[Shalom Israel]

A burden satisfied by their testimony.

You clearly aren't interested in an intellectual discussion. Instead, you keep making pronouncements, without attempting to justify your assertions or to counter the reasoned arguments of others.

Your only evidence that Michael was an interested party is that he filed the motion which was his duty as her husband.

We know he filed the motion. We don't know his motivation. You claim to know it; I do not.

[JTN]

Instead, you keep making pronouncements, without attempting to justify your assertions or to counter the reasoned arguments of others.

You aren't making any. All you do is claim that their testimony is tainted by "self-interest." What the self-interest is, you do not say.

We don't know his motivation. You claim to know it; I do not.

But he's a low-life regardless?