Tuesday, November 11, 2008

I offered full disclosure

The biggest issue at my hearing yesterday was whether I had made adequate financial disclosure several years ago. The opposing lawyer, Jennifer Gray, acknowledged getting this email from me in Nov. 2004:
I just received your letter about your document request. I offered you the documents on the date and time you requested, and you refused.

As an alternative, I am offering them again at my house this Friday, from 10:00 am until 2:00 pm, for inspection and copying.

As another alternative, I can arrange for Julie to inspect all my documents at her convenience, and for her to take to you what she really needs.
Ms. Gray refused my offer, and later used it as evidence to the court about how unreasonable I was! Now I am being accused of concealing financial info.

In fact I have repeatedly offered all of my financial documents to my ex-wife and her attorney. I supplied tax returns, bank statements, and everything else requested. I was deposed, and cross-examined in court. And I did this in 2004-2005.

I really do not see how my ex-wife can claim that I withheld anything. She had access to all the same documents that I had.


optimist said...

This is typical. My ex's atty used the same (very effective) tactic on me. What ever I supplied was "not enough" or "late" or "insufficient." I would have to shift to the defensive and prove that what I tendered was correct, timely. and adequate. This took up court time, frustrated the judge and made me look like I was uncooperative.

Anonymous said...

Strange, all those post from people who "just read thru the blog" complained about you not giving enough money. Now we see them in Court just after those post trying to pry a few more pennies outta you. I wonder if those people were not actually first time blog viewers forming independent opinions, but were GASP! part of Julies crowd. I wonder if they know they have no shame and don't care, or they don't realize they lack shame. Well, i'm just glad my Father instilled things like humility and character in me.

Anonymous said...

The guy had 2.9 million in his stock portfolio when the court was advocating calculations using the fact his home is mortgage free.

If a trust fund baby earns minimum wage, should the court ignore the 2.9 MILLION in stocks or base it on his McDonalds wages while calculating support? (Actually, the courts seem to go both ways here, and "George" may well get away with giving his children very little while he spends his life blogging).

This is all on the web, btw. Not on a filtered blog, but in official court records. Again, "George" himself enabled me to do these searches by giving out his information. He thinks he knows what he is doing. He's trying to fish for his ex's friends by posting inflammatory anon responses; imagining a "posse" where there is none, trying to catch slander where there is none.

The truth is public information, posted on the web, in official court documents. Not via a filtered blog. Speaking of "character" and "humility", I haven't come across a blog where "George's" ex wife slams *him*.

Anonymous said...

And you've just done everything you accused him of. "George" is not posting anon messages. I am, if you wanna know who I am, then respond back and we can talk. I have never meet George and probably never will. Obviously I will never know the in's and out's of this trail, but I do know slander when I see it. I've seen situations like this destroy all my male friends. As George said, you are more than free to start your own blog, post your own facts, documents, etc. If you have anything, you can show me, and I can post them here or elsewhere if you feel you can't get a fair shake on this blog. I will be the first to admit George has been the bad guy in all this. Something tells me though, you have nothing. I personally feel George should not pay a dime until he gets to see his children. But I'll bet you disagree. Honey...we ain't stupid ok. We know who you are and what your fishing for. You want it all, you ain't getting it all. you must come to terms with that.

Anonymous said...

Let's advocate George setting up a trust for the Daughters. They can only use the money for things they actually need. College, clothing, medical, braces, private school, etc. Thing is, Ex wives won't do this..ever. They want it for themselves. They are sick, demented entitlement Princesses. Look at how many women abuse or even kill their own children each year. If Julie truly loved her Daughters she would stop torturing them. What kind of example is this? Hey girls, shack up with some nice guy, make sure hes got money. Then get him to pay for everything. Once this is done, have an affair with some meathead short guy. Make sure you play the Parental alientaion game to, that one always ensures healthy children become terrific adults. Sickening.

Anonymous said...

A trust fund for the children sounds like a great idea. How do you feel about that, "George"?

Anonymous said...

PS: People who criticize this blog are not by default his ex. And, I'm not going to post the exact info because like I've said before; I'm more concerned about his children's privacy than "George" seems to be.

I came to this blog with an open mind -- I strongly believe in fathers importance to their children. But, the frog boiling he wrote about absolutely shocked me. Yikes 1 - you boiled a frog in front of them!?!?!. The selective publication of reports from CPS alarmed me. Yikes 2 - what about the privacy of the girls? Then I went back through the entire blog to the beginning.

Slander? The guy slanders himself with the details he publishes. He isn't the poster child of the father's rights movement. Or, should I say, if he is the poster child, I'm going to be very suspicious of it from now on.

Disclaimer: I'm not his ex! I'm not him. I'm not his neighbor's dog. I'm not you. Well, maybe I'm like some of you -- taking an absurd interest in strangers and wasting an absurd amount of time on this blog.

Anonymous said...

So, let me see if I got this straight. Geroge provided a great life for his wife. She seeked enlightenment so he decided to pay for her education. Free and clear mind you, something a tiny percentage of people in this world can do. She marries a (according to your "research") millionaire. I assume since she had no education or skills at the time of the marriage she brought little or nothing into the marriage. Regardless if George is a "trustfund baby" or not, it's his stash.

Now, Wifey gets her degree (not that hard to do with nannies, no other job, or responsiblities). Decides to cheat on her husband. Uses her Daughters as tools against him (see where I'm going with all this). Now, she (according to you at least) is entitled to everything he has. Also, he should not be allowed to see his children ever. All this because he boiled a frog. Lady, you gotta be fucking kidding me.

My Saint of a Mother grew up on a farm and routinely had to slaughter pigs and ring chickens necks. Many children used to be taken to a farm for school field trips to witness a chicken being beheaded. It's part of nature. Video games and TV are far more violent that that will ever be. I mean, he boiled a frog, are you serious!

Regardless if you know Julie or her family or not, you clearly have an agenda here. Obviously you are against Father's rights. People like you ruin young childrens minds, I just wish you could all see that one day. You're so into being selfish and Man-hating that you do not even see how much damage our children face now with this agenda. What would have been two young ladies who could have grown up to become Engineers or now going to carry severe psychological issues into adulthood (it's a fact), all because of Hate, infidelity, and selfishness. I'd take a boiling frog anyday of the week over that.

Anonymous said...

Dear "PS"

Have you ever cooked a live lobster? Perhaps crab? Eaten it? Because I don't see much difference in boiling live lobster and crab in front of the children as a frog....... get over it. I have read on this blog that the ex wife's new husband cooks live lobsters and crabs in front of the girls regularly - are they traumatized by that? If so, then you must advocate the girls being removed from the mom's home immedieately, right? If you are in "horror" over "george", then you must also be in horror over "Julie" - the girls are doomed...