This has all just taken place in the last hour or so...
The main terms of the current custody order can be found in this post: Thanksgiving Comes Early ...take a look at the Holiday & Special Occasions breakdown.
If you've been following along, you already have seen how she alleges "confusion" about the schedule and understands better than the written order what the court's "intentions" are. No, she doesn't. As it has always been, it's her way or the highway.
I've continued with my no-contact as she's tried to engage me with her alleged confusion over the schedule. How confusing can one-week-on/on-week-off actually be? For the BPD who wants attention from her ex-husband, it can be as confounding as a Rubik's Cube. I had the week before Christmas, the week of Christmas to make up for last year's mess, and then back to our regular schedule - the week after Christmas as it is my next scheduled week. She will get the children back on January 6th as per the schedule. Except that she doesn't like that.
As I've not answered her half-dozen or so posts asking me ad nauseum when she is supposed to get the children next, because the schedule is clear - she has tried to engage S9 in finding out when they are coming back. This is a no-no, according to the court order, but she insists on pulling one or both boys into the fray when I don't pay her attention. When S9 asks me after a routine phone call this week, I simply tell him, "Son, it's not your job to worry about when the schedule is for your mother. She knows the schedule and it will be taken care of." Evasive, but if I answer him and then he goes back to her, it will only escalate from there and I have a spy on my hands again.
In any event, at some point in the last few days I told S9 that he would be going back to PEW "next weekend" and during tonight's phone call with her - he told her that. After he is done, he passes the phone to S6 for his chat. When he is done, S6 approaches me and says, "Mommy said she needs to speak to you."
LW: Yes?
PEW: I don't know what you're doing, but the court order says I'm supposed to have them for New Year's!
LW: PEW, read the order again, it's clear and it's not open for discussion. *CLICK*
Of course, it's not going to end there. Three consecutive phone calls in the next 2-minutes results in two angry voice mails.
Voice Mail 1:
PEW: LW, the schedule that you drew up says that I have the kids on even New Years. So that means that this New Years is mine. It says mother has them on even years, father has them on odd years. So, that said, we still have a court date for January 24th and I'm expecting my kids. So I think that you better rethink whatever it is that you're thinking and reread your proposal that you put together. The one that is now a court order, okay?
This is getting beyond ridiculous it really is... I can't even believe... I'm expecting them home and you're pulling this crap. I think you better rethink this... whatever it is you're doing! *CLICK*
Minutes later...
Voice Mail 2:
PEW: Okay, your petition, section C under item 5, is New Years holiday to include December 31st through January 1st. Father shall have custody in odd year and mother shall have custody in even years. And, as defined... in that... ummm... the previous order... is... it defines even years are January 1st and then the... ummm... odd years are... you know... the even and odd is determined by the New Year. So it's already been defined. I don't know what it is you're doing or why you're doing it. But the kids need to be home on New Year's Eve. So, I'll see you then! Wherever! Ummm... whether it's at [new exchange point] or you want to drop them off at my house that's fine, but this is your petition that is now an order and we have a court date on January 24th. So, it's not... this isn't... this isn't... ummm... me just being wrong again, this is what you wrote! *CLICK*
Our commentary: This madness never ends. This madness is what I've dealt with since 1994. This madness is what we've dealt with since 2004. This madness is what we'll deal until who knows when. Some people crack "until the children are 18." Reality is... it goes well beyond that. There are graduations, college, possible marriages, grandchildren... and as long as we are both alive - this madness will continue.
Not only does she read the order, she recites it into the voice mail and still doesn't get it.
THE NEW YEAR'S HOLIDAY IS DEFINED AS DECEMBER 31ST THROUGH JANUARY 1ST.
The holiday begins in 2007. Father gets odd years. Normal people see this for what it is. Clearly defined. She has decided to interpret this as "New Year's Day is 2008 - therefore - the holiday is an even year." Except, Psycho, that the holiday duration is defined and it starts in the odd year.
Did I mention who had December 31st through January 1st last year? No? She did. The holiday as defined began in 2006. Did I mention who had it the year prior to that? No? I did. The holidays as defined began in 2005. Father has odd years, mother has even years. Does anyone who is not apeshit psychotic not understand this schedule?
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Breaking News: PEW Re-Interpreting the Order Again
Just to Show WE Aren't Insane
It's incredibly hard to explain the feeling you get when you turn to your significant other, in this case LM, and say, we aren't the crazy ones right? It's just so unbelievable sometimes that we have lived through so much crap with this psycho. Any normal person, I think, would ask themselves, what am I doing to cause this? But, I know we are normal. Why? I'm glad I imagine you asked.
Before LM, I was married to a really nice guy. Really. He was a great guy, but the marriage didn't work out. I left him, and uh, yeah, he was pissed. During our marriage we didn't fight much, we both had our issues, but we got along. After the separation and eventually divorce, we still got along. To this day, over 4-years later, we still get along.
We divorced without attorneys, he stayed in the marital home while I rented a new place, eventually I built a house and we sold our old house, and he then moved into the home I had rented. Yes, we got along that well. The past 4 years we have done Christmas together, he comes over to have a cigar with LM often, and we switch days and help out whenever the other one needs it. Bottom line, our children come first. My ex-MIL still comes for Christmas dinner, we go shopping together as well. LM has become a favorite with my ex's family, he even gets Christmas presents from them. It's almost scary how we are one happy family, but I know my children are blessed.
I think this makes it harder to deal with PEW sometimes because I just want to grab her thick neck and shake the shit out of her. For instance, Christmas 2007, a normal person would say "you know what, I screwed up last year, and you totally deserve this Christmas, but can I maybe come down to your state for a weekend and celebrate with the kids so I don't ruin your plans?" Ha, yea, but she's not normal. And she never will be.....
-DW
The Ex Sister-In-Law: "PP" Her Story
PP is the never-married, 40-something sicko sister of the Psycho Ex-Wife. PP has been diagnosed as Bipolar. She has had several stays in a mental health clinic in the late 1990s after a weak attempt at taking her own life. She is an alcoholic. She may even be Borderline herself.
She fancies herself a know-it-all about everything all-the-while having succeeded at nothing. Professionally, she came close - but managed to destroy that and it's been downhill ever since.
Some of her creepy background:
- She's been in and out of one disastrous relationship after another. Can't keep a man around to save her life, because she cuckoo. She's as much a psycho as her sister.
- Has thrice stolen identities and never been held legally accountable. Stole the identities of her namesakes: her mother and two aunts (who didn't press charges). She's also declared backruptcy no fewer than 2-times, wrecked the credit of aforementioned family members, and at our last investigation (2-years ago) had roughly 2-dozen financial judgements against her.
- In one sexual relationship, with a cousin (how close a cousin, I can't recall) - she became so obsessed with him that she began to stalk him. Dozens of phone calls per day. Sitting outside of his house and workplace. In one extremely bizarre situation - she claimed to have been pregnant with his child in an effort to "win him back," but chose instead to have an abortion. That abortion never actually happened. She just made it all up and really played it to the hilt, trying to drag who would become an ex-roommate into the ploy, insisting that this girl took her to have it. When people tried to check out the story, the roommate wanted nothing to do with anything and cut all ties with anyone associated PP.
- Once had a nice job that paid extremely well - a "Regional Director" of a well-known computer and electronics retailing company. That much is true. She really had the leadership position over a significant quadrant of the United States. After rising high in the company to this position, she was caught embezzling from the company and stealing from customers and was given a choice - be arrested or resign. She quit. The best she has been able to do since then (about 10-years ago) was waitress, but was fired from many of those jobs for being drunk on the job. She is now allegedly a paralegal - but I doubt that highly.
- Was allegedly the recipient of a sexual proposal by PEW's first husband, which ultimately led to the end of that marriage. Now, however, I don't believe it. I've actually tracked the first ex-husband down, but haven't had the guts to pick up the phone and call. He was also allegedly a raging alcoholic, but given the level of projection I've dealt with from PEW, I'd be willing to bet that there is a fantastically different version of events from his side. Should I call him? Tell me what you think with a comment. That could be fun or be a complete bust.
- Has vacillated between 120-pounds and somewhere at the high-end of 200s before having her first of two gastric bypasses in the late 90s or early 2000s. Still in the marriage at that point, I remember imploring her that she was going to die because she chose to put away cheesesteaks at a rate that a professional eater would envy. She figured, with the bypass, she could continue to eat like she was eating (a binge eater) and expect the weight to stay off. Instead, she fucked up the surgical results which saw her return to the hospital to have it corrected.
- She's a drunk, in case I didn't already cover that.
She'd be drunk at work. Binge drink. Drink and drive. One time, the one side of her car was so fucked up that both right side rims were bent beyond repair. I confronted her about what the hell happened. She couldn't remember. Really, she couldn't. The night before, apparently, she went to a bar. Sometime between the time she was in the bar and that damage occurred - she blacked out. For all I know, she may have killed someone. At least once cited for public drunkenness.
- Her and PEW would have EPIC fights. I only wish I had recorded some of the voicemails left at my home for PEW, which sounded as if they were left by Satan himself... at least - that's what I imagine Satan sounds like. These two fucking idiots would argue over who had a worse life and who wanted to commit suicide more times.
- Her current living arrangements are bouncing from relative's house to house - including PEWs (which drives me bonkers but there is nothing I can do about that right now), her parents, and an aunt or two - the alcoholic ones.
- Ah yes... and an expert on everything and has now taken up her sister's cause. As an alleged paralegal for a family law firm, her advice to PEW has been treated as expert and sound. PEW has lost pretty darn near every case brought before the court in the last 18-months as a result. I hope she keeps advising her.
Which brings me to one of her emails sent to me from PEW's account prior to the contempt hearing. Everyone ready? She joined the fray during the Christmas 2006 debacle and here is her contribution to the issue:
12/23/2006, 1:46AM, written by PP (a.k.a. The Psycho Ex-SIL)
LM,
It's PP. I showed the court order to the family law attorneys at the firm I work at and they said that the judge was not clear in regards to exchanges for holidays. You and PEW can both have any interpretation that you want but I can assure you that if you go back to court for "clarification"-since YOU were the one to move out of state and continually lied to the judge, over and over again, it will go against you.
PEW will NOT be at the [exchange point] on Sunday and you can show up at her door with the police if you want but there is nothing in the court order saying the police can do anything to her in any way. If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at your lawyer for not having the sense to ask the judge to spell it out PEW's not keeping you from the boys, she just isn't driving on a "holiday"-she is perfectly fine with driving her next scheduled turn. You can try to jam your OPINION down her throat like it's law, as usual, but it still doesn't make it TRUE. If I recall, several weeks ago she went out of her way to drive to be nice, when it wasn't her turn, and this is how you repay her, as usual.
If these matters go back to court, we will bring up how you were non-compliant several weeks ago and made the boys drive HOURS longer than they had to just to spite PEW when you were in [paternal grandmother's state]. THAT IS crystal clear in the court order. Also, your insistence in moving S6 from a loving, caregiver-again, just to mess with PEW, when it's CLEARLY in S6's best interests to stay with [neighbor], will go against you badly-and just wind up costing you more money. We'll also bring up how S9 works himself into a state of such anxiety when he's going to your home for the weekend that we don't know what to do for him. 48hrs of being weighed, measured and harassed continually about his weight sure sounds like a good time for an 8year old. Maybe if you'd just shut up about it, it would work itself out.
I know you feel like you had some kind of victory in court but the judge gave you the absolute MINIMUM she had to in every way. If your lawyer is telling you that you have any grounds on any of the above situations, I suggest that she doesn't know what she's talking about and she just wants to continue to bleed you financially even though you have a losing case. Stop harassing my sister because we are not going to deal with your crap for the next 13yrs until S6 reaches 18. If you thought [PEW's attorney] made a fool of you and DW in court the last time, trust me, we will get somebody even tougher for the next round if you INSIST on continuing the nit-picking and harassment of my sister in this manner. This is the reason you two divorced, remember?
You are a disgrace as a father or you never would have moved to [home state] in the first place. All of your bull**** is your attempts to salve your own conscience about that decision. Let the boys get on with their lives, would you? In the least traumatic way possible at this point? You NEVER put the boys interests/feelings/concerns first-just what YOU think is best for them. Truly, I'm starting to think you are severely unbalanced based on the continual hounding of PEW via phone calls, emails, name-calling etc. I mean, I always thought you were unbalanced but I think you are so bitter over the divorce you have pushed yourself over the edge trying to make PEW PAY for leaving you and taking your SONS. Pull yourself together, DW. There is nothing more pathetic than a desperate man grasping at straws. It's really very, very sad. I better not hear that DW is harassing my sister ever again or she'll be in court for defamation of character, harassment etc.
You're right, we're done communicating about this. If you really want to see your sons for this visit, you better let PEW know when you'll be HERE to pick them up.
Merry Christmas. PP
Our commentary:
I cannot begin to convey the level of projection in this email. Obviously, you think you only have my side of the story. You have hers, too. Just keep reading. The email above accuses me of doing/being everything that PEW is and does. It's not just a "reasonably close" description - it's dead on. Dead. On. Dead on. Two of the biggest points of projection are:
- The Custody Hearings of October 2006 were a rousing success for me. When I tell you that I got everything for which I had petitioned except primary custody - I'm not lying. She fought every point on my petition. Granted, primary custody was a big one, but a whole bunch of important issues were addressed - all of them in my favor.
- Her attorney made a fool out of no one. I kept calling him by his first name instead of "Mr. Attorney" and he lost his temper asking the judge to yell at me. (Believe it or not, it was not intentional.) And DW, who has extensive litigation experience, was rock solid on the stand. Uncrackable. And DW frustrated her attorney at every turn. That's not an exaggeration.
This is what her family does - bully, belittle, project, threaten, blowhard, blowhard, blowharder.
The beauty of this email is that it was one of my exhibits and the judge has another one of her sarcastic moments towards PEW with it...
More Highlights from the Contempt Hearing of March 2007:
JUDGE: PP writes in this email packet an email to your ex, and it's really -- it says, "LM, it's PP. I showed the court order to the family law attorneys at the firm I work at." --What does PP do for the law firm?
PEW: She's a paralegal.
JUDGE: Right. And this is an email that PP sent on your address, your email address, to LM on Saturday, December 23rd in the afternoon. Oh, I'm sorry, 1:46AM, so it was like Friday night, late Friday night. So she had talked about this case with the family law attorneys in her firm, is what that email says. PP then talked to you about what the family lawyers said, didn't she?
PEW: You know what? PP lies a lot. I don't know if she actually spoke to -- I think she was trying to call LM's bluff or something. I don't know why she does the things that she does. But, I don't really want to speculate on that. I didn't ask her about --
JUDGE: You're saying that PP didn't talk to you about what to do if you're not taking children that you're supposed to take for a custody exchange, how to not be in contempt? She didn't tell you anything about that?
PEW: I -- yeah, I know what it means to be in contempt. I think it means that if I willfully, maliciously violated the court order, then I should be held in contempt. But that's not what happened!
Our commentary: How about JC mocking PP's advice (and lack thereof) to PEW, right there in the record? Again, I know the text doesn't convey JC's "'tude" - but it was out there in all of it's glory. A 60-something, 30+ year veteran of family court affairs, stopping only just short calling her a flat-out liar. She's wearing her disdain for PEW right out there on her sleeve
Judge Contempt has PEW, and pretty much the rest of the dysfunctional fucktards that are her family, pegged. That's good for me.
Buy enough t-shirts and I'll spring for the transcript of the hearing in August of 2007 where PEW, again pro-se - takes Judge Contempt on mano-y-mano after filing a petition to have her recuse herself from the case! I'll just make that complete clusterfuck a post in and of itself - no commentary from us. Frankly, as I sit here recalling that hearing, I know that there is nothing I can say that will do it any more justice than JC's own words will.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Psycho Ex-Wife, Esquire - Contempt Hearing Highlights
PEW has taken on the role of attorney because she knows better than those in the legal profession how to handle stuff like our debacle. She knows better than the two seasoned veterans of Family Litigation she hired and subsequently fired. They "weren't doing a good enough job" for her and that's why she has been slowly losing her perceived grip on the situation(s). Yeah, that's it. The more she acts on her own behalf, the more she fucks up, the more the people now "in charge" of our lives become aware of just the kind of terrorist we're dealing with.
I never get to cross-examine PEW. The JC questions me, PEW questions me, and then JC questions PEW. By the time she is finished hearing all of the bullshit, she won't even allow me to cross-examine PEW on her testimony. That's just how convinced the Judge was that I was correct and PEW was found guilty of contempt on the issues I brought before her. She went straight to her ruling. It was a sight to behold, watching PEW break out the always popular last-ditch-effort the tears! If I didn't think I'd be admonished by JC, I would have laughed out loud as she does it every single time she loses something, which has been a lot lately.
PEW: With regard to Christmas, did I not tell you that I was ill at any point?
LM: I believe probably Christmas Eve you told me you were ill.
JUDGE: Okay! Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The emails I have starting, let's see, December 22nd through the 24th -- on the 22nd it starts, "I'm not taking them to the exchange point." And there's nothing about sick then, is there?
PEW: Your Honor, I don't recall exactly when I told him I was ill, but I have brought a doctor's note, and I bought a letter from my employer.
JUDGE: I'm not sure I buy that. But we'll see. Because the tone of these letters isn't "I'm sick, I can't come." The tone of these letters is "Forget it guy. I'm not coming!" So, you sit down you ask your question. That one so far is not flying, but go ahead.
Our commentary: This is the very first question PEW, Esquire asks - and JC jumps all over her ass. Keep in mind, by the time PEW, Esquire is permitted to cross-examine me, JC has already asked me my version of events and I've submitted a well-organized, highlighted packet of email exchanges that supports the entire timeline of events leading up to Christmas. The text above probably doesn't do it justice because you can't "feel" the tone of JC - but she is direct, firm, and sarcastic when she wants to be. She pulls no punches in calling you out when you fuck up. Here's a tip, PEW - it's best to remember exactly when you said you were ill when you are using that as your excuse for failing to show up. Dumbass.
For the next excerpt, I wish that there was a video camera permitted in the courtroom and I could offer you a youtube link to JC reading the contents of one of the damning emails from PEW, Esquire:
PEW: With regard to Christmas, did I not beg you to come pick them up, saying that I was ill?
LM: I don't recall you begging me to come pick them up. I recall you telling me that you were sick and couldn't drive out there. It was at the last minute. I had plans for the evening. I believe I told you that I didn't believe you were sick. And, in fact, if it pleases the court, I still have the voice mail from Christmas Eve and you don't sound sick. You don't say you're sick. You say, "If your not coming to pick them up here, I'm going to my mother's for Christmas," and I believe you did go to your mother's for Christmas.
JUDGE: Wait! Let me read this.
PEW: Oh, okay.
JUDGE: December 22nd at 14:59:59, from PEW:
"Go ahead. You're going to look like an asshole. I'll meet you next time per the court order. I'm not meeting you on Christmas Eve. That would be so like you to ruin the children's Christmas. It's a holiday. I have plans. I'm not meeting you at the exchange point because that's not what the order says. I will be at my home till 7PM on Christmas Eve. If you're not there by then, I'll assume you're not coming and I'll take the boys with me. I'm not interfering with your custody. I offered to let you pick them up a day or two early, since you want such meaningful time. You're so pathetic."
JUDGE: Okay. Go ahead.
Our commentary: Any person with a shred of intelligence and dignity would have looked at the judge and conceded right there. Cuff me. Jail me. I am in contempt. I am so busted and I have no way out of this. Not PEW, Esquire, though - she is in court, playing attorney and she bulls on through the cross-examination seemingly unfazed.
It's hard to describe just how flat-out sarcastic and condemning JC was being by reading that and the tone in which it was read. The Judge slapped her across the face and then in the same motion backhanded her - and it totally went right over PEW, Esquire's head. After all, she had her question list to get through!
Another tip: PEW, when I start going off on a tangent and giving testimony that is incredibly damning to you, try objecting to stop me. Don't just stand there dumbfounded as I go off on a soliloquy which strongly shows JC what's at work here.
More to come. Check the categories in the sidebar for more updates. "Transcript Highlights."
Federal Incentives Exist to Make Children Fatherless
Phyllis Schlafly
May 9, 2005
Why has Congress appropriated taxpayer money to give perverse incentives that break up families and deprive children of their fathers? The built-in financial incentives in the current child-support system have expanded the tragedy of fatherless children from the welfare class to millions of non-welfare divorced couples.
Americans have finally realized that providing generous welfare through Aid to Families with Dependent Children was counterproductive because the father had to disappear in order for the mother to receive taxpayer-paid benefits. Fathers left home, illegitimacy rose in alarming numbers and children were worse off.
AFDC provided a taxpayer-paid financial incentive to reward girls with their own monthly check, food stamps, health care and housing if they had illegitimate babies. "She doesn't need me, she's got welfare" became the mantra.
Congress tried to reform the out-of-control welfare system by a series of child-support laws passed in 1975, 1984, 1988, 1996 (the famous Republican welfare reform), and 1999. Unfortunately, these laws morphed the welfare system into a massive middle-class child-support system that deprives millions of children of fathers who never abandoned them.
As former President Ronald Reagan often said, "The most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
People think that child-support enforcement benefits children, but it doesn't. When welfare agencies collect child support, the money actually goes to the government to reimburse it for welfare payments already given to mothers, supposedly to reduce the federal budget (which, of course, is never reduced).
In 1984, Congress passed the Child Support Enforcement Amendment. It required states to adopt voluntary guidelines for child-support payments.
In 1988, Congress passed the Family Support Act, which made the guidelines mandatory - along with criminal enforcement - and gave states less than one year to comply. The majority of states quickly adopted the model guidelines conveniently already written by a Department of Health and Human Services consultant who was president of what was shortly to become one of the nation's largest private collection companies, which makes its profits on the onerous guidelines that create arrearages.
The 1988 law extended the guidelines to ALL child-support orders, even though the big majority of those families never had to interact with government in order to pay or receive child support. This massive expansion of federal control over private lives uses a Federal Case Registry to exercise surveillance over 19 million citizens whether or not they are behind in child-support payments.
The states collect the child-support money and deposit it in a state fund, but the federal government pays most of the administrative costs and, therefore, dictates the way the system operates through mandates and financial incentives. The federal government pays 66 percent of the states' administrative overhead costs, 80 percent of computer and technology-enhancement costs, and 90 percent of DNA testing for paternity.
In addition, the states share in a nearly $500 million incentive reward pool based on whatever the state collects. The states can get a waiver to spend this bonus money anyway they choose.
However, most of the child support owed by welfare-class fathers is uncollectable. Most of them are either unemployed or have annual incomes less than $10,000.
So, in order to cash in on federal bonus money, build their bureaucracies and brag about successful child-support enforcement, the states began bringing into the government system middle-class fathers with jobs who were never (and probably would never be) on welfare. These non-welfare families have grown to represent 83 percent of child-support cases and 92 percent of the money collected, creating a windfall of federal money flowing to the states.
The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money state bureaucracies collect from the federal government.
Follow the money. The less time that noncustodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they are required pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.
States have powerful incentives to separate fathers from their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain the fathers' high-level support obligations even if their income is drastically reduced and to hang onto the father's payments as long as possible before paying them out to the mothers. The General Accounting Office reported that in 2002 that states were holding $657 million in undistributed child support.
Fatherless boys are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs. Fatherless girls are twice as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide. Fatherless boys and girls are twice as likely to drop out of high school and twice as likely to end up in jail.
We can no longer ignore how taxpayer money is providing incentive for divorce and creating fatherless children. Nor can we ignore the government's complicity in the predictable social costs that result from more than 17 million children growing up without fathers.
-----------
Our commentary: Until I was eyeball-deep in my own contentious divorce and custody battle with my psycho ex-wife - I... had... no... clue.
The article above is one of many we will share and will shine a light on the reality of the billion-dollar Divorce Industry. I added emphasis on the word "industry" because that's what it is - one of the biggest, most profitable businesses in this country and perhaps the world.
If the men of the world, and the women who love them, their children, and their families don't begin to educate themselves on the depth of this curse on families - the future is bleak indeed. As with most everything in our world today - follow the money. When you offer incredible financial incentives which serve to encourage the destruction of families - the end result is: the destruction of families.
Think about the divorce cartel and the kind of money it takes to pay lawyers, mediators, counselors, custody evaluators, judges, clerks, staff, police, prison guards, domestic violence shelters, collection agencies... and the list goes on and on and on and on and on- you soon realize the sheer volume of people whose livelihoods depend on the divorce machine running at peak productivity... to society's detriment.
They all do this while hiding behind the cloak of "doing what's in the best interests of the children." It doesn't get more vile and disgusting as that.
Christmas 2007 - Part III: Final Fallout
After being granted my continuance on December 14th, the crazy email barrage again started with renewed vigor.
December 16th, 2007, 10:17PM:
LM,
I am upset about this situation with Christmas. I wasn't trying to ruin your Christmas last year, I even offered for you to have the boys the day before Christmas. Regardless of saying that I didn't think it was fair for me to have to drive them out to [Exchange Point] on Christmas eve I wound up getting very sick. I've never kept them from you....you did get them on the 27th last year and I even offered to bring them out on the 26th. I didn't fight this 50/50 arrangement because I know they need their Dad. This is so wrong, not just for me but for them. The summer was the same thing....I've never done anything like that to you, what you pulled after I came and spent the weekend down there was terrible. You are totally breaking my heart. I am so distraught, I can't bear the thought of not seeing them for three weeks straight and not a day during the Christmas season. I do believe the order said that the "Christmas holiday" was your this year but not the whole week....she never uttered those words. She didn't say "Christmas Break" or "Christmas Week", she said the holiday, which is Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. I've been praying everyday that you somehow move past the hatred you have for me and do the right thing. Why are you doing this? I AM their mother remember......I know you wish you could change that but you can't and they love me very much. Please please do the right thing. I am just sick about this. You have been so cruel and I don't understand it at all.
~PEW
Our commentary:
This is followed by a series of short, nonsensical emails telling me that she has proof of how "wrong" I am about the holiday custody arrangement and that she has proof. Dumbass doesn't (or won't) realize that my position is lock-solid supported by all of the documentation. However, since that doesn't meet with her warped reality - it might as well not exist.
She sends me copies of the Contempt Order from March and the copy of the Custody Order from November. Both obviously support my position. The order from November refers to the terms of my petition which are entered as "the order." It is quite clear. When she goes home on the 20th of December, she digs out her copy of the petition and makes the astounding discovery that she is completely wrong! LET THE CRAZY-MAKING BEGIN! (We respond to none of what follows.)
12/20/07, 7:55PM:
Well LM, I got home, I reviewed the petition/proposal that you filed in September. It appears, as usual that I overlooked the fine details...I'm sure you've looked at the transcript from the Nov 2nd hearing by now and realize that she asked me if I agreed with everything else but the two items I brought up and I said "yes" Of course when I originally reviewed everything, I was focused the driving issue and overlooked Christmas that you put in there that you would have the kids the entire week of Christmas. You always "beat me" on the technicalities but that won't happen in the future, I assure you. I'm sure your "Legal Eagle" DW, has been telling you that you have me beat......but that's because she's not truly "A Mother".....if she was she would never think this was a "great" idea. I'm going to withdraw my petition because I'm the "better" person.....and EVERYONE knows that. My family knows, your family knows, our old friends know, my friends know, my company knows, the school knows.....but most importantly YOU know that I'm a WAY nicer person than your girlfriend and you're upset that I divorce YOU. I can't compete with someone who is as manipulative and intelligent as you (and your girlfriend) who is apparently the gonads behind this whole thing because I happen to know that you are not this MEAN......and that's exactly what this is...manipulation.....deceit....payback....whatever it is...it's wrong and it sucks for me that I'm not as SMART as you and your girlfriend. Worst of ALL..it sucks for S9 and S6....they love being here..they love the fun we have together, just like you used to LOVE spending time with me....because when I'm with them I AM the person you fell in love with......because they LOVE me back. Let me give you some advice though....this Judge...is starting to see your true colors...read between the lines. Read what she is saying to you on November 2nd and in that contempt hearing.....she's not just sick of me....she's kinda sick of you too. Do what you feel you must with Christmas.....I will live through this just like ALL of the other atrocities that you've inflicted on me over the past 4 years....will it EVER stop?
~PEW
Our commentary: She is withdrawing this petition because she knows that if she sets foot in that court in front of Judge Contempt again - with this complete and utter bullshit - the consequences could be quite severe. When things turn in my favor - it's because I'm "manipulative and evil and DW is my gonad-set and running the whole show." Nothing could be further from the truth. Reality is - PEW gives me pretty much everything I need on a silver platter to use against her while avoiding, at all costs, anything that could put me at odds with the court. Oh, make no mistake, DW is one smart cookie and has assisted every step of the way - but DW doesn't give me the evidence. DW doesn't file all of the petitions which, during testimony, I turn around on her. She's her own worst enemy and for that - I am thankful.
DW is the same person she tried desperately to get all "buddy-buddy" with, attempting to convince her that I was the spawn of satan and that she would soon see my "true colors." When that doesn't work - demonize!
Followed at 8:39PM by:
LM,
against my better judgement...I'm also going to say that I think that DW calls the shots..I have a really really really hard time believing that you are THIS mean. We spent some really good good times.....especially during the holidays. You and I had some good times at this time of year and I won't ever forget that....remember the time I made you and MCB sing the SOUND of MUSIC?? that was right before I found out we were pregnant with S9. And we made love many times by the light of the Christmas tree.....particularly one time I remember when you asked me to marry you...by tie fire up the mountains..........LM.....remember the good not the bad.....our boys want to see their mommy during Christmas....
~PEW
Our commentary: Oh holy shit. Now, you will see some e-mails later on, but PEW has been trying to get LM back for 4 years now, only he could never see it. This psycho would actually ask him to move back in with him several times per year, and he couldn't see it, thinking it was just about money, HA. As he read this, he looked over his shoulder and said, "sign into my e-mail account, and ah, yea, you are right." LMFAO. I died when I read this, I mean seriously, I could not stop laughing for 2 fucking hours. This whore has tried to convince everyone she meets that LM is a sociopath that abused her for ten years, and yet here she is reminding him of how they made love? She is one fucked-up cookie.
Followed at 9:11PM by:
LM - in summary............I know who calls the shots..and it's NOT YOU. sad...~PEW
Followed at 9:23PM by:
LM - I got it.....worry more about squaring youself with not letting the mother of your children see them because it bothers your girlfriend.
~PEW
Followed at 9:41PM by:
LM, also, by the by the boys tell me that DW's not so nice when "daddy's" not around...what's that all about??? a little resentment that's what I'm thinking?? how about.......how insecure can you get after four fricken years....???? you need tp start thinking of ourboys particularly S9 in light of the trouble he's been having since youu came to town????0 how long do you think your NON communication thing is going to fly with the teachers....this every other week has sucked....because your girlfriend doesn't want it to work??? Get a set of your own and be a father......Regards. PEW
P.S. I know you wont respond because DW won't allow it....because she's a warped individual...I can't help who you fall in love with.
Our commentary: Holy shit! Look at how the truly Psycho Ex-Wife operates. Demeaning, insulting behavior. A gross inability to accept responsibility for her actions. An innate ability to rewrite history, to create a new reality out of fiction that she actually believes! See back when LM only had weekend visits the boys had problems because he wasn't around, oh, but now they have problems because he IS around. We have lots of these examples where she gets to argue both sides of an issue, it's a win-win for her, where someone else always gets the blame
My guess is that she's probably gone back to hitting the bottle pretty hard. Have another drink, you pig. Of course, these emails are not so different from others sent from work or other places where she would be hard-pressed to get away with being drunk. Sadly, rather than face and accept the reality of all that she has done and the consequences for her actions, the coping mechanism is to lash out, insult, demean - just like a bully to prop themselves up to make their sad, pathetic life more meaningful and reaffirm just how important they think they are.
Reality is dangerous to the BPD. Reality would mean she would have to lay there, in the dark, alone, and say to herself - "what the fuck is wrong with me?"
Christmas 2007 - Part II: I'm in Contempt of the Future
PEW decides to sue me again. Here is the contents of her petition which would appear, at first glance, to have been written by an 8-year old. It wasn't - she wrote it.
- On November 2, 2007 the Petitioner and Respondent entered into a joint custody arrangement as follows. The children are to spend alternate weeks with each parent, one week with mother, one week with