Posted on 01/17/2015 5:40:09 AM PST by Libloather
U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson will be in court next week for a half-day trial to determine whether his 24-year marriage was valid in the first place, or if his wife was still legally married to another man when they wed.
**SNIP**
Lolita Grayson filed paperwork accusing her husband of failing to pay her credit cards, refusing to provide financial support for their children.
She also said, in an interview with WFTV-Channel 9 , that she had been forced to apply for a food-stamp card.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
Wife of Alan Grayson, named 17th richest member of Congress, receiving food stamps to feed his kids
Easily verified...
Knowing that barking moon-bat Grayson , he probably paid in Monopoly money..
Democrats (Shakes head and walks away)
Sounds like Alan is quite embittered that he does not even want to pay to feed his own children. This guy should be drummed out the H of R and stuck in a stockade so people can spit in his disgusting fat face and kick him right in the butt. Grayson the epitome of the Democrat Party - a real donkey
Should be interesting to see how this plays out since he was once involuntarily hospitalized for psych evaluation.
The fog in central FL this past week was quite thick in the morning; one could say that it was truly a bigamist. This morning is quite clear, however, and the sky is blue, without a cloud.
EXCERPT In filing for public assistance, Lolita Grayson said her monthly income consisted of $592 per child.
Alan Graysons’ attorney attributed her actions to politics the week before an election, telling WFTV his client pays about $10,000 a month for the mortgage, utilities and phone bill for the home. “This is abusing the public,” attorney Mark Nejame said. “She’s going out and asking for support because she can’t support herself on $120,000? That’s outrageous.”
Married to the bombastic congressman for 24 years, she filed for divorce early this year and it didn’t take long for things to get messy. There was a physical altercation at their home a short time later — she accused Grayson of battering her and he countered by saying she hit him. He would later charge his wife with bigamy while filing for an annulment of their 24-year marriage.
The Democratic lawmaker, a former trial lawyer, is not paying spousal support because he says the marriage was never valid because of the bigamy charge, WFTV reported.
TX has Sheila Jackson Lee and Florida has Alan Grayson, two arguments against democracy. Voters this stupid have no business voting.
The clue is in the article excerpt that Liz posted in #7:
Alan Graysons’ attorney attributed her actions to politics the week before an election, telling WFTV his client pays about $10,000 a month for the mortgage, utilities and phone bill for the home. “This is abusing the public,” attorney Mark Nejame said. “She’s going out and asking for support because she can’t support herself on $120,000? That’s outrageous.”
If you interpret this literally, Grayson is simply paying the bills for the house, so it doesn't go into foreclosure. That leaves all the other bills that one typically pays: food, gasoline, etc. And, it's confirmed by this statement:
The Democratic lawmaker, a former trial lawyer, is not paying spousal support because he says the marriage was never valid because of the bigamy charge, WFTV reported.
Speaking of the bigamy charge, see this earlier statement:
He would later charge his wife with bigamy while filing for an annulment of their 24-year marriage.
And from the article cited by this thread:
Lawyers for Grayson, D-Orlando, argue that, unbeknownst to him, Lolita Grayson was still married to a man named Robert Allen Carson — whom she claimed she had divorced — at the time of their wedding April 28, 1990.
Was it really "unbeknownst to him"? Maybe he didn't know at the time of the ceremony, but did Grayson never learn about in the past 24 years (and not just recently)? It would be interesting to find out if and when her divorce actually became final.
If Grayson did know about this long ago, then this is likely nothing more than a legal maneuver to avoid splitting the assets acquired during their marriage.
It seems to me Grayson is the one that needs an evaluation, shouldn’t be hard to conduct, it is common knowledge he is insane.
Alan Grayson asks for annulment, accuses wife of bigamy in new court documents
This is from April, 2014. It provides a lot more details, but not a critical one:
"Unbeknownst to Mr. Grayson," the filing adds, "Ms. Grayson was married and remained married to another man ... up to and after the parties conducted an apparent marriage ceremony on April 28, 1990."
Several years later, Lolita Grayson "secretly participated" in a divorce from her prior husband, a man named Robert Carson, in Broward County, the documents state.
Attached to the congressman's counterpetition was a final divorce judgment dated March 7, 1994. It lists Lolita Carson as the respondent, and Robert Carson as the petitioner.
[...]
Alan Grayson's divorce lawyer, Richard West, said in an interview Tuesday that he discovered the marriage overlap when the paperwork surfaced in a background check.
The critical piece of information that was omitted: when the background check was conducted. The wife filed for divorce in January, 2014. Did Grayson find out about it during the divorce proceedings? Or has he been sitting on this for years?
I don't know if it makes any difference, legally.
Grayson is an attorney, so I’d be inclined to think that he knew about her former divorce (or lack thereof) all along. He seems the sort of guy who’d tuck that information away and say nothing about it until he could use it to his advantage.
What?! IF ‘gay marriage’ is OK, what’s the problem with bigamy? Why the HATE and FEAR Grayson? You some kind of gynophobist? Sexist? Misogynist?
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.