nce "Doug" took up his position in California, I learned very quickly that I'd lost opportunity to call him. Astonishingly, yes, now he announced on his research website that he had an unlisted telephone number. Oh, a very poignant message, indeed! Seeing that, I instantly recalled one conversation we'd had in the winter of 2004, when he explained that some female had driven throughout Tallahassee, cruising the streets on a lookout for his truck to find his home, and then found reason to call him to inform him that the air in his tyre was low. At the time, when I queried if he'd any idea why someone would do such a thing, he shrugged it off, saying she was an ex-girlfriend that wanted to maintain control over him. I found it odd at the time that she'd do such a thing, after being the one to choose to end their relationship, but trumped it up to having something to do with his socio-economic status as the son of a succesful company founder. By this time in 2006, I knew the story of his Reynolds family association had been false.
While I'd never attempted to contact him by telephone, although I'd had his number for more than 18 months, was it quite possible that I had not been the only person with whom he'd played a charade? I'd been more than patient for an answer to my inquiries as to the disposition of the summer positions, for which I'd applied. No answer, of course, and by fall of 2006 I knew the status, and that I had not been selected, but was curious why I'd not even been acknowledged or informed. Was that his typical modus operandi, or was I being personally singled out?
I then concluded that I'd once again been subjected to the same consideration that my ex-husband had offered me. Yes, indeed, I'd been shown now by "Doug" that I was nothing more than an "inanimate object", cast aside when no longer of any use or interest. The two men with whom I'd become at all close in more than a decade, both dealt with me in the same manner ~ with no justification and BOTH purporting to be keenly interested in my welfare and best interests. My ex-husband had a motive, but what was "Doug's"? Could it be that he had found intense pleasure in thrusting me once again into the depths of despair?
The barrage of threats continued from the member on ILW that had taken offense over my defense of "Doug". All alone, and with no support structure, whatsoever, I would simply forward copies of the emails to "Doug" with the hope that he'd at least be aware of the unsafe and unsettling position I had been placed in. I felt I could no longer participate on ILW, a forum that had been a form of pleasant entertainment for me in 2004, and even after the Famous Five disbanded following "Doug's" abrupt departure in 2005, something to help to while away the time and break the monotony of my solitary existence. 2006 ended bleak, in terms of any type of response to my "SOS" contact with "Doug", just like the environment outside my lonely workplace.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the pleadings I'd submitted following the lower court's decision to dismiss the civil suit that I'd been forced to bring against DF and KMC, and in 42 days from the date filed, a decision was rendered. I was stunned as I logged onto the online docket to open the per curiam. The Court of Appeals decision noted that all causes of action that I'd attempted to bring in the counter-claim for annulment, that the lower court had steadfastly refused to hear, and instead had recommended be plead in a second action, should indeed have been dealt with in the divorce action. The Court of Appeals offered case citations to support its position, yet now 24-months after the divorce was final res judicata would prohibit reopening the case and protect the Plaintiff DF.
In one fell swoop, I would learn that I had been bounced from venue to venue, like a ping pong ball, only to find that the lower court had erred and my original posture to annul the marriage and present proofs of fraud in the dissolution of the marriage was correct. The apparent refusal of either court to hear the case and adjudicate the claims on merit would be manifest injustice, indeed. Additionally, the Immigration Service was performing an anti-fraud investigation into the circumstances that surrounded my marriage, triggered by a returned piece of mail that had been directed to DF at my home long after he had disappeared and we had divorced, yet despite that, the local courts would not hear my case.
To add more insult to injury, a new case, in Pennsylvania, reported that an alien brought suit against a former US citizen spouse for support pursuant to the terms of the Immigration Affidavit of Support. The Federal Court affirmed a decision that the former US citizen spouse would be responsible to pay damages to the alien, subject to the terms of the mandated Affidavit of Support ~ a case of strict liability, it seems. This news flash occurred just 60 days after DF and KMC had given up ownership of the competing operation that had impacted the venture DF and I had jointly owned while we were married. Now DF was, for all practical purposes, unemployed, as far as I could determine. Would he be savvy enough to find out about this precedential case? And how, without the annulment that would have permitted me absolution of the obligation of the Affidavit of Support, could I now protect myself from future liability? Liability that could continue for another 7 years, to boot.
My only option ~ to bring the case before the Supreme Court, knowing that any appeal would be through leave. I questioned if justice could ever be served, since circumstances of the past three years had caused my respect for the judicial system to wane. I'd have 42 days to make my decision.
While I'd never attempted to contact him by telephone, although I'd had his number for more than 18 months, was it quite possible that I had not been the only person with whom he'd played a charade? I'd been more than patient for an answer to my inquiries as to the disposition of the summer positions, for which I'd applied. No answer, of course, and by fall of 2006 I knew the status, and that I had not been selected, but was curious why I'd not even been acknowledged or informed. Was that his typical modus operandi, or was I being personally singled out?
I then concluded that I'd once again been subjected to the same consideration that my ex-husband had offered me. Yes, indeed, I'd been shown now by "Doug" that I was nothing more than an "inanimate object", cast aside when no longer of any use or interest. The two men with whom I'd become at all close in more than a decade, both dealt with me in the same manner ~ with no justification and BOTH purporting to be keenly interested in my welfare and best interests. My ex-husband had a motive, but what was "Doug's"? Could it be that he had found intense pleasure in thrusting me once again into the depths of despair?
The barrage of threats continued from the member on ILW that had taken offense over my defense of "Doug". All alone, and with no support structure, whatsoever, I would simply forward copies of the emails to "Doug" with the hope that he'd at least be aware of the unsafe and unsettling position I had been placed in. I felt I could no longer participate on ILW, a forum that had been a form of pleasant entertainment for me in 2004, and even after the Famous Five disbanded following "Doug's" abrupt departure in 2005, something to help to while away the time and break the monotony of my solitary existence. 2006 ended bleak, in terms of any type of response to my "SOS" contact with "Doug", just like the environment outside my lonely workplace.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the pleadings I'd submitted following the lower court's decision to dismiss the civil suit that I'd been forced to bring against DF and KMC, and in 42 days from the date filed, a decision was rendered. I was stunned as I logged onto the online docket to open the per curiam. The Court of Appeals decision noted that all causes of action that I'd attempted to bring in the counter-claim for annulment, that the lower court had steadfastly refused to hear, and instead had recommended be plead in a second action, should indeed have been dealt with in the divorce action. The Court of Appeals offered case citations to support its position, yet now 24-months after the divorce was final res judicata would prohibit reopening the case and protect the Plaintiff DF.
In one fell swoop, I would learn that I had been bounced from venue to venue, like a ping pong ball, only to find that the lower court had erred and my original posture to annul the marriage and present proofs of fraud in the dissolution of the marriage was correct. The apparent refusal of either court to hear the case and adjudicate the claims on merit would be manifest injustice, indeed. Additionally, the Immigration Service was performing an anti-fraud investigation into the circumstances that surrounded my marriage, triggered by a returned piece of mail that had been directed to DF at my home long after he had disappeared and we had divorced, yet despite that, the local courts would not hear my case.
To add more insult to injury, a new case, in Pennsylvania, reported that an alien brought suit against a former US citizen spouse for support pursuant to the terms of the Immigration Affidavit of Support. The Federal Court affirmed a decision that the former US citizen spouse would be responsible to pay damages to the alien, subject to the terms of the mandated Affidavit of Support ~ a case of strict liability, it seems. This news flash occurred just 60 days after DF and KMC had given up ownership of the competing operation that had impacted the venture DF and I had jointly owned while we were married. Now DF was, for all practical purposes, unemployed, as far as I could determine. Would he be savvy enough to find out about this precedential case? And how, without the annulment that would have permitted me absolution of the obligation of the Affidavit of Support, could I now protect myself from future liability? Liability that could continue for another 7 years, to boot.
My only option ~ to bring the case before the Supreme Court, knowing that any appeal would be through leave. I questioned if justice could ever be served, since circumstances of the past three years had caused my respect for the judicial system to wane. I'd have 42 days to make my decision.
What loneliness is more lonely than distrust? ~ George Eliot
No comments:
Post a Comment