Slant, Much?

Lisa Falkenberg, of the Houston Chronk, is musing about the Nikki Araguz case.

What’s getting lost amid the sensational headlines in the case of transgender widow Nikki Araguz is that two little boys have lost their father.

Who made it a “case”? 

Nikki? 

Or the person who is trying to erase Nikki’s marriage by de-sexing her?

Nikki has expressed her love and concern for the children, even speaking directly to them in TV interviews. And she claimed to me Wednesday that she’s battling Thomas’ family for his death benefits partly for the children’s sake, saying she promised Thomas she’d help take care of “our children” if anything happened to him.

But the fact is that if Nikki prevails in her legal battle, she gets the money in dispute. If Thomas’ family prevails, the children get the money.

So?  How would that be different if there wasn’t a (likely illegitimate) question about Nikki’s legal sex?

Nikki has expressed her love and concern for the children, even speaking directly to them in TV interviews. And she claimed to me Wednesday that she’s battling Thomas’ family for his death benefits partly for the children’s sake, saying she promised Thomas she’d help take care of “our children” if anything happened to him.

But the fact is that if Nikki prevails in her legal battle, she gets the money in dispute. If Thomas’ family prevails, the children get the money.

Lets get real.  Heather Delgado is perhaps the luckiest ex-wife in America right now.  If her now-dead ex-husband had married someone who wasn’t susceptible to a (likely illegitimate) sex-status challenge, she – and her sophistry-addled shysters – would be SO-fucking-L.  The fact that the kids would be swept up in that O-fucking-L-ness is, well, the price that kids pay for picking the wrong womb to emerge from (you know, the same price paid by all kids not named Bush, McCain, Romney, yadda yadda yadda….)

It’s getting harder and harder to believe, though, that Nikki’s motives are really about the children’s well-being, or the marriage rights for transgender Texans, no matter how much transgender activists need her case to help their worthy cause. It seems increasingly probable she’s just out for the money.

Can you slant a little bit more toward Fox, eh Lisa?

If there wasn’t a question about Nikki’s sex, would you or any other fair-skinned, employed  heterosexual be giving a damn about the economic fate of those two Hispanic kids?

Nikki brought on some of the credibility problems herself. She’s admitted to lying in a sworn deposition earlier this year in a custody case.

Again…can you slant a little bit more toward Fox, eh Lisa?  How about at least mentioning the possibility that that lying occurred because Nikki – who isn’t a lawyer (that I know of) – found herself in a deposition setting, facing her own former lawyer who was using information about her that he had acquired via the attorney-client relationship, and had to make a split-second decision about what to do.  The facts, of course, aren’t all in regarding that aspect of it (specifically, precisely where the lawyer had learned of Nikki’s former name; but, don’t buy the ‘it was a matter of public record’ dodge as it still remains to be ascertained exactly why that attorney would have gone looking for such a record when he did – which is all in addition to the stench surrounding representing the ex-wife of a former client’s then-current husband) – but, assuming that they are even remotely akin to what the ethics claims against that attorney suggest they are, then some law prof may have found the perfect fact pattern for a question about whether there can be a necessity defense to a charge of perjury.

 She’s got a lengthy criminal record including theft and drug charges.

So?

If there wasn’t a question about Nikki’s sex, would you or any other fair-skinned, employed  heterosexual – or anyone else for that matter – be in any position to say jack shit about whether a widow with those issues should or should not receive whatever a widow is entitled to by virtue of being a widow?

And although earlier this week she presented an e-mail exchange with her late husband as proof that he was aware of her sex-change operation, Thomas’ mother told me he believed his wife was having a hysterectomy. Nikki said she never claimed this.

Fraud regarding the marital relationship is the only leg that the anti-Nikki crows might possibly have to stand on.

But I think its one with no toes and a cancerous ankle.  After all, as more than a few commenters on more than a few websites have asked: If she really was pre-op at the time of the marriage, how could her husband not have known?

In a phone interview, Longoria, a renal technologist who lives in Wharton, described her son’s marriage as troubled nearly from the start, with police having to be called out on occasion to break up fights.

Which, even if true, would cause a marriage involving a woman with no sex-status question and a now-deceased man to be invalidated post-morterm….how?

The couple weren’t living together when Thomas died….

Which, even if true, would cause a marriage involving a woman with no sex-status question and a now-deceased man to be invalidated post-morterm….how?

Longoria said that shortly before her son’s death, the couple fought so badly that both decided they’d had enough.

Which, even if true, would cause a marriage involving a woman with no sex-status question and a now-deceased man to be invalidated post-morterm….how?

Longoria said Nikki printed out some kind of divorce form from the Internet and she and Thomas signed it.

Wow…

If that’s all it took to get a divorce – an internet printout, two signatures, no lawyers and no court involvement whatsoever – then I’d say that 99% of family law practitioners would be out of business.

On Wednesday, Longoria’s pro-bono attorney, Chad Ellis, produced an affidavit that seems to support her contention. The document is signed by Cynthia Garcia, a Wharton County deputy district clerk, who says that on June 24 Nikki “came into our offices to make a payment for her court costs related to her criminal matter.” Garcia maintains that Nikki “asked me how much it cost to file for divorce. She informed me that (she) wanted to get a divorce from Thomas Araguz, III. She said she was ‘done with him.’ ”

Which, even if true, would cause a marriage involving a woman with no sex-status question and a now-deceased man to be invalidated post-morterm….how?

Just as troubling, though, is Longoria’s description of Nikki’s behavior after Thomas’ death. Far from behaving like the grieving widow, Longoria said Nikki showed up at her house, and that of Thomas’ grandmother, the day after the funeral, demanding Thomas’ gun and truck.

Which, even if true, would cause a marriage involving a woman with no sex-status question and a now-deceased man to be invalidated post-morterm….how?

[D]emanding those things from a mother who’d buried her only son the day before shows us where Nikki’s priorities were that day.

Which, even if true, would cause a marriage involving a woman with no sex-status question and a now-deceased man to be invalidated post-morterm….how?

For her part, Longoria said she just wants the ordeal over, and for Nikki, and the publicity, to go away so her family can grieve. If Nikki ends up proving her marriage to Thomas was valid and gets the money, so be it, Longoria says. The family would move on.

Uh huh…

On to the professional right-wing victim circuit, replete with a shout out from Elizabeth Don-Henley-wrote-one-particular-line-in-“Dirty-Laundry”-about-you-even-though-he-couldn’t-possibly-have-heard-of-you-in-1982 Hasselbeck, softball fests with Bill O’Reilly and Joe Scarborough, mandatory referencing in all AFA and FRC propaganda conflating transsexual rights and same-sex marriage, and – just for grins – a book contract with Regnery.

“This has nothing to do with anybody being gay. This has nothing to do with anybody being transgender. It doesn’t. That’s not our fight,” she says.

Then stop fighting.

Shut up, take the half of the $600K that is already going to the two kids and make sure that it doesn’t miraculously get spent on things and/or people other than the two kids.

Her fight, she insists, is protecting two boys who lost their dad.

If only that were the priority for all concerned.

I have news for you Lisa: Despite what Nikki may have said about the two kids – and despite whether any sentiment she may have expressed about the two kids is genuine or as fake as Fox ‘News’ – those kids cannot actually be her priority.  

She’s not a parent  of either child. 

Her connection to the children died with her husband.

But her connection to that dead husband lives – in the law.

Now, I’ve stated this before: I don’t know Nikki.  I don’t think I’ve ever crossed paths with her at all in the past – and she may or may not be someone I would want to socialize with under any circumstances.

And guess what?

None of that would matter if there was no question regarding her legal sex.

And, in light of what the realities of the law are shaping up to be, none of it should matter anyway.

The question I’m left with is: On the Houston Chronk website, why isn’t the Fox ‘News’ logo next to Lisa Falkenberg’s name?

3 Responses to Slant, Much?

  1. Marlene says:

    There’s also the fact that Delgado’s attorney is once again facing numerous ethical charges from the Texas Bar due to his prior legal representation of Nikki, and his outing her during her run as Wharton’s mayor!

  2. travesti says:

    Vielen Dank für gute Arbeit schriftlich

  3. […] I’ll reiterate what I said in response to Lisa Falkenberg of the one-step-away-from-Washington-Times-credibility Houston […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: