p.s. do you have any reason to believe that your W and the OM have found your thread? I am very leery of the poster copsandrobbers who signed up just to ask you to email him. Very creepy. If you think there is such a problem, you should email the moderators ASAP. And whatever you do, don't give out any personal information here. We have sick, warped individuals who have taken info from here and actually contacted the WS or the OP and led them to the BS' thread.

GN:


Likely OM never took the steps to gain ownership of the emails. That is a specific process that MUST be followed. Otherwise without that permission, he posted the emails as public domain and thus violated the terms and conditions of Facebook or MySpace as the case may be.

In effect, you found some emails laying around and decided to make up an informational post. That makes this deal much more of a hair ball. Likely the "Investigator" has no clue of the law.

Larry

Agree 100%. The sick deal with Heartsore lives in my mind to this date. Selective posts were used to influence a Judge who wanted to be influenced. Heartsore's lawyer was a nitwit. He got outlawyered.

Larry

GN:

The point of exposure is to drive a wedge between OM and WW. OM has turned this into a drama of purpose, and maybe thus changed the dynamics. While it plays out, exposure is always a drama and you never know exactly what direction it can take.

OM has chosen to fight instead of flight.

This works to your advantage since the truth is always a defense. In any court case, OM will lose because he is taking a course of action to defend his reputation. The facts address that and he loses. He should have cut his losses, but he isn't smart enough. Eat up with his own ego, he doesn't understand that there are tons of people out there who will not admire him for what he has done.

Good guys can win if they are not outlawyered.

Larry

If you are not going to become a lawyer then you better stop sleeping in Holiday Inns.

According to my best friend from decades ago, and still is, I was destined to be either a lawyer or a shrink. I did neither.

He became a shrink and a good one and I went on to do other things. Law school bored me to tears.

The point is that OM is trying to defend the indefensible if I understand GN's narrative. And one thing of note. In this time of economic hardship, families and just ordinary folks are circling the wagons. Predators like OM are becoming social outcasts like not since the depression.

Since they have up until now always had a hard core of admirers who slapped them on the back and congratulated them on nailing another one, they don't get it. Times are changing.

Larry

Here's something to keep in mind:

There was a guy who got mad at my son because my son wouldn't sell him a truck on a payment plan (the guy had lousy credit).

Anyway, the guy decided to corner my son and "whup his @$$"...which backfired on him, cuz NOBODY "whups" my son without incurring some serious damage. After he slunk off to lick his wounds, he decided to file assualt charges against my son. Anyway, there were witnesses to the fact that this guy jumped my son, so my son was found not guilty.

This guy is also known for suing over any and everything...if he can do so on a contingency basis.

After he lost in court, he filed a civil suit against my son on a contingency basis (meaning that the lawyer would accept a percentage of any settlement as payment).

Since we had to pay an attorney, we decided that he should have to pay an attorney, too. We filed a civil suit against him for malicious prosecution, which meant that he would have to PAY AN ATTORNEY. Of course, we knew that he couldn't come up with the kind of retainer he would need for such a suit, so that was the end of the lawsuit.

So, if you can hit the OM in his pocketbook, do it.

The friend was the *only* close friend of WW's that I didn't contact when I did the first round of exposure on New Years Eve...and only because I didn't have her phone number. At this point, I'm leery of providing information that could be used against me in the investigation prior to any warrants being issued.

All discussions with WW yesterday went through FiL...until the last one. I admit that I was so angry and hurt about the documents, I broke Plan B to send her a text message telling her to return them. She replied saying that she would make copies and return the originals this morning and she added the information about her friend. Now that it is after noon, I called FiL and asked him to call WW and say, "It is after noon and you did not return the documents. You have proven again that BH cannot trust what you say." He said that he would.

Yes, FiL knows about the charges and that OM had to have help from WW to do so. FiL was the first one that I called when I discovered it on Thursday. He asked me just now if I'd heard anything from the constables yet. I said, "no".

Ms. copsnrobbers contacted me via email afterward her post. I am not concerned about her. Based on what she said in her email, she likely already has a thread here on MB, but under a different alias. At the very least, she's spent enough time on the site to understand and correctly use the acronyms. In case she doesn't have a thread, I did recommend to her to create one. I hope she does. Her issue is also with my OM, but not because of an affair, but because of him being a mentor for her DH.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to take minor children out of the country, isn't it required for the other parent to give written permission?

GN


I can believe that.

Good show GN

Larry

It happens. Most often when one spouse is from another country and in this case, it is not indicated except as a "What if" tactic.

Larry

WW scheduled a MB session for us for this evening at 8pm CST with Dr. Chalmers.

Good going GN.

Larry

Great News!

What's a non-LB way of saying - "I don't trust you. Trust must be (re)earned over a period of time." ?

I know it's going to involve saying "I," and "I feel" and "I think" and trying not to say "you" at all.

How about "I don't feel secure right now." And "This is what it will take to earn my trust."?

But don't ask me ... I am by no means an expert. I know others will give you better help.

How did the session with Dr. Chalmers go?

"Obviously recent events has created an issue where my total trust in you has been shaken. If the shoe were on your foot instead of mine, what would you expect from me to once again be worthy of your truat?"

Empathy for anyone else's condition is not a very large part of a wayward's thinking or emotional condition. The above word track is designed to help that along as well.

Harley says,


GN. . . by now I hope you have taken the time to read all of Dr. Harley's basic concepts, the link to which is found at the top of this page or on the sidebar. The above is a quote from, I think, Part 3 or 4. If you haven't read all the basic concepts, please so do at your earliest possible convenience.

Larry

sigh.............. do we have to take away your TEXAS CARD?? You just say it.

GN: "I don't trust you. But I will give you an opportunity to earn my trust."

WW: OMG!!! YOU DON'T TRUST ME!!!!?

GN: this is correct...

*sigh*

Okay, I have been reacting to the chewing out I got for being too blunt at one point in time. Lemme put my (earned) Texas hat back on.

I agree with Mel.

And will add to it.

"No I don't, would you? But I will give you an opportunity to earn my trust." If the shoe fits, wear it. . .

Larry

How about he gets kicked out of Texas for talking like that!??? We are not in VERMONT, for God's sake!

Larry, thank goodness you have come to your senses, bruther!