went to a State that Recognize Common Law Marriages AFTER the divorce was final OR after her first husband had died, the rules for Common Law Marriage kicks in. The rules are simple, you can NOT be married to anyone else AND you exchange "vows". Evidence of such an exchange of vows includes holding yourself out as married, her adopting his last name and filing joint tax returns.

i.e. Her Florida Marriage may be invalid, but Grayson and Her may have entered into a Valid Common Law Marriage since that date. Common Law Marriages are subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution so are valid in all 50 states, even if the exchange of vows took place during a visitation of less then a day in a state that recognize Common Law Marriages. There is no such thing as a Common Law Divorce, you MUST go through the regular divorce procedure.

Pennsylvania lawyers use to joke about Pennsylvania Common Law Marriages (The ability to enter into one ended on January 1, 2005, but if entered into before that date, those are still valid), the Pennsylvania cases on Pennsylvania Common Law Marriages were thin, but the New York State Cases were thick. In the New York State Court Cases, they recognized Pennsylvania Common Law Marriages even if the visit where the "Marriages" occurred was one over night stay in the Poconos Mountains of Pennsylvania. I bring them up for it shows that a State that has abolished Common Law Marriages within its borders (In these cases New York State), still had to recognize them if performed in another state.

The same with Grayson and his wife, the Ceremonial marriage in 1990 may be invalid, but he traveled from Washington to other areas of the country with his wife all the time, thus sometime since 1990 he and his wife could have been legal to marry and if they signed a hotel register as Husband and Wife that would be enough to show they had entered into a valid common law marriage. Thus that the Florida Marriage is invalid is moot and it looks like some where along the way a Florida Judge ruled a valid Marriage existed, probably on some other states Common Law Marriage law. The Common Law Marriage concept was kept alive in many states for it permitted valid marriages when the ceremonial marriage was invalid for some technical reason. In this case Grayson marriage in 1990 was invalid, but that does not mean he could not enter into a subsequent marriage with the same woman later on, and that seems to have been the ruling by the judge in this case.

This may also explain why she has had "Six" lawyers, she would have to have hired lawyers in those states with Common Law Marriages to report on what would be a valid common law marriage in their State (For example Utah only recognize Common Law Marriage if the Government becomes involved, not the rule in the other eight states). Each state have their own requirements and while only nine state still permit Common Law Marriages, Pennsylvania did prior to 2005 and Ohio prior to 1991

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States

I am less familiar with the "Punitive Marriage" doctrine that came out of Catholic/Council of Trent traditions. Such "Marriages" are valid in California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota and Montana (by Statute); and in Nebraska, Washington state, Nevada, Texas and Louisiana by case law. In such "Marriage" the marriage is invalid, but the "innocent" side is still viewed as having a valid marriage (and that can be both spouses, if the spouse who was ineligible to marry, married thinking he or she was eligible to be married).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putative_marriage

Under this doctrine, an innocent spouse (which includes one who thought they were divorced but was not) the marriage is viewed as valid for any division of marital property.

[closeupready]

43. With all due respect, I appreciate that we will share differences

of opinion about the matter, since nobody here (to my knowledge) knows either one of them personally.

That said, even if everything is as you argue here, I know enough about her to know from what has been posted here to feel she is a piece of crap.

I think Grayson should exercise self-restraint in terms of keeping his sour opinions of her to himself, rather than airing these colorful remarks in the press. That failure to do so does call into question his judgment, even though I love him as a Democrat and an elected official who seeks to help working people.

[happyslug]

63. They were married for 25 years, they had five children together....

That shows a desire by BOTH SIDES to live together and act as a team. I do NOT know why this breakup occurred, it may be her fault, it may be his fault (and most likely neither's fault, they just grew apart).

It is getting nasty for I suspect they did live as one and now they are tramping on each other feet as both learn to live as two different households. Many people tend to view the home as hers, while legally it is the property of both. Most people view his pension and his income as his, but legally it is viewed as both (In Community Property states that is by law, but in other state income is viewed as to the earner of the income but that earner is responsible for the other spouses "necessities" and "Support" the net results is the same except for Federal Income Tax purpose prior to 1947). At the same time both came to depend on each other to do certain things, thus her use of his credit card to buy grocery and gas is normal in many household and probably was the norm when they were together. As to the Credit Card, with their separating she just did what she has been doing without thinking about it, and he objected by trying to bring criminal charges against her (Asking her to NOT do that would have been sufficient along with a Cancellation of those Credit Cards).

Side note: The big push for Community Property was in the 1940s for under Federal law only the income earner paid Income Tax. Under Community Property Law, income of both spouses were viewed as income to BOTH PEOPLE and thus for Federal income Tax purposes each spouse filed income tax on half the income of themselves and their spouses. Thus if you were a stay at home wife, you paid income tax on half your husband's income. Given that the Federal Income Tax Rate was graduated the couple by dividing his income between Husband and wife paid less taxes then if they lived in a Non Community Property Law State. In 1947 Congress permitted joint filings of Husband and wife to end this disparity in income tax treatment, i.e. in all states since 1947, for federal income tax purposes, income of both spouses are treated the same as if they lived in a Community Property State.

Marriages of only a few years produce few problems for the Married assets are limited. On the other hand, you live with someone for 25 years you grow to depend on him or her, and that person grows to depend on you. Things become automatic and you continue to do them even as the breakup occurs. After a few months these tend to die down, which is what I think happened with the Credit Cards, she had been using them for 25 years and did not think twice of using them after the breakup (i.e. habit not intentional, if it was intentional the amount would have been thousands of dollars not gasoline and groceries).

Thus I have to say Grayson is not working with his wife to resolve the dispute between them. That is the key to most settlements of divorce, when the couple works together and resolves the disputes. The problem is if both sides were willing to work together to resolve they disputes, they would still be together. Thus these things get nasty quickly and lawyers have to control their clients. Once the property settlement is finally agreed to things will calm down for then both sides would have accepted what they lost. Till then this will be fought and fought between the parties even if both sides are "good people".

[Hepburn]

48. And this makes the marriage legal for the purposes of divorce, how?

Either it is a legal marriage or it is not. This is pretty much a black and white question. If she was married to another when she said, "I do" with Grayson, they could have lived together for 1,000 years and held out as a married couple. Legally they simply are NOT married when it comes to the issue of her entitlement to property and support. PERIOD.

Maybe instead of spending money on six lawyers and requesting the court for orders for those monies, maybe she should have done something about funds to support the children? Talk about screwed up priorities -- give me money for my lawyers to get property to which I have no claim and I will spend it there instead of feeding my children. What is wrong with that picture????

[pnwmom]

94. As another poster explained to you, if they held themselves out as married

while in a common law state, it is possible that they were legally married. And if they were legally married in a common-law state, that status doesn't go away by moving to a non-common-law state, because all states recognize each others' marriages.

It will be up to each of them to prove their marital status; this isn't obvious or clear-cut

[Hepburn]

50. She cannot claim a common law marriage

There are three elements to common law marriage:

1. A desire to be married

2. Holding out as husband and wife

3. No impediment to the marriage

Ms. Grayson fails on #3 -- being married to another at the time of the commencement of a supposedly commonlaw marriage to Mr. Grayson is a legal impediment to common law marriage in every state which recognizes this form of marriage.

[MADem]

62. She did divorce that other guy. There was no "impediment" for

21 years or so or so of their relationship. She was not in a bigamous state for the entire duration of her marriage to Grayson. In fact, she was "single" for most of it.

And they had kids after she got that divorce--I don't think the youngest ones, the twins, are even ten years old, yet. And credit cards, and tax returns. And travel with the family to DC to see the Representative sworn in, etc...

[happyslug]

70. A valid Common law marriage could have been entered into any time since 1990

Last edited Wed May 20, 2015, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

It could have been entered into in 2010. Holding out as Husband and Wife is EVIDENCE of being married but NOT a requirement of Common Law Marriage. Desire to be married can be a simple, "I love you".

That leaves the Impediment to Marriage. That impediment existed in 1991 but that does NOT mean they existed after that date. Common Law Marriage was abolished in Florida in 1968 so what happened in Florida has no baring on a Claim of Common Law Marriage. It is what Grayson and his wife did in other states since 1991 and if what they did in a State that Recognize Common Law Marriage is enough to show a valid Common Law Marriage under the laws of that state, Florida has to accept that as a valid marriage.

[MADem]

77. I'm betting he introduced her as his wife on the House floor when she stood there with the five kids

while he was sworn in. Not this last time--he was with his girlfriend then, but the last time he was sworn in.

[MADem]

51. He is a rep, not a senator....

but the rest of your points are salient. Very informative post. He most definitely co-habitated with her in DC, with the kids, too--there are pictures.

He will never BE a senator, either--though he wants to run for the office. The DSCC has said they're not backing him, which has caused a ripple of backlash. His campaign manager who has been with him for years was planning on running for his House seat--she knows the district, the people, she's done a ton of the outreach to bring in the Puerto Rican vote for him (the population of Borinquens has increased enormously in FL and in his district especially--they handed him his last win), she is a known quantity in the district--but he was, apparently, planning on bigfooting her out of the running and sliding his new girlfriend (no political experience at all) into "his" seat with his endorsement. His campaign manager, when asked about this, was said to be "speechless." I'm sure things aren't well on that front, either. Way to reward loyalty, I guess...?

The guy votes the right way, but he doesn't live his so-called values.

I seem to recall that William Hurt, the actor, was caught up in a common law marriage scenario while he was cohabiting with a girlfriend during the filming of the Big Chill in South Carolina. I think she won in SC and lost in NY. It was a long time ago, and I think the case hinged on things like tax returns and credit cards and names, and so forth.

[happyslug]

76. If I remember the William Hurt Case, it involved only New York State Courts

New York State Court had to rule on the fact did the couple enter into a valid South Carolina Common Law Marriage when they lived together while making that movie. South Carolina did not have to make any ruling for the case was NOT heard in their state.

If I remember right she filed for Divorce in New York but the court ruled no Common Law Marriage had been entered into, thus no valid marriage, thus no divorce. Hurt had fathered a child by the woman but he was married to another woman at that time period. Later on, after his divorce, he moved in with and lived with the mother of his child. That mother later sued him for divorce.

The New York Court had to rule on whether the mother of his child showed they had fulfilled the requirements of South Carolina law. The New York Court found they had not and thus no valid Common law Marriage. I like the Wikipedia page on this, they said the New York Courts were reluctant to recognize such a marriage. That was NOT the case, the Judge did listen to the evidence and ruled the facts did not support that the requirements of South Carolina Law had been meet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hurt#Personal_life

[MADem]

80. I think Mrs. Grayson has a stronger case, given that she

has appeared on the floor of the House with her husband and children when he was sworn in (not this most recent time, but the time before). I don't think he introduced her as the housekeeper or nanny, certainly.

[happyslug]

82. I agreed with that, AND they signed Income Tax Forms together

The Signing of Joint Returns is a sure sign of Marriage. If one of those forms were signed in a state that recognize Common Law Marriage, that by itself would be the "Exchange of vows" required for a valid common law marriage,

Florida abolished Common Law Marriage in 1968, thus what happened in Florida does not count. If his income tax form was prepared in DC, Maryland or Virginia, again not a problem, Common Law Marriages did not exist in those jurisdiction since he and his wife "married" in 1990.

On the other hand. if he or she signed those forms in Pennsylvania (or another state that recognize Common Law Marriage) that may be enough for if signed after her divorce became final AND before Pennsylvania abolished Common Law Marriage on January 1, 2005, signing that income tax form in Pennsylvania would have been enough to make a valid common law marriage.

Her having six attorneys would explained by the above, you need an attorney to fight for that Common Law Marriage Claim that requires someone who is licenses in Florida AND know the other state's laws (or hiring another attorney who do know those rules).

My advice to Grayson, is SHUT UP, stop talking about the divorce, if the divorce comes up say it is in litigation but both sides are working to solve the disputes and settle this dispute even if that means giving in to her. Grayson is losing more the longer this stays in the Press then he would lose if he just give in to any reasonable demand. Sign a Marriage Settlement Agreement, even if she gets more the he does, for the harm he is incurring in the divorce being in the news is going to harm him in the long run more then the retention of property.

[MADem]

85. I think his marriage became irretrievably broken when he met that new paramour.

She's young(er), and blonde, and tanned, and she has lots of teeth. She wants to get into politics, too.

She might be the reason that he's fighting so hard to keep "his" money.

You know the saying--no fool like an old fool...! He's ruining his reputation by persisting in this nonsense.

I feel so sorry for the kids, especially the two youngest who aren't even ten yet. And the teenagers, they must be humiliated--they go to public school, so they aren't shielded from any of this at all.

[Fumesucker]

113. It's kind of like a Bimbo Eruption...

[MADem]

116. Or an INFLUENCE eruption....

I will say, the fact that she is a lobbyist bothers me, particularly after all that hot water he got in for calling that OTHER lobbyist the "W" word (and I don't mean "wily" or even "wicked&quot .

[Fumesucker]

118. Yes, politicians should avoid even the perception of impropriety..

I think we can agree on that, at least in some cases anyway.

It's a sad commentary on our society that so few politicians actually manage to avoid that perception.

[MADem]

121. Certainly, and doubly so when they run on the 'Caesar's Wife' ticket!

When anyone holds themself out to be Pompeia-like, it's a long way down when they fall.

[Xithras]

97. She would have to petition to have it recognized in one of those states.

A common law marriage isn't recognized by any state until it is formally recognized by the state that contracted it. This is typically done when a common law couple need to prove their marriage status to a third party and request certification from the state, or when a couple split up and one of the spouses asks a court to certify the couple as married so they can make a claim on marital property. If you're not a resident of a common-law state, you don't automatically end up married just because you drove through one.

If she wanted to claim that her marriage was common-law, she would need to find a state that they visited while they were together, where common-law marriage is recognized, and petition a court there to declare them married. If they were never residents of that state, doing so will be a lot harder than you think. States with common law statutes require "continuous" cohabitation, generally within the boundaries of their state. While "continuous" could charitably be described as a vague concept, it's certainly more than a night or two.

Florida is NOT going to recognize a common-law marriage simply because one party demands it.

[happyslug]

102. That is NOT the law, Florida has to accept what was the law in the state it occurred.

Technically, if an unmarried man told an unmarried woman he had never saw before "I take you as my wife" and she response "I take you as my Husband" and they both continue to walk pass each other never touching, that is all you need to have a valid common law marriage.

Now PROVING such a marriage occurred will be another thing, but Grayson and his wife filled out Joint Income tax forms, which indicated he THOUGHT he was married and is evidence a VALID Marriage was entered into, even if the Marriage was a Common Law Marriage that was actually entered into in another state (In 2000 the US Court of Military Appeals, ruled that service personal whose home states do NOT recognize Common Law Marriages can still entered into such Common Law Marriages while in the Service, this follows the old rule "The King's Law follows the King's Troops" i.e. the laws of the US applies to the troops and as long as one state recognize Common Law Marriages, such marriages are valid in the US Military and given the most recent rulings by the US Supreme Court, Congress can NOT ban such marriages in the Military, it must be the states).

Unless litigation comes into play, you do NOT have to prove anything. You can move right out of that state. There is a huge list of cases from the 1930s to the 1960s where a man took his girlfriend to the Poconos and signed the register as Husband and Wife (The Hotels then would NOT leave a man and a woman in the same room unless there were married). After that trip when the couple broke up, she sued him for divorce and won on the grounds they had entered into a valid Common Law Marriage in Pennsylvania given that he had registered them as Husband and Wife. Pennsylvania courts tended to want more evidence of such a marriage but it was good enough for several New York States Judges who ruled that even through New York had outlawed such marriages in 1933 for under the Federal Full Faith and Credit Clause New York had to accept what Pennsylvania said were valid marriages, and that includes cases where the only evidence was a hotel registration

There is NO requirement for a State that recognize Common law Marriages to be the first to litigate that Marriage.

In Jennings vs Hurt, William Hurt's girlfriend (and the mother of one of his children) said they exchange vows in South Carolina Courts when both were single and thus under South Carolina Law they were Husband and Wife. New York State Courts had to accept that South Carolina law was the controlling law on the status of that marriage, even through the case was filed and first heard in a New York State Court.

The New York State Court ruled that no exchange of vows took place for Hurt denied he exchanged vows AND Jennings did NOTHING after that alleged exchange of vows to present herself as Hurt's wife. Jennings NEVER took Hurt's last name, she continued to filed her Income Tax forms as "Single" and until she filed her action never told anyone she was married to Hurt. Under South Carolina Law that was enough to show NO Common Law Marriage took place and that was the ruling of the New York State Courts which actually heard the case.

State courts rule on issue of other states laws all the time. Most times the law is not that much different between the states, but at other times it can be radically different, but the applicable law is what applies to the case NOT where the court is sitting.

Please remember the Common Law Marriage Doctrine traces itself back to the Middle Ages a time period where marriages could occur in church but did not have to be (and most were not). In the Council of Trent in the 1560s, called by the Pope due to the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church ruled for the first time all marriages MUST be made in a Church. By 1570 that was the law in Catholic Europe, but it took England to the 1700s to adopt that rule for England but NOT its Colonies. When America won its independence, the laws of England as applied to the Colonies were accepted as valid unless changed by ruling of US Courts or passage of Statutes. This started the slow abolishment of Common law marriages.

I bring up this history for Common Law Marriages are NOT a product of Statute but of the Common Law, and it is a Common Law Tradition that goes back to the Middle Ages, if not to Alfred the Great (c 800 AD). Most people could not read or write and record keeping was for important things. Till linen paper was introduced in the 1300s, even land titles were granted by word of month (The seller of the land would hand the buyer of the land a handful of soil, then both the buyer and seller would take switches to a young boy so he would remember the transaction for the rest of his life do to getting the beating. That was the best way to record such transfers of land in the days before Linen Paper (There were NOT going to waste good Parchment on such titles, and bark and other material only lasted a few months at best).

Thus Common Law Marriage is a product of a time period where records were kept verbally not in writings and in most states that retain Common Law Marriage, that tradition that these are a product of a oral record is preserved (and this is the leading argument to abolish Common Law Marriages since the Reformation).

[MADem]

107. Well explained! That was clear and concise, thanks! nt

[happyslug]

109. I added the last four Paragraphs after you had made your comment

The last four Paragraph goes into the history of Common Law Marriages and why they were NEVER recorded. I will not repeat what I wrote above, but this is an open forum and I want to make sure anyone reading you comments understand you did not have access to the last four paragraphs when you made your comment.

When I discuss Common Law Marriages, I mention the old Custom of Captains marrying people on their ships. The Captain did not actually marry such people, he witnessed them signing vows and thus entering into a Valid Common Law Marriages. This type of Common Law Marriage, even on British Ships, survived the abolishment of Common Law Marriage in England in the early 1700s.

Common Law Marriage can be a complex area of the law, but once you accept its rules it is understandable.

[MADem]

110. Better still-the bit about beating the crap out of a little kid so he'd never forget is horrifyingly

fascinating....

[happyslug]

112. How do you "Prove" you purchased the land after the seller is dead and not written record?

Now, when Linen Paper was introduced into Europe in the 1300s, for the first time paper was cheap enough to use to make deeds. By the time the American Colonies were founded, we adopted a policy of recording such deeds in what we call a Recorder of Deeds. A position, to my knowledge, that does not exists even today in England. This was a huge improvement over the English Practice for it provided permanent records of sales of property. Thus the beating of a young boy never seems to have crossed the ocean.

On the other hand the reports of such beatings is from a time period long after linen paper had become the norm. It is like a story, "In the days of olde". did it occur? maybe? did it work? maybe, Did people threaten they young boys with it? Certainly. Was it a good story to scare the kiddies? Yes.

How things were recorded in days of olde is open to debate, but the stories do exists and how do you record things when most people can not read or write AND paper cost as much a a Leather Jacket (Parchment is made from the skins of animals, just like Leather, thus leather and Parchment both competed as the end product of butchering).

[MADem]

114. They didn't think to do like Moses, and take two tablets....!!!

Not very portable, that method, certainly!

[Xithras]

128. I forgot that not all common law states require cohabitation.

Proving cohabitation is going to be nearly impossible, and would have to be done in the state that contracted the marriage. Unlike the 1960's, most states now have laws stating that hotels aren't residences (with exceptions for long term residential hotels), and you don't automatically gain residency in a state by staying overnight in a hotel. It's a hell of a legal jump to claim that they lived 5 years in state X, and 1 day in state Y, so state Y should grant them a common law marriage. A quick search through LexisNexis doesn't show any court cases where a state has applied cohabitation time from outside the common law states jurisdiction toward the establishment of a common law marriage, when the couple are not residents of the state contracting the marriage.

I did, however, forget that some states don't have any cohabitation requirement. My thinking was that she would have to get the contracting state to validate their cohabitation before any other state was going to recognize the marriage.

In Rhode Island, for example, the only requirements are that you intended to be married, and that you behaved in a way that made others believe you were married. In South Carolina, you only need to have the intent to marry and a mutual agreement to act as husband and wife (you don't even need to present yourself as married to third parties). In Kansas, it's simply an agreement between the two to be married, and the public presentation of themselves as a married couple.

I still maintain that claiming common law marriage under the laws of a state that requires cohabitation would require recognition by the courts of that state before Florida would recognize it (which eliminates most states), but there are certainly some that they'd qualify under simply because those states have no documentation, residency, time limit, or cohabitation requirements.

[happyslug]

133. I live in Pennsylvania and it NEVER required cohabitation.

And Common Law Marriages were legal to enter into till January 1, 2005. As I commented other places most of the cases involving Common Law Marriages were heard by New York State courts applying Pennsylvania Law. This seems to have died out in the 1970s, but still was possible even today given that the issue would be ENTERING into a Common Law Marriage after 2005 was made illegal, but marriages entered into before 2005 remained legal.

Now Pennsylvania Courts did recognize the difference between "in futuro" and "in praesenti" Common law marriages, only the later were legal in Pennsylvania. The difference was "In Praesenti" was just an exchange of vows, while "In Futuro" was a PROMISE to marry in the future followed by sexual intercourse. Notice sex was NOT needed to have a valid "In Praesenti" marriage and it is this type of common law marriage that survived in most states.

"In Futuro" Common Law Marriages did survive in several other states after the Revolution, but it was as hit and missed just states retaining "In Praesenti" Common Law Marriages. Some states retained BOTH. Thus the confusion for even the states that retained one or the other confused them at times.

One things that makes this worse is most cases do NOT get above trial court level, thus hard to find in Westlaw or Lexis (and in most cases it is a minor issue, that once decided by the trial court, is assumed by both sides in any actual trial).

[ChairmanAgnostic]

91. I must agree.

When a potential client comes in with a history of many former attorneys, (it was always their fault, they didn't understand, they were in bed with my opposing counsel, they were bought off, they screwed me over) I routinely say thanks, but no thanks.

[Sanity Claws]

104. When she goes through so many attorneys, she has some issues

When I used to practice, I steered clear of clients who went through attorneys. It's a big red flag.
If the parties are separated, she shouldn't be using his credit cards. She should have filed a motion for temporary support.
I don't think I'd bank on what she says to the court. I want to see how the court rules.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. As much as I like Grayson's politics,

I have to conclude that, as a person, he's kind of a dick.

[Hepburn]

5. She is on her 6th lawyer?

Tells me that she is the problem, not him.

I will state, however, if he is NOT supporting his family pursuant to a lawful court order, then he is in the wrong. There is no excuse for this. If she has NOT obtained a court order entitling her to her rightful amount of support, she is in the wrong for not doing right by her children.

Having done "divorce law" for a very long time, messes are to be expected. When there is no mess...SURPRISE!

[jen63]

44. It's very hard to obtain

adequate legal counsel if you are the estranged wife of another attorney.

[Hepburn]

49. Really?

And that is why she has had six lawyers?

I practiced family law for many, many years and in my opinion and experience, I saw the courts bend over backwards to protect the non-attorney spouse versus the attorney spouse.

Curious -- what is the basis for your opinion?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

111. There are just too many lawyers

and too many people who don't know how to listen.

If we aren't buying your bullshit story or strategy, there surely is someone else who will. It isn't just individuals, it's businesses too. Large and small.

[treestar]

131. Depends on the reason for that

She could be a difficult client. But that does not affect the validity of her case. It seems there is at least an argument for a common law marriage. One lawyer might have felt that referral or consultation with another was needed with a DC lawyer or a lawyer thought to have more experience with these issues.

[newfie11]

6. Two sides to this

Before I condemn him I need to hear his side.

[Hepburn]

8. It appears that she was married to someone else when she married Grayson

When Lolita was asked about his comment she only laughed but it is no laughing matter that she has hired her sixth lawyer since the divorce proceeding began. That goes to show you she is probably not agreeing with their advice and firing them or she is not listening to their advice and they are not representing her anymore. Generally that is the only reason someone would go through that many attorneys.

So far, Grayson has had to pay for all of her attorneys which I have to admit must be frustrating but he is also disgruntle so one can see why they were married for so many years.

Grayson’s attorney has said he is going to ask the judge to enforce the deal they came to last month. With that being said their annulment might be made official by the end of the week.

Read more at http://shark-tank.com/2015/05/19/grayson-and-his-ex-battled-it-out-in-court-again/

http://shark-tank.com/2015/05/19/grayson-and-his-ex-battled-it-out-in-court-again/#

I totally agree with the comment re: going through six attorneys. IMO, she is the problem. I do not blame him for being frustrated by what does appear to be her gold digging. She appears to be asking for things as a non-wife she is not entitled to.

[newfie11]

18. Holy cow lol

That's very interesting. Thanks for the info.

[yeoman6987]

12. Why doesn't she have 15.5 million to spend?

She should already have 1/2 the money. She definitely should not be on food stamps. Until that happens he's wrong.

[Romeo.lima333]

21. She should already have 1/2 the money. different states have different laws

if she was married already when she married alan then was there a real marriage if not then is she entitled to anything? depends on state law

[Hepburn]

58. There is no jurisdiction of which I am aware that unmarried persons...

...can accumulate community property and/or marital property. A marriage is the first requirement for this. As we found in California in Marvin v. Marvin, these actions pretty much are not supported by any sort or form of case and/or code law.

[Hepburn]

52. Why?

She was not legally married to him. She is not entitled to any assets accumulated during the marriage.

And...maybe she should have spent the monies given to her for legal counsel on her children? Talk about screwed up priorities -- six lawyers and food stamps. Sheesh...!

[tblue]

64. Exactly. I'm sure he has his side to this story.

I like his politics and I'd vote for him if I could because of them. I have no need to love every aspect of the man or any politician.

That said, I hope this mess gets worked out quickly and no one suffers from it.

[Hepburn]

7. More info:

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) is still dealing with his Lolita problem. Lolita Grayson, that is. He’s trying to get his marriage to his estranged wife annulled since she was already married to someone else when the couple wed in 1990. They apparently had a deal last month — he signed, she didn’t.

The Graysons were married for 25 years before things officially went south in 2014 when they separated. They have five children.

...

Sounding a little like Taylor Swift, Grayson told WFTV Channel 9, “I’ll sum it up for you. Gold diggers gotta dig. That’s all I gotta say,” Grayson said Monday. “We had an agreement. She’s trying to renege.”

Grayson has a right to his harsh feelings. Lolita is going on her sixth lawyer and so far Grayson has to pick up the tab.

http://790talknow.com/foxfeedspro/details/item_208931/rep-alan-grayson%E2%80%99s-lolita-problem-heats-up/

She was married to someone else when she married him -- therefore he is entitled to an annulment and she cannot claim property and/or spousal support. He is required to support his children, yes, definitely. However, it would appear that the funds being paid are for her fighting to get what she is not entitled to: A share of property for someone who legally was not married to her husband due to being married to another at the time of the present marriage.

[bravenak]

17. Why did he let his kids go on food stamps?

To punish HER? A person with 30 million allowing their children to live on food stamps while he calls his wife a gold digger is some sad ass unexplainable shit. I wish somebody could explain the logic behind a millionaire letting his kids live off of the system by having to go on food stamps, and him still be the victim. Sad ass shameful shit. A millionaires kids on food stamps! And a Democrat?
What shit.

[Romeo.lima333]

24. Why did he let his kids go on food stamps? is that true or just an attack from a divorcee

[bravenak]

26. It's true.

[bravenak]

28. Here:

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

[Romeo.lima333]

33. thank you for the link .......... nt

[bravenak]

35. No prob. I was rereading it.nt

[questionseverything]

42. 592 times 5 is just shy of 3 grand a month in cs..more from your link

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."

//////////////////

i find it outrageous too

[bravenak]

45. He is paying whatever he is paying.

That house is his and she was able to get on foodstamps. Money he pays out to mortgage or utilities is not counted as income for snap. Only money she recieves. He should be payin enough to jeep the children at the same standard of living they were at previously. He has enough money to put sone into an account for her household expenses since all of the kids still live there. That mold costs thousands to clean up. I know cause I moved rather than pay the 15 grand they wanted to clean it out of th walls and it is not guarunteed to work.

I would never withold money if it may make my kids suffer just to punish my ex. Never. I'd rather just give up half the dough and b able to face my kids and not feel like a tragic waste of space. People are more important than holding on to grudges and money. It's dirty and nasty to be this way.

[questionseverything]

57. if she was already married he does not owe her half the money

i know once you have dug in you will never change your mind but i know a ton of people that would be tickled to be living on 120 grand a year

i really question how a family of 6 gets fs on 3000 grand of income a month, especially it all their other needs,mortgage,utilities are paid

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/22/2015-01120/annual-update-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines#t-1

bare in mind these guidelines assume you are paying for the roof over your head,utilities,ect

we have no idea if he supplements his cs with "gifts" to kids that do not count or not, and he says they agreed to a settlement and she has reneged....we do not know how generous or chincy that settlement is

now if someone can prove his kids had to quit long term,expensive activities they were in because of the dispute between their parents i might feel differently

but i will wait til the facts are in before i throw grayson under the bus

[bravenak]

59. Grayson knew about her first marriage for a long time and stayed.

It only mattered after he left. He is a shit. He should stfu.

[questionseverything]

72. all the kids don't live with her anyways?

Grayson’s attorney, Mark NeJame, disputed Lolita’s claims and pointed out that Grayson had been paying his wife $10,000 monthly, that none of her lawyers ever asked for more and that the congressman has kept up the payments even though two of the four children now live with him.
“He has been and is continuing to pay her $10,000,” NeJame stressed. “It’s not like he wasn’t paying her anything. He always has. And that’s the majority of his annual congressional salary.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/alan-grayson-called-cops-on-wife-for-buying-groceries-with-his-credit-card-118112.html#ixzz3ahdHbWgZ

i do not see what difference it makes how long he knew, if she was not free to enter the marriage contract, there is no marriage

[MADem]

87. The oldest is college aged (19) and the next one behind is at least 16, maybe 17.

There's another teenager and a pair of twins that aren't yet ten.

The oldest is likely in university now. Maybe the next oldest as well, if she is smart and finished high school early. He has FIVE kids, not four.

The disrepair of the home she is living in is not disputable. There are pictures of it online--mold, leaking roof, and weeping sewage. The front steps are crumbling.

If he knew, and continued to hold her out as his wife after her divorce from the first guy became final, then she has a case. She went to DC and stood on the floor of the House while he was sworn in with the kids. He didn't say "This is the babysitter" I'm sure.

[questionseverything]

93. so 2 of the minor children live with him?

as i said earlier i will take a wait and see on this

[MADem]

96. No, one 'minor' and one adult child.

I think the younger ones (a young teen and twin nine year olds) are with their mother.

[MADem]

75. He had children with her after she got her divorce from Number One, too.

He introduced her as his wife, he used her in campaign commercials.

He votes the right way on the House floor--but he IS radioactive. He's becoming more than a distraction.

I am unclear on why this happened, after 25 years. The only factor that appears demonstrably "new" in the dynamic is Grayson's new girlfriend. I'm wondering if he didn't go Middle Aged Crazy and that's what broke up the marriage.

It's a shame that he's on this course of self-destruction.

[bravenak]

120. I agree.

It's sad. He should stfu.

[Yupster]

123. If Grayson just has his money in tax free bonds

He'd make at least $ 100,000 a month interest tax free, and that's about the safest lowest risk thing he could do with it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

55. Thank you. And I agree, that's some "sad shit" right there.

[MADem]

89. I think his eye wandered.

In every communication before this "irretrievable dissolution," he always spoke of his wife in GLOWING terms--wonderful mother, does such a great job with the kids, etc. I think she may have been blindsided when he took up with the "entrepreneur." He wasted no time bringing her to the House for the most recent swearing in, he's also brought her to other DC events as well.

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. So, basically, he's just a garden variety swine, like so many others.

[MADem]

98. Middle aged crazy.

Look at that haircut in the pic, above--he's never had a haircut like that in his life. He's notoriously cheap--Men's Warehouse clothes, Supercuts, and it looks like he's stepping it up a notch.

I think the new love interest is "spiffing him up" and he's liking the attention. She's liking the additional access (see post 95) she enjoys while being squired by him. I think she's a donor--not in the Denise Rich sphere, but enough to get a little attention.

He'll probably regret all this, one day.


ON EDIT--LOOK WHAT I FOUND--his girlfriend is a LOBBYIST!!!!!!! One of those "K Street" errrrr.... naughtywords!!!!!!

Holy shit--THAT's the story, here.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?id=Y0000048521L

[Tarheel_Dem]

100. AG was always a showboater. Of course, that's how you get attention these days. I admire Al.....

Franken most. He keeps his head down, doing his work, and obviously has no desire to hog the spotlight. We had Anthony Weiner for that, and now we have Grayson. How embarrassing. Of course it only stands to reason that he'd be a total hypocrite, and all around a**hole.

Shhhhhh..... don't tell the true believers that he's literally "in bed with LOBBYISTs". It might just break DU.

[MADem]

103. She's plainly wealthy, has advanced degrees, and wants Big Pharma contracts with the GUBMINT!

No wonder she likes him--he gets invites to everything, now, since he's with her, he's probably accepting them.

Now that I know what she does for a living, I am actually feeling a bit sorry for the jerk. I think he thought with the little head, turned his back on the woman he used to speak of with such affection and tenderness, and he's prancing down the garden path after 'that lobbyist.'

The question is this, since Dena is rich in her own right (i.e. NOT a cough-gold digger-cough) -- how long would she stick with him if he ran for the Senate and lost? I'll bet she'd do the Road Runner "beep beep" and be on her bike before you could say "Defense pharmaceutical contract!" Grayson might want to put this song on his playlist, just so he can't say his eyes aren't open.

[Hepburn]

56. Interesting fact from this article

Wife on her Welfare application does not disclose all the facts:

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.

He's paying her $10,000/month. Why is she entitled to these freebies?

[LanternWaste]

31. "his estranged wife, Lolita is now on food stamps to support her children..."

"...one of the richest congressmen in America worth an estimated $26 million, yet his estranged wife, Lolita is now on food stamps to support her children. An investigation by our sister station WFTV-Channel 9 reveals that the congressman's four kids are also getting free lunches at school, paid for by tax dollars.

http://www.news965.com/news/news/local/why-rep-alan-graysons-wife-food-stamps/nhtdt/


Rather simple to find this information should one really want to.

[Romeo.lima333]

34. yes it is and i appreciate those who took the time to look it up

[7962]

37. Thank you. Well said.

Yet because he's seen as "keeping it real", by insulting the other side, he gets a pass from a lot of folks here. I say we're better than that.

[bravenak]

39. That pisses me off.

No passes for asses!

[MADem]

67. There is actually video of that "laugh" and the gold digger remark on

one of the FL TV websites. It didn't sound like a laugh to me--it was more like an expression of exasperation/despair. She didn't look "happy" at all.

We don't know if he knew what the circumstances were of her former relationship and accepted them. If that's the case, and he continued to live with her, file tax returns with her, call her his loving wife, have children with her (and he most certainly did do that) use her in his campaign commercials as his wife, etc. then that muddies the waters considerably.

[Historic NY]

9. Wait it took him 25yrs to find out she was married....

when they took their vows....... That must have been some romance.

[JustAnotherGen]

38. My first thought too!

Did they meet each others families and friends prior to their 'non marriage'? This is crazy!

[darkangel218]

53. It only matters to him now, that they have to split the assets!

Like he didn't know! he knew, he had the tools to find out who his wife was long before!

He disgusts me.

[Hepburn]

54. It does not matter when the information came to light.

Assuming that she was married to another...she knew it and she went ahead with an marriage to Grayson that would never be legal under any state law. IMO, maybe she should have told him of her legal standing? Now is too late to remedy the problem. Laws are created for reasons -- a marital estate and/or community property can ONLY be accumulated by married persons. PERIOD.

Either she was or was not legally married to Grayson. If she was not, she cannot claim the protection of laws which support the right of married persons. Maybe this illustrates why gay/lesbian couples have fought so hard for these marital rights.

[darkangel218]

60. And you honestly think it took him "25 years" to find out???

You really cant be serious.

[closeupready]

65. I don't get it. Divorce is funny?

[darkangel218]

66. NO! Where did you get that from??

The other poster's claim that time doesn't matter was ironically funny! TIME does matter!!! especially when one is a multimillionaire political figure!! If he couldn't find out his WIFE was married before, who else can???
Im pretty sure he knew. It is only now that matters, because he has to pay up.

[closeupready]

68. Oh, okay, sorry, I misunderstood your smilie.

Peace.

[darkangel218]

69. No worries!

My ESL doesn't help, does it lol.

[Nay]

84. IIRC, he knew she had been married before, but she said that she had been divorced, which

was not true. Fast forward 20 years, and they want to get divorced. Alan Grayson's lawyer's researcher found out that she had never been divorced from her first husband, so Alan's lawyer had to proceed on that information. Thus, an annulment rather than a divorce.

Now, I have no idea what sort of money he has been sending to Lolita; if he has been paying $10,000 a month in the form of just mortgage/telephone/utility payments, then she has no cash to live on. I don't know why Alan is being such an asshole; it just makes him look terrible. He should def have taken the high road, but he strikes me as being pushy in his personal relationships and so touchy about being 'used' that he can't help but lash out constantly. Lolita, OTOH, has lied about a number of things, including that Alan had beaten her during one specific meeting. Unbeknownst to her, Alan's aide videoed that meeting and it showed that SHE was hitting HIM on the head. So there's plenty of blame to go around.

In any case, they're both acting like idiots. Sorta standard fare for acrimonious divorces.

[Warpy]

10. Remember the "spousal violence" video the GOP tried to smear him with?

She was hitting him. He wasn't hitting back.

This sounds like a typical stinky divorce. It would certainly help if a judge stepped in at some point to determine her allowance and child support fairly--and to step in if it goes onto her back instead of into the home and children.

[Kingofalldems]

11. Hmm. Someone's on a campaign.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. You better believe it I am!

This guy gives train wrecks a bad name. Having him as the Democratic nominee for the Senate next year would be disaster for Democrats in Florida.

[JVS]

13. Grayson has a political reputation and appeal based on taking no bullshit from anyone.

Why should an ex wife get a pass to his "don't fuck with me" policy?

[Nye Bevan]

16. Hint:

"don't fuck with me" - apply this to Republicans and Wall Street criminals, etc.;

"our marriage unfortunately came to an end but we have come to an amicable settlement and I wish my ex-wife well" - apply this to ex-wife upon divorce.

And I'm not even a professional spin doctor.

[Nay]

86. Yup. Alan's being a complete dummy about this, which essentially means he can't control

himself emotionally, even in public, when it would behoove him to button it up.

[Nye Bevan]

14. Of course there are two sides to every story,

but I really do not like what I am seeing.

As a prospective Senate candidate, it would have very much behooved Grayson to swallow his pride and his anger and make a very generous settlement offer to his ex-wife, so that all of this unpleasantness would have come to an end and both parties could have walked away saying nice things about each other. And he's certainly rich enough that he could have made this happen. His inability to do this speaks volumes about his character.

[MADem]

95. Three sides--there's a new girlfriend in the mix, and she's been out and about with her

Congressman boyfriend. She got pictures with Pelosi and Obama at the SOTU and elsewhere on her twitter, and she held the bible for her new beau when he was sworn in. She is 'political' (a fundraiser, perhaps? She certainly has access) though she has no political experience. There was a story out that she wanted to run for his seat when he ran for the Senate (unlikely that will work out) which pissed off his campaign manager, who was planning a run herself if he jumped into the Senate race.

He might be feeling pressure to trade in the old, slightly frumpy wife for the new, young, tanned, blonde one with the advanced degrees and bright teeth.

I think it's weird that he went from all of the tender and loving references to his wife in his old interviews, to all this "gold digger" name calling nowadays. It was a swift transition.


That's Grayson in the mirror....


https://twitter.com/DenaMinning/status/523186526373806080/photo/1







I like the way he votes. I even like some of his "stunts" to get attention (not all--the calling that woman a "K Street whore" and the holocaust reference were not cool, but the GOP health care plan characterized as "Die Quickly" one was rich), but I really don't like the way he's conducting himself in this situation. It's ... icky.

[tammywammy]

132. Is it just me or does she look surprised in all those photos? n/t

[MADem]

135. She's rich. She's very established, too--she has a couple of advanced degrees, and she successfully

lobbied for a 25 million dollar government biomedical contract having something to do with the whole "anti-terrah" thing--mitigating biological warfare or something on those lines. And yes, she does look surprised. It could be natural, it could be botox or some kind of surgical enhancement, or it could be that she thinks it makes her look better to get all happy and bright when the camera flashes.

I think Grayson is devaluing his simple, home-body, less-educated wife for this genius (and I really don't mean that sarcastically....she's definitely no dummy, she clearly has a good mind and the sheepskins to prove it). The "little woman at home" was fine for a couple of decades, and now he wants the sophisticated, worldly, running-in-the-big-leagues partner in a "Nick and Nora Charles" sort of mode.

He better watch himself, though--I get the feeling this woman is smarter than he is and has her path carved out before her. She had a husband before, apparently (got married four or five years ago)...but he's gone, baby, gone, it would seem. He could be next. She has her eye on HIS House seat, and if he doesn't run for the Senate and free it up for her, she may move on. She likes the halls of power--and she knows her way around them.

I have to say, I think his relationship with a frigging LOBBYIST -- especially after calling another female lobbyist a "K Street W----" (and the W is NOT for witch or wallflower) is the 2nd weirdest thing about this whole situation. He didn't seem to want to note the optics of THAT situation either. They just went to Israel on a CODEL together--I hope she paid her own way, otherwise he could get into ethics trouble.

I don't think his wife wanted or asked for any of this. I think his behavior with the new flame is what broke his family apart. His trying to smear her, a woman with no work history save raising kids and housekeeping (a hard job, but not one that qualifies one for much in the work world) is just cold. I don't think he'll ever be able to go back, though. Too many bells rung that can't be unrung. Five kids and their mom having to deal with this foolishness.


MIddle aged crazy.....

[lonestarnot]

15. blah blah blah.

[Corey_Baker08]

19. Congressman Grayson Is A Longtime DU Member, Perhaps He Will Make A Statement...

In the meantime I for one will not gossip or throw him under the bus like so many of you have, especially those that act like they're his biggest supporter when he post a thread, you know who you are.

This is a private family matter & I would encourage you to treat this as if it was happening to you & respect his privacy.

Mr Grayson is a valuable asset to the Democratic Party & I support him!

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. There is an account here with his name, but

the only thing that is ever posted from the account is fundraising appeals. The account may simply be run by a staffer.

[7962]

32. I'd galdy respond to him and call him a disgrace.

There are much better Dems out there who arent assholes

[Corey_Baker08]

127. Well Go For It He Just Posted A Thread In GD...

Or pm him

[7962]

130. I looked but dont see anything with his name, unless he uses something else.

Whats the OP about? Maybe thats what I need to look for.

[Sheldon Cooper]

88. I'd love to see him come on this website and discuss this situation.

Believe me, I'd love that.

[jehop61]

23. Seems to me

his inability to keep his dirty laundry out of the press is a real character flaw in a politician. Like his liberal ideas, but don't think he's a very nice man. She's probably not much better. They have a large family that's being hurt by their juvenile actions.

[arcane1]

29. Isn't that the press' problem?

We're the ones drooling over his personal life, and commenting about it on the internet. That's HIS fault?

[MADem]

99. He's the one who told a reporter, on video, that his wife was a gold digger.

All of the quotes we're hearing that characterize the mother of his children in an unflattering light are coming from his mouth, so yes, it is his fault.


If he'd said "No comment" there really wouldn't be much of anything to cover. Contentious divorces are a dime a dozen.

[Marrah_G]

25. There are always two sides to a divorce.

[Romeo.lima333]

36. from the article

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."

Rep. Grayson does not pay spousal support because his marriage is under the scope of a bigamy claim. His attorneys are claiming the marriage was never valid because Lolita Grayson was never divorced from her last husband

[Marrah_G]

41. jesus....

[arcane1]

27. It's sad, what passes for LBN these days.

"Gossip Underground"

[7962]

30. But he calls Republicans shitbags or assholes, so he's OK!!

HE"S the shitbag and a disgrace to the Democratic party.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

46. Looks like we will not be

calling him Senator Grayson.

[giftedgirl77]

47. Divorces are dirty, getting involved in the mess is just wrong.

[ibewlu606]

61. WTF?

I know Alan Grayson, and he has ALWAYS done everything he can to help our Local union and other unions in his district. Stories like this are just the third way, establishment party's way of sinking him before a costly primary. I think that is disgusting! I hope at our endorsing conference that we don't fall for the hype and vote to endorse a TRUE friend on Labor.

[darkangel218]

71. "everything he can"?

I'm in his district. The illegal street racing gangs ( 2 of them) are running rampant, creating havoc and damage, especially on Saturday nights. He never replied to me when I inquired why nothing is being done.

Sorry, but he is not all that he is claiming to be.

[questionseverything]

73. that would be a complaint for the mayor or local police chief

[darkangel218]

74. Done and done.

Who next?? maybe the Senator who posts on DU??

Not even a response though?? nada? lol

Like I said, he is not everything he claims to be.

[randys1]

78. Even if he is guilty of being a prick, he is a prick who will NOT vote to have Women die in alleys

he will NOT vote to cut food stamps for starving people

I could go on and on, this guy in the teaparty not only isnt criticized for treating a Woman this way, he is idolized.

I dont want bad people on our side, but until the other side is NOT murdering, environment destroying motherfuckers, I will take him any day.

And, I dont know how much of what is told about him is true, or what context it is told in, etc.

[brooklynite]

79. You'll be able to keep him; his House seat is safe...

...however, I think any chance he had to run for Rubio's Senate seat is vanishing.

[diabeticman]

81. I have all respect for this guy.

[jwirr]

83. If I am not mistaken she is not his wife. She is a bigamist.

[MADem]

108. You likely are mistaken.

Re-read the full thread, lots of good information.

She was his common law wife IAW DC law, after her legal divorce from spouse number one. He held her out to be his wife in his campaign ads, by filing taxes with her listed as his wife, by introducing her as such. They have joint assets. She has been using his name for a quarter century. They have five children together, the youngest are under ten.

[jwirr]

115. So he actually tried to get the marriage annulled because she lied to him about the divorce and now

you are saying it was legal? Why would anyone do that if there was no grounds for an annulment?

Of course he lived with her and called her his wife before he found out about it. And yes they have children. But none of that makes their marriage legal once the facts about the other marriage were known. What is in question here is if she ever got a legal divorce. I don't think any of this would be happening if that divorce had been legal.

Grayson sounds like an man betrayed and is acting that way also. He is angry about what she did. Very angry.

BTW everyone is worried about the status of the children. That status does not depend on their divorce/annulment it depends on the legality of their marriage. If she was a bigamist then they were never married and that is where the children's status comes into question. Divorce or annulment - their status stays the same if they were not legally married.

BTW does Florida have common law marriage laws?

Edited: she admitted to bigotry at the time of the marriage and that is what counts - this is just another dirty "divorce" case.

[MADem]

117. No, I am not saying any of that.

He wants the marriage annulled because he has a new girlfriend and he wants to trade in his spouse for a newer model.

He called her his wife AFTER her divorce from that Carson guy came through. He signed taxes with her. He introduced her as his wife in Washington DC, AFTER the divorce. He had children with her, AFTER the divorce.

She DID get a legal divorce. That has been established.

FL does not have common law--but DC does. And he held her out to be his wife in DC. Likely elsewhere, too.

If he's intent on screwing momma because she won't go gently, that will affect the children. It already has affected them--they are living in a moldy, crumbling house with a leaking roof and peeling paint that had a broken sewer pipe stinking up the front yard. The house is large and expensive, but it is literally a white elephant--and he's not giving her any money to fix it, or sending anyone to so do, either.

[jwirr]

119. When did she finally tell him about the other marriage? The article says she got a legal divorce and

kept it secret. That is the question. They had to go through another ceremony in order to have a legal marriage.

He has paid her $10,000 a month since they separated and is still paying it. The charges on the credit card were $89,000 besides the monthly payments. That should have been enough to fix the house. I am assuming they owned the house so she was living there free and no doubt had a family car that was paid for.

They had a deal on the annulment but she backed out. And two of the children are living with him.

She lied about him hitting her (from the article) so what else is she lying about?

As to another woman - before or after the separation?

I am not exactly on his side but I have been through a dirty divorce realize that some things are not what they seem to be. Most of it is lawyer talk.

I think it is ironic that one of the things we have liked about him as a representative in government is that he spoke out about what he was thinking. Now we want to crucify him for the same thing.

[MADem]

124. No--they don't need to have another ceremony. That's where you are mistaken.

To have a common-law marriage, all you have to do is present a person as your spouse--re-read the thread and the elements will become clear. He introduced her as his wife, he filed taxes with her, he stood on the floor of the house with her and his kids when he got sworn in once--he didn't say "These are my kids and the surrogate housemaid" -- he said this is my w-i-f-e. And the two "kids?" One is an over-eighteen adult and the second one is right behind the first--hello? College?

He hasn't paid "her" much, if anything. He's paid the bills (mortgage/light/phone) and controlled the finances. He's given her five hundred and some bucks per kid. You need to look at the condition of the house. It's a beautiful property, not excessive given his wealth, but in very, very poor repair (mold and peeling paint). He refused to fix the roof or mend the septic system-- the sewage from the broken pipe was running into the street. That's all on video.

I think anyone who would devalue nearly thirty years together (they lived together before they wed) and two decades as a mother to his children, doing most of the heavy lifting raising those kids, is not plain-spoken. He's perhaps being vicious because she is a bit upset that he got himself a new girlfriend, I'd say. And the new girlfriend is (gasp) a LOBBYIST!!! After that "K Street Naughty Word" comment he made about another female lobbyist, that's a bit ... ironic. To put it gently.

Who knows when the new girlfriend-lobbyist came into the picture...but if I had to bet, I'd bet that relationship caused the dissolution of his marriage. She's been around since his "shenanigans" started hitting the papers. She held the Bible at his latest House swearing-in and seemed very pleased with herself. In the picture, he has gotten quite hefty, has a new haircut, and a more expensive suit than he usually wears.

He goes everywhere with the new gal-pal...and in this "everyone has a cellphone" age, he gets photographed. Hopefully, the new one isn't stupid--she has her own wealth and reputation and she is politically ambitious...she should think long and hard before she hitches her rising star to to this guy--who knows, maybe she has, and that's why he's making such bitter remarks to the press? In any event, it's a big old MESS that hasn't been handled well.

For a quarter century, the congressman held his wife out to be a tender, loving, caring wife and mother. Now, all of a sudden, she turns into a "gold digger?" Smart gold diggers don't wait until they're getting too old to enjoy the "gold." Smart gold diggers don't have child after child, and change all those diapers, wash all that laundry, make all those school lunches and breakfasts and dinners for a couple of decades before they start "gold digging." I just don't buy his characterization of her. I think the "old" one is inconveniently in the way of the NEW one, and he wants to brush her to the side to make way for a new life for himself.

As for the whole "hitting" thing--now that we know that he had a younger girlfriend, I would have to suspect that they DID get in a shoving match. She got bruises somehow. I don't think she hit herself and he's way bigger than she is. That "proof" video was filmed by HIS staffer--and if you look at it, there are breaks in the continuity. The staffer was standing in the street, and you don't see anything happening INSIDE the house. So that "proof" to me is no proof at all.

I don't think anyone is "crucifying" him for "speaking out." I think he's being excoriated for being sexist, dismissive, nasty and insulting to the woman who bore and raised his five children and has attended to his every need for over a quarter century. He's the one with his thumb on ALL the finances. She only got the money he doled out--and he was so cheap she qualified for welfare assistance. That's a fact not in dispute. Calling the mother of your kids, who has no resources of her own, a "gold digger" is a cheap shot. She has lived quietly with him for nearly three decades before this came out--why, now, is she suddenly such a horrible person? I'm not buying it.

He didn't appear to make any effort to end this amicably, if that's what he wanted. I think he told her "I'm moving on," and when she protested, he doubled down. He wanted it his way, and fast, and she wasn't going to accommodate him. You know the Golden Rule--He Who Has The Gold Makes The Rules.

[bravenak]

125. You said it!!

[d_legendary1]

90. This is Anthony Weiner all over again

except without the naked selfies. Personal problems are a perfect way to lose elections.

[hrmjustin]

101. Not good optics for a senate run.

[MADem]

105. Jon Tester has already told him they aren't backing him.

If he challenges, he'll have to do it with his own money. The DSCC has already picked a candidate to back.

[hrmjustin]

106. Not surprised.

[WestSideStory]

122. His personal life is his deal

He wasn't charged for filing a false police report?

[ladjf]

126. That was a dumb and mean move.

All he had to do was call his credit card company and get a replacement with new numbers.

[treestar]

129. Divorce can really bring out the worst in people

The attempt to have power over the other person and the constant enumerating of all they did wrong has its consequences.

[Marrah_G]

134. I dont think any of us know enough about his marriage to judge

Divorce documents are a very poor means of judging the reality of what went on.

He could be an asshole.

She could be an asshole.

They could both be assholes.

Divorce is ugly and messy and truth is often what goes away first.