Yellow-bellied sapsucker...

e've often heard the popular expression 'yellow-bellied'. In fact, the term represents an individual that is ignobly lacking in courage. There are quite a range of synonyms. Cowardly, chickenhearted, craven, dastardly, faint-hearted, pusillanimous or unmanly, to name a few. But yellow-bellied originated from the term 'lily-livered' and made reference to the state of an unhealthy liver. Instead of being blood-engorged and red in colour, the liver of a fat, unmotivated animal, is often a paler colour.

He is a dog--and the pup of a dog--red, yellow-bellied, lairless,

and haired between every toe ~ Rudyard Kipling

Nonetheless, my trip out west in early fall of 2007 would demonstrate whether yellow-bellied was an apt term for someone for whom I had afforded the utmost of respect.

It was time to confront Doug to see why he had played me.

Battle at Hastings.........

nd so, just as in 1066, and the battle between William and Harold, Hastings would become a battle ground where I would right the injustices that "Doug" had thrust upon me.

Hastings. Not the town north of Senlac Hill in East Sussex, England, but rather at the 2,000 acre Hastings Reserve ~ a Biological Field Station of the University of California, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and Natural Reserve System located in the Santa Lucia mountain range in Monterey County, California.

And just as the Bayeux tapestry depicts the events leading up to the Battle of Hstings, so this blog, in its images tells the story leading up to the confrontation and will in next few posts reveal the identity of those that preyed upon me.

"Truth is truth,

Until the end of reckoning" ~ William Shakespeare

What loneliness is more lonely than distrust?

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.

What loneliness is more lonely than distrust? ~ George Eliot

Sph-Eric Aberration

fter many attempts to create a carefully-worded email to send to "Doug" were scrapped before sending, I settled down to write in advance of the beginning of the academic term of fall 2006. I was aware that Doug would be leaving the East Coast at about this time in order to relocate to the West Coast permanently to take up a research fellowship position in California. While I knew that I did not have the luxury of an extended period of time to make contact, I wished to ensure that my email would encourage some sort of response that would help me and I wanted to address the suggestion he'd made in an earlier email that I might have confused him for someone else.

The thought that he could think me so foolish was unsettling, to be sure. I'd never jump to a conclusion without checking facts closely before communicating that I'd discovered his real identity. In my typical fashion, rather than be annoyed, I concluded that this was his way of implying that I was suffering from Sph-eric aberration. No way, indeed! Well, not on my part anyway.

The dictionary defines aberration as a deviation from its proper or expected course; a defect or blurring of focus; an imperfect image caused by a physical defect in an optical element, as in a lens, or an abnormal alteration of one's mental state.

Spheric aberration (SA) is image imperfection that results from a lens that is spherical in shape. Without getting too technical, light rays which are parallel to the optic axis but at different distances from the optic axis, fail to converge to the same point. This creates an aberration and the defect that is most noticeable for light striking the outer edges of the source. The result is that the images of objects are often blurry and unclear.

Of course spheric aberration can be reduced or eliminated by alteration in the shape of the lens or mirror, as well. For example, a parabolic lens or mirror will bring all reflected rays into a common focus. However, when a small screen is placed at the paraxial focal plane and then moved toward the mirror or lens, a point is reached where the image size is focused to a minimum. The precise location of this point is termed the "circle of least confusion" and that is precisely the reason for contacting him ...to approach a point of least confusion.

I carefully composed an email that simply projected friendly contact. No mention of anything unpleasant, and I inserted a joke that would be especially pertinent, given that I was now absolutely certain that he was of Canadian origin. I hoped that this benign and friendly correspondence would be received in the spirit in which it was offered and would reopen the line of mutual contact.

There's some sorrow in every life

nowing whom to trust, for social animals, is a critical survival mechanism. Interpersonal trust has been defined as a confident expectation that another individual is intrinsically motivated to take another's best interests into account, even if there may exist incentives to tempt otherwise.

Often, we tend to consider betrayal in the context of romantic relationships, but Buss and Shackelford opined that in all types of relational associations there are certain degrees of expectation. Expectation that each will care about the other’s welfare, and will support and help each other. Betrayal occurs when there is a failure to meet the perceived rules and expectations, and may occur in any kind of relationship context if one or other party violates salient expectations or “breaks the rules” in some way.

Theoretically, many types of transgression may be appraised as a betrayal, depending on the extent to which expectations and trust are violated. The most common acts of explicit betrayal involve either sexual or emotional infidelity, lies and deception. Value in life revolves around authenticity and the ability to reveal ourselves to others who can be counted on not to betray that trust.

Betrayal strikes a devastating blow to an individual’s sense of self-worth and need for emotional security, and as social animals, trust and security is a matter of survival, when all is said and done. The level of torment that can ensue is related to the degree of deception involved. At the very least, it’s a deeply distressing shock; a feeling of violation registered at a deep, visceral level. Pain and hurt are amongst the first and most acute emotional reactions, but at some point conscious, cognitive effort to figure out its cause and implication is the next sequence. And if the individual, to whom deepest vulnerabilities have been disclosed and entrusted, then appears not to care, feelings of rejection, abandonment, and aloneness are the natural outcome.

In terms of survival, betrayal disadvantages the victim relative to the transgressor or offender, who has put his or her own interests first and has discounted the needs and concerns of the betrayed party. When betrayal is accompanied by humiliation, what was once a level playing field in terms of personal power, is now upset giving the offender a “one-up” position over the victim that was duped and demeaned. It then becomes an all-important and critical step for the victim to respond to the act of deception by way of some direct dialogue or confrontation, in order to shift the power that the betrayal conferred to the offender.

Psychological research attests to a multitude of ways that individuals deceive one another, from simple non-disclosure, half-truths and white lies, to full-scale falsification and outright lies. Although it is suspected that the motivation behind deception is one of ill will, there are circumstances when lies and untruths told are not the core motivation of the offender in betrayal. Indeed, one predominant motive for deception by an offender is to avoid hurting another person, and to help maintain that individual’s self-esteem. While sparing hurt and impact on self-esteem may, indeed be a benevolent strategy, once the deception is revealed and the truth discovered it requires some sort of act of contrition, in order to reduce the long-term effects upon the victim.

Regardless, no matter how benign the motive, the response offered to confrontation can reduce the deep emotional impact of the transgression. The most mitigating type of response, naturally, involves conceding that an offence has been committed, along with a sincere expression of remorse, and perhaps an offer to make some form of restitution. A second, not quite so mitigating type, involves an admission of the offence, but with various kinds of excuses offered as purpose. Admission accompanied by justification, where the transgressor attempts to minimize the seriousness of the deception is, while less healing, much preferred over the fourth type of response which involves a denial or refusal of responsibility and one that does nothing to ameliorate the damage the victim has incurred. Absent any response, the result? Crushing.

DF's betrayal had confirmed that I was regarded simply as an inanimate tool to his future plans and even if it were to turn out to be a completely benevolent and benign reason initially, some two years later and still without a response, "Doug's" choice to ignore me had simply affirmed the seed planted by DF. Yes, "Doug" in making no response had delivered a message that I am, indeed, "nothing".

Let me watch by the fire and remember my days

And it may be a trick of the firelight

But the flickering pages that trouble my sight

Is a book I'm afraid to write
It's the book of my days, it's the book of my life

And it's cut like a fruit on the blade of a knife

And it's all there to see as the section reveals

There's some sorrow in every life ~ STING

Apologies are both paradoxical and powerful. No matter how sincere, an apology can't undo what has been done, and yet the magic of the apology is derived from the submissive posture of the offender, and its implications for restoring the esteem of the injured party. The repair power of an apology lies in the very act and redresses the power imbalance between the two parties.

I hadn’t had contact with anyone since “Doug’s” abrupt departure in March 2004. He was the last person with whom I’d disclosed my deepest vulnerability and trust; the last individual to know of my existence, the last voice I had heard. I'd languished, unassisted, unsupported and unattended, for more than two and a half years. I’d been trapped in the labyrinth in which I’d been apparently and puposefully exiled. But why? What had I done that would warrant such treatment? An explanation from him for his actions and a request for his help to guide me out was the driving force behind my contact with “Doug” yet once more.

I drafted yet another email...

Rosamund's Bower

hereas Theseus, when given the task to traverse a labyrinth in search of the Minotaur had been tossed a clew of thread by Ariadne that he was to unravel as he went so that he could retrace his steps to exit, I had no thread to follow.

The word bower has several distinct denotations, all relatively archaic. The first, derived from the word "bough", or tree limb and used principally in falconry, refers to a young hawk as it is about to leave the nest. Presumably, it refers to the young bird that is developed enough to now rest on branches and begin its capture of prey. The kill, chiefly of birds, small mammals or insects is clean, and usually involves breaking the back of the victim. Bower also denotes a crude, uncouth, ill-bred person lacking culture or refinement and perceived as clownish. Finally, bower also refers to a chamber, retreat or a shelter made from boughs of trees or vines, which are entwined in an effort to enclose or shut in.

In the case of Rosamund's Bower, a legendary labyrinth located in Woodstock Park, Oxfordshire which was pulled down when Blenheim Palace was built nearby, few facts remain today. The history of Rosamund Clifford, 'Fair Rosamund' (Rosamund, "Rose of the World"), has been embroidered from the 14th century onwards with much imported legend. During the Elizabethan era, stories of the origin of Rosamund's Bower gained popularity.

There are several versions of the legend, one more popular than the rest. It's claimed that the labyrinth was built of creeping vines and rose bushes to conceal Rosamund Clifford, the 12th Century King Henry II's mistress. It was designed with an intricate path, rendering it impenetrable except by use of a thread. Legend has it that when King Henry was called away to go to war against his son in France, Rosamund begged to be allowed to go with him. The King objected and rejected her pleas, as he wished her to have a life befitting a lady and exiled her to the Bower. She feared she was never to see King Henry again.

In Henry's absence, his Queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine discovered a thread snagged on King Henry's spur and followed it to the centre of the labyrinth, where she found Rosamund. According to some accounts, Rosamund was slain, or forced to take her own life by Queen Eleanor. Upon his return, when King Henry learned what had happened he is reported never to have smiled again, but had a magnificent tomb erected over Rosamund's perfumed coffin in the convent nearby at Godstow. Rosamund's ghost, it is said, has been haunting Godstow Abbey ever since.

By fall of 2006 it became clear to me that I'd been directed, possibly intentionally, into what had become my own Rosamund's Bower. (For those who once knew me, Rosamund has significance as well). Some thirty odd months after my first encounter with "Doug" and our incessant chats on Yahoo messenger, despite my gentle, forgiving approaches, he was still not inclined to admit we had ever met, and had not yet acknowledged my emails. Emails written from my prison-like cell, deep within the labyrinth that he had guided me into, disoriented and with no thread to follow, only he could guide me out. I was left to ponder the reasons I had been "embowered", destined to a life of solitude, and imprisoned by someone who'd claimed to be my friend, someone I had cared for and who'd encouraged me to trust and be loyal to.

It was difficult not to believe that this had always been "Doug's" plan. Why, and what would become of me?

Hope is the thing with feathers

mpirical evidence has demonstrated a direct correlation between the value of restorative response and the healing process and was first conducted, in the criminal context, by Caroline Angel of the United Kingdom. At its core, the process enables a reduction of the trauma experienced by victims if a direct face-to-face meeting is conducted with the offender. The dialogue between transgressor and victim served beneficial in several regards, in terms of the psychological and sociological benefits to encourage repair rather than revenge in the victim, and for the offender in terms of minimising the likelihood of a repetition of an incident. Any way one views the evidence, it can be safely said that such controlled confrontation aids in making repair of the well being of a victim possible.

The face-to-face dialogue offers the victim an opportunity to receive respect and to be heard by the offender. This empowers a victim to ensure a better mental health outcome compared with a victim that is denied such an experience. For the most part, an apology, or other similar emotional reparation, is helpful to the victim’s recovery as it paves the way for the victim to reach a point where forgiveness is possible. Forgiveness, as mediated by the benevolent attributions and positive emotional reactions experienced by the victim, permits a strengthening of self-esteem and hope, and serves to limit the impact of anger and anxiety.

Strang, in her work entitled “Repair or Revenge” cites that restorative response is “a process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve, collectively, how to deal with the aftermath and its implications for the future”. And there is an aftermath, perhaps, at times, much to the consternation of the offender!

Psychologists encourage restorative response through what has been termed by popular television personality, Dr. Phil McGraw, as Minimal Effective Response, or MER. Once again, like Restorative Justice in criminal scenarios, the concept of MER seeks to satisfy the need for resolution of the emotional upheaval perpetrated by someone who has deeply betrayed another's trust, while still conserving the victim's resources. MER is, at its very least, action taken to facilitate an explanation and an apology ~ a necessary beginning to the healing process and emotional closure. A closure to the associated pain of betrayal. McGraw recommends that a victim identify its MER by asking the following questions:

1. What action can I take to resolve this pain?
2. If I were successful and achieved this action, how would I feel?
3. Does the feeling I will have match the feeling I want to have?

Identification of MER, minimal effective response, and its subsequent deployment is crucial for proper healing to occur.

And that is exactly what I had set out to do.

Contrary to the claims of many members of the ILW newsgroup, when DF disappeared I didn’t seek revenge, I didn’t seek his removal from the country by the immigration service, nor had I launched the separate civil action with the principle purpose of recovering that which had been stolen from me (I had little confidence that anything in the way of monetary assets that he availed himself of in 2002 and 2003 would remain by the time the civil action was underway in mid-2004, anyway). No, I engaged in the action to be heard, to have one day, one opportunity to confront my offender so that I could repair the damage inflicted upon me during his systematic and deceptive acts and his treatment of me as an "inanimate object”.

With regard to the second incident, and learning that my online friend “Doug” had also betrayed my trust, I'd become a personification of “Vox clamantis in deserto”. I was but a voice crying out in the wilderness, and to date completely ignored and unheard.

What action could I take to resolve this pain? What Minimal Effective Response would be applicable in this case?

I continued to send occasional emails to “Doug” through late summer of 2006 hoping that one would prompt him to offer me answers. Answers that had become crucial by this time, after encountering "Doug" and becoming a victim of his failure to accept responsibility for his actions. No matter whether it had been simply an accident or a delberate attempt to deceive, his reluctance to now acknowledge my existance, let alone the reprecussions that I was experiencing, was more detrimental to me than the initial charade. In the 28 months that had ensued, I found myself unable to trust anyone, unable to believe anything uttered to me, unable to speak, communicate or even consider spending time with a member of the opposite sex.

I reflected on the feelings I had when I first met my online friend, "Doug", hopeful and ready to embrace people that were honest and caring. Now, as fall 2006 approached, some two and a half years later, I found that in order to look upon the future with any enthusiasm at all, more than ever I need an explanation for why he chose to strip me of the only thing of value that I took with me from my divorce ~ Hope.

"Hope" is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul
And sings the tunes without the words
And never stops at all ~ Emily Dickinson

Vox clamantis in deserto

ebruary 2006 came and went, and no acknowledgment from “Doug” relating to my application for the summer intern position in California. I was dismayed.

I thought that, at the very least, in his capacity with this institution "Doug" would have informed me by email that either I was totally unqualified for the position, or that all positions had been filled. I discovered that fact when I visited his web page to see if there was an alternate business-related email address for him, at the end of the month. Sure enough, not only was there a bold announcement that all positions had been filled, but also a notice that he was already in the field. I felt hurt. Not because I wasn’t selected ~ that was a long shot and I knew that I had no specific background that prepared me, but more because I viewed the lack of a rejection notification as another barb cast at me.

Meanwhile, after a long respite from active participation on ILW, I'd answered a thread that was directed to me by a new member who was seeking advice on how to report an alien spouse she claimed may have married her for fraudulent purposes. Unfortunately, BS began to ridicule me again. He is the member that I'd posted to on “Doug’s” behalf more than two years earlier, that culminated in a big mess. (I described the particular circumstances for that in the entries to this blog entitled, Five Reflect on the Mystery of Roanoke, and Wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch . )

BS was even more determined in this latest come back. His threats were full-throttle and visceral. He verbalised that he would stop at nothing and was intent on destroying my credibility and reputation amongst my industry colleagues and family members. I spawned in a series of new emails from him to me that would be unsettling for anyone to read. Indeed, I was once again facing his wrath and this time one that had been festering for 24 months. It was frightening. He claimed he believed in an "eye for an eye" and I knew it was not idle discourse. I offered explanation as to why I had spoken on “irritated’s” behalf, but BS would not accept it.

Knowing that “Doug” had originally asked me to post something on ILW, on his behalf, and, as such, had really placed me in this situation, in the first place, I forwarded BS’s correspondence to “Doug” with a plea for some help or moral support. Three of these alarming emails were forwarded to "Doug" from February to April 2006 ~ all, yes indeed, went unanswered. I was forced to consider that this was deliberate and quite possibly "Doug" didn’t care if something untoward would become of me. What made it particularly upsetting was that these threats to my personal safety had arisen out of the very favour that "Doug" had asked of me in engaging with BS on ILW in the first place!

The Latin, "Vox clamantis in deserto”, its translation being “a voice crying in the wilderness” harkens to John the Baptist, whose proclamations of Christ, while a hermit in the wilderness, were undeeded and in vain.

This expression is also the motto of one of the eight member schools of the Ivy League, that was considered at one time to be the frontier of the European settlement and was built to introduce Christianity to the American Indians ~ a beacon of cultural sophistication and learning that emanates from an otherwise quite pastoral Northeastern setting.

Naturally, “Doug” would be intimately familiar with this motto, having a Post Graduate research position at that very institution. I would learn that despite my loyalty, despite my caring and forgiving nature, despite my need for his help, for answers, or for support… my cries would go in vain.

“Ego vox clamantis in deserto".

"I am a voice crying in the wilderness".