Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: WTF? Alan Grayson's estranged wife is getting food stamps [View all]Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)384. Since he is the one running/holding public office, I would think he would want his actions to be
so far above suspect where his children are concerned that there would be no reason for this thread because there would be nothing to question about his sincerity.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
613 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sorry, but I updated the post before I saw your response. I found out she eventually
valerief
Oct 2014
#8
Some guy named Carson. I forget his first name. She was married to Grayson for years
valerief
Oct 2014
#35
Which in effect means she was never married to Grayson and is the basis for his claims now
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#107
I don't know what if anything he's giving her. I think he might want his kids.
valerief
Oct 2014
#196
Agree in general. I won't take anything from her at face value after the abuse lie
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#227
You're going to leave the kids with someone who conveniently lied for years that she was already
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#57
There is an article in the Orlando Sentinel that explains it all. She lied and she knew she lied.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#68
And will be very easy for the courts to verify and thus highly likely that they are correct.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#109
Grayson made his fortune wholesaling international long-distance service
Sen. Walter Sobchak
Oct 2014
#158
Actually he made much of his money doing what Dems cheered him for, going after
sabrina 1
Nov 2014
#590
If she gave up the kids she is giving up the only leverage she has when it comes to a divorce.
dilby
Oct 2014
#28
If she was still married when she and Grayson "Married" then she and Grayson were never married.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#58
Are you sure it isn't just a case of his lawyers finding a t not crossed on her first divorce?
kcr
Oct 2014
#60
Apparently not since she then went back and got a divorce from her first husband.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#61
Here is the article in the Orlando Sentinel that explains it. She lied and she knew she lied.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#67
And it refers to court documents he provided that are easy for the court to look up.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#71
You are clearly on the wife's side. There is no evidence supporting her and plenty supporting him.nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#74
I'm on anyone's side if their spouse is trying to screw them over on a technecality
kcr
Oct 2014
#75
A technicality? Lying about being married and getting married again? Wow...
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#84
If he can leave his family in such deplorable conditions, then I don't believe him about anything
kcr
Oct 2014
#86
To quote you,but reversing the gender, "That is HER story" & you are buying it hook line and sinker
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#88
It may be about the gender to you. It isn't to me. Go ahead and reverse the genders. I don't care.
kcr
Oct 2014
#89
This time. I withheld judgement initially with the abuse allegations. Then we found out she lied.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#105
Then you remember it wrong. She lied, she got caught, she dropped the allegation. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#114
That allegation comes from someone who we know has lied in accusations against him several times and
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#104
You want her to profit from the lies and fraud? And you claim to be impartial?
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#123
Now you are just spinning for the sake of spinning. You are wrong. Admit it. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#127
And lied and committed fraud to enable that relationship of 29 years. The time makes it worse not
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#134
That's the point of fraud and deception. To deceive. You make my point. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#141
Are you the type that says things like "Marriage is just another form of prostitution?"
kcr
Oct 2014
#131
Nope, I won't let you hijack the discussion down a meaningless tangent. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#145
Again, now you are just spinning for the sake of spinning. Admit you are wrong and move on. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#135
You are arguing in favor of a woman who subjected her children to this horrible lie. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#147
She says her former husband filed those 1994 papers, without her involvement. She also says he
tblue37
Oct 2014
#148
You forgot several important things. The primary one being we know she is a liar from the abuse
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#231
ROFLMAO, exactly. The nonsense put forth by those trying to justify Lolita's actions is
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#545
people have believed they were divorced and remarried only to discover the state they
DeadEyeDyck
Nov 2014
#584
Your attempt to claim you aren't biased is what is bullshit. And its obvious. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#85
most men wont cotton to a father allowing children to be in mold infested house while sittin on mils
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#171
more nasty shit. he is letting the kids sit in the filth as punishment to the wife. MOST PARENTS,
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#186
Very well and succinctly put. Add the lie on the abuse allegation, and you see the kind of person
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#335
Kudos to Rove and the Koch's, they really hate Alan because he tells the truth, surprised
randys1
Oct 2014
#388
That's my point. There are multiple possibilities. We don't know what that filing means.
kcr
Oct 2014
#514
Yeah her whole motivation was to have 5 kids from this guy so she can get everything he had.
dilby
Oct 2014
#155
Well, the tactic seems to be working with you. You forgive every lie and scummy act by her
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#264
She was the primary caregiver to those young kids. it would be to their benefit
pnwmom
Oct 2014
#501
Yup, they throw the ex and their own children into poverty. The lawyers and judges let them do it.
Dont call me Shirley
Oct 2014
#80
If Lolita Grayson is the standard by which you want women judged, that's your call.
lumberjack_jeff
Oct 2014
#176
That may be best for the children. Kids raised in poverty have a difficult childhood,
Dont call me Shirley
Oct 2014
#240
Domestic violence doesn't affect the kids? Did you seriously just say that?
lumberjack_jeff
Nov 2014
#612
hold out on being a decent guy to get what you want? nah. shouldnt work that way.
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#30
The rational mind would direct that particular query to Grayson himself, yes?
LanternWaste
Oct 2014
#55
I am sure she is working on it. Resume is a little bleak though kind of looks like:
dilby
Oct 2014
#511
If there's no annulment she'll get Social Security just by being Grayson's spouse for ten years.
ancianita
Oct 2014
#525
There isn't going to be alimony because there is no marriage to dissolve. She was already married.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#106
No, it won't. There is no legalized multiple marriage in Florida. It's a done deal.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#119
Yes, because we should just automatically believe everything Grayson's laywer says as fact
kcr
Oct 2014
#128
You're argument is so desperate as to be pathetic. This will be very easy for the court to verify.nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#138
Well, aside from the now multiple lies she has told affecting him and the kids...
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#232
No, no faith in Grayson is required. We have her abuse lie on video, her divorce case we can look up
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#236
Yes, it does. And she and her attorney know it, thats why they immediately dropped the request
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#239
You choose to believe his lawyers and the scummy tactics. Whatever floats your boat.
kcr
Oct 2014
#241
LOL, "don't believe your lying eyes, believe me!" No, sorry. All evidence is with Alan Grayson here
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#242
See my #245 below in response to your other post. What you assert is ridiculous
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#247
FWIW.. I don't think you sound "desperate" at all. I've enjoyed reading what you and dilby have
Cha
Oct 2014
#222
Of course she does Cha. Their attempts to explain the bigamy away require magical thinking.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#252
You are the one ignoring the fact that marriages happen when divorces weren't final
kcr
Oct 2014
#299
Nope, I never did that. I object to your magical thinking for the events after that. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#303
Nope, I never once said that. I said that her actions afterward shows that she knew. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#310
I'm very happy to stand on what I wrote in #302 to let people see how insane your argument is. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#323
I'm very happy to stand on what I wrote in #302 to let people see how insane your argument is. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#325
She has no right to be in that house. She needs to get out or pay rent. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#120
Wow. Women who have been homemakers and child rearers for years have no rights.
LawDeeDah
Oct 2014
#122
So now you compare all women to this woman who lied and committed bigamy and subjected
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#124
Two reasons. #1 As I just said to you, she subjected her children and Grayson to the consequences of
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#130
Did Grayson know of her divorce in 1994? If so, why didn't he re-marry her?
snappyturtle
Oct 2014
#289
Call me crazy, but most people don't think in terms of their eventual divorce. They just don't.
kcr
Oct 2014
#292
I'm not saying that. I think he well knew of the divorce....so he perpetuated the
snappyturtle
Oct 2014
#300
Nor do I mention stay-at-home parents. Do you get any exercise at all but jumping to conclusions?
PDJane
Oct 2014
#520
Yep, we're supposed to believe that constitutes being a deadbeat dad and justifies hating Grayson
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#338
Its an angry, bitter divorce. I quoted her line that she just "wants to live nice" --
IdaBriggs
Oct 2014
#418
He is paying child support. What is she doing with that, she should be buying food for
sabrina 1
Oct 2014
#191
You betcha she is using the timing...wisely...it could be her only leverage. nt
snappyturtle
Oct 2014
#294
Whether true or not, my estimation of Mr. & Mrs. Grayson continues to plummet. I'll admit...
Tarheel_Dem
Oct 2014
#5
I've heard about his blue wall of "Donate Now" links. I don't click on his posts for that reason.
Tarheel_Dem
Oct 2014
#47
Well, so far, each time she has tried to allege bad behavior, it turns out she was the one
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#101
It's a mess, and if nothing else, someone should be setting example for the kids.
Tarheel_Dem
Oct 2014
#115
"but this looks like bullshit to me" Then why spread it around 4 days before the midterms?
FSogol
Oct 2014
#6
Early voting in Fl. Hopefully he's already locked it up. But really disappointed he's not taking
Fla Dem
Oct 2014
#15
Maybe one day you'll find some "news" that hurts the GOP and post it right before the election.
FSogol
Oct 2014
#46
Before anyone kneejerk rushes to defend Grayson, know that we don't have the whole story.
chrisa
Oct 2014
#23
The one thing that is not in dispute is that she lied about being married and got married again to
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#59
Sure it does. It shows she lied like she lied when she said she was being abused. She is a liar.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#97
Everytime wrongdoing has been alleged on his part, it has been proved false. Not only that
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#102
Oh, and by the way all, we all already know this person lied about Grayson abusing her.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#63
LOL. Right, seeing her hitting him, that was just love pats. She dropped the DV charge after the
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#70
You can see jumpy, edited video that shows her shoving him away after the edited part
kcr
Oct 2014
#72
You're probably right. They're trying to pretend they are oh so impartial. Yeah right!
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#87
Didn't he lose a huge boodle of money in some suspicious sounding investment couple years ago?
LawDeeDah
Oct 2014
#94
24k with no expenses and crying poverty? 24k + living expenses and you are trying to cry deadbeat?
TheKentuckian
Oct 2014
#528
Yep, $36K/yr, no living expenses, lied about being abused, lied about not being married, committed
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#96
I hope he gets sympathy votes over having to extricate himself from this fraud. Yep, I do.
ancianita
Oct 2014
#111
Male privilege. When it just burns one to no end that a woman just might prevail n/t
kcr
Oct 2014
#181
why do you automatically assume she is a "good mom", maybe she was a lazy angry fool?
snooper2
Oct 2014
#269
Came back to say that his FB page has become nasty with heavy trolling. Any DU help?
ancianita
Oct 2014
#161
Sorry I am busy posting nasty comments about this dead beat on his facebook page.
dilby
Oct 2014
#163
Liberal ideas don't include lying about abuse and bigamy and putting your family through that.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#234
Divorced twice, child with the first, gladly paying to put that child through private college.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#307
sorry, dilby seems like a decent person that takes his responsibilties seriously
LawDeeDah
Oct 2014
#198
In past three decades, every time I thought I knew what was going on in a friend/colleague divorce,
hlthe2b
Oct 2014
#224
How refreshing. You usually only crawl out of your self imposed (but not unappreciated) exile to....
Hassin Bin Sober
Oct 2014
#360
Seriously. The timing of this mess plays right into fair weather Dems agendas.
ancianita
Oct 2014
#368
Lots of people disagree with Grayson's actions here,Hass. Your "crawl out of your self-imposed..
Cha
Oct 2014
#560
Mess indeed. But there are some seriously stupid comments under this OP.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Oct 2014
#230
Yep, that is a lie you cannot get past, although some here are trying real hard.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#237
As I keep telling you, your narrative doesn't work because she hid it. Here's proof...
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#245
Yes, it is evidence considering the other factors. They both went down the road of divorce knowing
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#258
No, I mean now. According to you, they know their marriage isnt valid but they went down the road of
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#260
No, according to you she told him she was still married to her first husband in 1993/1994
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#274
And that means their marriage was never valid and both know that so why are they filing for divorce?
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#281
Right, everything about this smacks of good faith from both sides. Yeah, thats the ticket.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#284
No, it doesn't. Your narrative requires magical thinking at every step. It doesn't work. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#288
No, I never take things on faith. Her own actions prove the deception. You can't get around that. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#296
A good faith marriage? First I ever heard of any such concept and suddenly it is a base requirement
TheKentuckian
Oct 2014
#562
I've taken the liberty of showing your posts to the brick wall next to me.
lumberjack_jeff
Oct 2014
#421
They shouldnt be receiving a free lunch. Her filing is or at least should be fraudulent along with
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#467
It is very infrequent. And it is completely rare to lie about it with your new partner.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#262
The evidence of the lie is there in her efforts to proceed with a divorce where no marriage exists.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#266
For one reason. Because he didn't know, and she hoped to get a big divorce settlement.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#276
Nope, in 94 she hoped nothing would ever go wrong and her lie would never be discovered. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#278
I already explained. She filed for divorce from Grayson because she thought no one would find out
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#282
It would make even more sense to do nothing at all if she wanted no one to find out
kcr
Oct 2014
#285
No, it points to deception in the original marriage and deception now to try to get money. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#287
No, it is completely impossible given the chain of events. I'll take you through it again.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#302
Yes, they are completely insane. Just from an Occam's razor perspective, its obvious that
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#318
I'm very happy to stand on what I wrote in #302 to let people see how insane your argument is. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#322
AFAIK, his lawyer must proceed with the case, using the facts of the case. Neither
Nay
Oct 2014
#393
I don't think he has to sue her for all the money back and claim he doesn't owe child support
kcr
Oct 2014
#397
I agree, and that's why I have tentatively declared him a jerk. Maintain the stupid
Nay
Oct 2014
#401
Nope, not a mind reader. The chain of events only supports one conclusion. See my #302. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#328
And even if you believe that, which I can live with, there was no marriage here because of her lie
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#334
No, there hasn't been common law in Florida since 1968 so even that doesnt work.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#339
That makes it worse, don't you understand that? Allowing that lie to go on for 29 years and
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#341
Your husband wouldn't do that? Wouldn't pay support? Why are you with him?
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#344
She is getting $3000 a month and leaving the kids in mold and rot. What is she doing with the money?
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#348
I saw $595/kid posted elsewhere. And yes, if he is paying for the place where she lives, its support
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#350
That's nice. He is still paying support and does not deserve to be called a deadbeat dad.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#355
She doesn't have to live there. There are great apartments in the area for $600/month.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#356
SHE is letting the place deteriorate. He is paying her $600/child and she has no housing expenses
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#378
How does that not go both ways? How come the working parent's choice is never a factor for some?
kcr
Oct 2014
#336
And of course, when you committed fraud to enter the relationship to begin with...
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#357
And he is paying $600/mo per child and $10,000 per month to house them. Thats plenty...
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#366
$12500 a month is underpaying? No, I don't think so. Not even a nice try. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#372
LOL, yeah, you go with trying to convince DUers that paying $12500 a month makes you deadbeat
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#376
Yep, please tell DUers that she is suffering on $12500 a month. Please proceed. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#380
No, you keep going. Tell the DUers here making minimum wage and not much more that she is suffering
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#386
You think people making minimum wage will think much of dads who leave their kids in moldy buildings
kcr
Oct 2014
#389
You think people who make minimum wage will think $12500 in support puts her in "poor me" conditions
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#420
Hyuck, hyuck, Support is exactly how a court would see it. Hyuck, hyuck. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#430
A marriage is over. But there are divorce laws. Are you suggesting they should be abolished?
kcr
Oct 2014
#411
You keep saying things I agree with, then turning them on their head.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Oct 2014
#434
he is campaigning and living in wa. she is at home raising the kids. sure, she could work and be a
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#439
give her half of the reported 17 million or whatever, and she can then take care of herself.
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#435
yes. when i was married i owned own home, to last forever, income i could live on and
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#466
lawyer cheap tricks. shady lawyer. everyone sees it. do not tie yourself to that and not expect
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#473
Nope, she willfully entered into a marriage already married and then tried to hide it. Here is
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#474
By agreeing to a divorce, both partners are 'tossing the other aside'.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Oct 2014
#410
50/50 give her her money. are you saying a couple should not split assets 50/50? nt
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#445
Again, you say something that sounds like something I could agree with, but you don't mean it.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Oct 2014
#449
Because I don't see it as 'you' (the non-SAHP) as being the one causing the pickle.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
Oct 2014
#515
Alimoney is based on what a person makes. So if one is destitue themselves they won't pay.
kcr
Oct 2014
#518
correct. and this is when a different story is told. as a matter of fact, he will probably have to
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#458
yes. absolutely. i would be throwing all that stuff in. sure. but. right now, until divorce,
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#469
That's like saying someone isn't dead until declared so. They are not married. A dead person is
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#548
grayson chose this cause it makes her cash poor, and takes away any option for herself, to get
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#456
Grayson chose this because they are not married and she lied and committed bigamy
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#472
I see, so if someone already married marries one of your kids, you will blame your kid.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#478
You really ought to see what you are defending before you level accusations. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#248
I am glad it is out in the open too, because the outcome is obvious. Alan is in the right. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#256
Sid, regardless of what any of us think of Grayson, he is going to be vindicated 100% here.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#254
He is supporting them with $600 per month each. Plus paying $10K/mo for their housing.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#275
Yes, either he is paying that much per child PLUS all the other expenses or he isnt, and if he is
randys1
Oct 2014
#396
One thing I always say. Each situation should be investigated on its own for its merits.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#359
Since he is the one running/holding public office, I would think he would want his actions to be
Tuesday Afternoon
Oct 2014
#384
I think he is completely above being suspect and no one should have any questions.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#404
Her actions do not concern me. Not my business. She is not seeking office. However, since HE is
Tuesday Afternoon
Oct 2014
#407
Please, there are folks that believe all kinds of crazy things. The fact that...
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#408
I can tell you exactly what you should do, and you can try to tell me what to do, as long as
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#415
I am only asking questions, Steven. Tell me again. I love it when you lord over me, my master.
Tuesday Afternoon
Oct 2014
#416
Tell me how Seaworld has nothing whatsoever to do with Alan's character referral, snookums.
Tuesday Afternoon
Oct 2014
#419
i am bothered that this has been allowed to become his very playground on possibly screwin his
seabeyond
Oct 2014
#395
It must be hard to be his poor soon-to-be-ex-wife with BROKEN FINGERS that can't dial a phone
IdaBriggs
Oct 2014
#413
He is not living there. She is and KNOWS there is mold. If you can't fix it yourself --
IdaBriggs
Oct 2014
#491
So you support slumlords who do not perform the necessary repairs on buildings they own.
dilby
Oct 2014
#499
Excellent point. You would think she would have an estimate to show us. It doesnt cost anything to
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#432
Actually taking the history of someone's actions into account allows you to do that, yes. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#441
I'm in the construction business. If I had a dollar for every time someone threw "mold"around as a .
Hassin Bin Sober
Nov 2014
#574
Was she asked to show an estimate? If not, it might not have occured to her to whip one out.
kcr
Oct 2014
#442
Damned right. We need Democrats, period. This is exactly the wrong time to withdraw DU support!
ancianita
Oct 2014
#477
Bad apple? You presume standards that used to be off the table, now put front and center by cowards
ancianita
Oct 2014
#510
I've contacted the Florida Attorney General's office to find out if they plan to prosecute Lolita
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#483
Good luck with that Republican's 'timely response.' I wonder if Nejame has contacted her, as well.
ancianita
Oct 2014
#484
"Christmas present." What a trifling interpretation toward someone who has made the best case
ancianita
Oct 2014
#517
Best case? I and others disagree. You can have your opinion tho, that is quite fine.
LawDeeDah
Oct 2014
#535
I've said it to dilby and I'll say it to you. Support your fellow Democrats and stop falling for
ancianita
Oct 2014
#540
I've actually gotten a couple of nice PMs from DUers thanking me for taking the time to go through
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#546
A joke about it is relevant. To ask if he's speaking for another DU'er who's more than capable
ancianita
Oct 2014
#573
Nope, but I've reached out to his folks. He was on my show last year around this time if you recall.
stevenleser
Oct 2014
#569
They are. DU history is also that Democrats support their candidates near voting time.
ancianita
Oct 2014
#567
By the same logic, are you implying we have Republican employees in this thread?
IdaBriggs
Nov 2014
#582
This might be the first time I've ever seen someone post over 100 times in a single thread...
cherokeeprogressive
Nov 2014
#585
he is not giving her 10k a month. he is giving her 2k a month. how much for a place 6 people
seabeyond
Nov 2014
#591
i do not know about hte house, the shape it is in, what is required, if she can hire,
seabeyond
Nov 2014
#607