Hetero Couple Divorce in Order to Remarry as Same-Sex Spouses

GEO CASUALAre you as confused as I am between sexual orientation and gender? Are you clear on what the difference is between transvestites, transsexuals, transgendered, or cross-dressers? Me too, I can’t figure it all out, but perhaps the story of Andrew and Kate Ratcliffe will help us out.

Andrew and Helen married when he was 22 and she was 17. Although nobody thought the marriage would survive a year, it flourished, producing three children and 28 years of married bliss ( or a reasonable facsimile of same!) However, at year twenty Andrew confessed to Helen that he wanted to be a woman. She, of course, was shocked and angry, as any spouse would be.

Andrew reported that even in his teen’s he yearned to wear women’s clothing, but upon his mother discovering female underwear in his bedroom he repressed those feelings and threw himself headlong into the macho male world of motorbikes and cars. As a young married couple in Britain, Andrew and Helen immersed themselves in the “goth” scene, where Andrew could legitimately paint his face with black eyeliner and lipstick. Once their children arrived they abandoned this pursuit and he got a crew cut, along with multiple tattoos and body piercings.

Life carried on, but along the way, Andrew ran into some old friends who he discovered were cross-dressers and his new journey began.

After he told Helen, but not their children, Andrew and Helen spent their date nights as two women on the town. Six years later he began to explore a sex-change operation, but was advised he needed to live openly as a woman for two years. It was at this point that Andrew changed his name to Kate and let their teenage children know of his situation and plans.

The new couple experienced a set-back when Andrew/Kate learned that he would have to divorce Helen before he could finalize his transition. Helen balked, couldn’t cope and they separated, but only for a time.

They reunited and Andrew/Kate had her surgery, paid for by Britain’s National Health Service. Their happy ending concluded with a white wedding, each of them wearing wedding gowns, as Kate was escorted to her bride, Helen, accompanied by her father.

Kate, still called “dad” by her three adult children, remarked that if she had known how easy it would be, she would have made the change sooner.

So, the question is “Do cross-dressers generally feel they are in the wrong body?” Apparently not. The research says that most men who cross-dress simply like to dress up in women’s clothing because it makes them feel good and right with the world. They are not gay, but rather straight men who have an intense desire to put on makeup and wear jewelry.

Social scientists don’t know how many men cross-dress because many men only disclose their behavior to their wives. In earlier times, cross-dressers were called transvestites. Cross-dressers can be like Andrew/Kate, men or women who are born male or female but feel they have the wrong body. These persons are called transsexuals and usually take hormonal treatments and have surgery to transition from their biological gender to their psychological and emotional gender. Researchers often say that it is not really a “transition” because their brains are born female, while their anatomy says they are male.

But transsexuals are not necessarily transgendered, according to most authorities on the subject. Transgendered persons are those who have any form of gender identity issue that causes them to be criticized, discriminated against, or even shunned because of their appearance, mannerisms, or voice.

Gender dysphoria, as it is referred to by psychologists and psychiatrists, was once considered a mental illness, but modern research and studies tell us that the basis for it is much more complex with biological, hormonal and neurological factors.

Thankfully we are becoming better educated and hopefully, more tolerant of people who are different from us.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Divorcee Bites the Hand that Feeds Her

109508593611101CDPWe all know that it is unwise to “bite the hand that feeds you”. What that means in divorce litigation is that it would be foolish to tip off Revenue Canada or the IRS that your spouse is cheating them, at least until you have your share of the family property and your legal relationship is severed.

Unfortunately, Janice Schacter of New York either didn’t get that advice or simply ignored it , which is more likely. Janice and her husband, Ira Schacter’s divorce was far from low-key, in part because Janice, in her anger, posted unflattering stories about her estranged husband on a variety of websites. Eventually, the New York Post and other publications picked up on the acrimonious divorce and Mr. Schacter’s reputation as a wealthy and successful partner of a major New York law firm, went “down the toilet”.

Their divorce litigation began in 2007 after each of them was arrested for assaulting the other. During the course of the proceedings Mr. Schacter filed 40 separate motions, while his wife filed 26. At the end of their divorce wars, Ira Schacter had spent about $2.3 million on legal fees, $500,000 on expert’s reports, and $460,000 on criminal and child protection investigations. Ms. Schacter owes two law firms several hundred thousand dollars, monies they are suing her for.

Part of Janice Schacter’s “defence” were regular calls to the police, who attended at her husband’s home one hundred times. He was also the subject of seven separate child protection investigations.

However, the incident that Mr. Schacter alleged led to a significant downturn in his law practice at Calwalader, Wickersham & Taft, with an accompanying decrease in the value of his law partnership interest, was an article published by the New York Post that he had purchased a $215,000 diamond engagement ring for his fiancé, but refused to pay $12,000 for his hearing impaired daughter’s hearing aids. The New York Post’s source for the story was none other than Janice Schacter!

The story caused popular website “Above the Law” to select Ira Schacter as their “Lawyer of the Month”, an accolade that was anything but
prestigious. As it turned out, by the time the story was published the hearing aids had been purchased and the issue of who should ultimately be responsible for the cost was pending before the court.

At trial, Mr. Schacter argued that his wife’s disparaging comments on the internet and in other publications led to a significant decrease in the value of his partnership interest. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Laura Drager agreed that Ms. Schacter’s conduct contributed to the decline in Mr. Schacter’s law practice, but also found that the 2008 economic crisis was integral to his firm’s 94% decrease in revenue, particularly because the firm’s business was tied to investment banks and mortgage-backed securities. During this time-frame the firm had laid off 131 associate lawyers.

However, Ira gave as good as he got as Justice Drager set out in her Reasons:

“They each shouted and interrupted court proceedings. They made inappropriate comments and gestures to each other immediately outside the courtroom.”

She also noted that after an incident between Mr. Schacter and his daughter he was arrested and ordered to enroll in mandatory anger management classes. Justice Drager also found he made vulgar and cruel comments about his wife to the children.

Mr. Schacter called witnesses who confirmed they refused to retain him as counsel due to the negative publicity. Justice Drager remarked:

“His testimony (and others) establishes to this court that the Internet postings have been injurious to the husband’s professional standing and ability to retain clients….The wife was well within her rights to publicly raise her concerns about domestic violence. However, the wife’s incessant postings and discussions about the issue went beyond any reasonable discussion of this very serious issue.”

As a result of her findings, Janice Schacter received only 17% of her husband’s partnership interest, the sum of $855,440, while he retained 83%, amounting to a value of $4.17 million.

But Ms. Schacter has not abandoned her public pulpit. An article about her case was published in the New York Law Journal this week where she took on the trial judge, writing:

“This was about protecting her (the judge’s) career. I stood up to a judge that wouldn’t enforce court orders, follow state laws, ensure my family was safe, give me legal fees, proper discovery, experts, and then created a record to prevent an appeal.”

Methinks we haven’t heard the last from Janice Schacter.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Wife/Mother Uses 357 Magnum to Settle Scores

_DSC4179 - Version 2Linda Cooney is a woman with a 357 caliber Magnum revolver and a penchant for shooting it. To date she has shot and killed her husband, James Cooney, an event that occurred 23 years ago, and most recently in 2011, her son, Kevin Cooney, who is alive but a quadriplegic.

In the early 1990′s Linda and James Cooney were involved in what is described as a “high-conflict” divorce, rife with disputes over parenting time, contempt citations, and financial issues. Mr. Cooney was a Florida probate and tax lawyer who met Linda when she worked as a legal secretary. They married in 1979 and separated in 1987.

The court ordered Mr. Cooney to pay his wife three years of alimony and when the order expired, Ms. Cooney brought an application for continued spousal support and an order to move with their two young sons to California. Mr. Cooney opposed both motions and brought a cross application to remove custody of the children from his ex-wife on account of her “psychological instability”. He relied on examples of his ex-wife’s harassing, out-of-control behavior during the divorce proceedings and allegations in a lawsuit brought against her by a former boyfriend, who was also a lawyer. That suit settled when she accused the boyfriend of giving her herpes.

On the day of his death, James Cooney arrived at his wife’s home to pick up his sons Kevin, age 10 and Christopher, age 8, for a visit. Earlier that day Mr. Cooney had obtained a court order compelling Ms. Cooney to attend for a psychiatric assessment. Ms. Cooney’s lawyer told the jury that she shot her husband in self-defence when he attacked her with an eight inch kitchen knife.

When the police asked 11-year-old Kevin Cooney whether he saw something in his father’s hands, he said he did not. But later at the jury trial, he said he saw a “shiny object”. Court pundits say that the police investigation and evidence collection was shoddy, and Linda Cooney was acquitted, without even taking the witness stand in her own defence.

James Cooney’s family could not locate his will, however, his million dollar estate did not go to Ms. Cooney, but to his sons, although she was now their sole guardian.

Fast forward to 2011 when Linda Cooney again picked up her 357 and shot her son Kevin. Her lawyers say that she shot in self-defence when her 6’7″ son, who worked as a bouncer and doorman on the Las Vegas strip, punched her repeatedly after arguing about Kevin’s choice in girlfriends. An ongoing feud about girlfriend Karina Taylor developed after Linda Cooney called Ms. Taylor a “whore, a stripper and a skank” and advised her employer she was laundering money and selling drugs, all apparently untrue.

This time around Kevin will again play an essential role in his mother’s prosecution. He is reportedly not talking to police or cooperating with the state, although in an earlier statement he confirmed the shooting was an accident.

Meanwhile Linda Cooney has been in custody since February 2014 after her conviction for assaulting Ms. Taylor when she visited Kevin Cooney in the hospital during his recovery.

James Cooney’s family was shattered by the outcome of their son’s case and will likely be incredulous if Linda Cooney escapes justice twice, however, if Kevin testifies in her favour, that is the likely result.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Victim’s Voices to be Heard in Canadian Courts

_DSC4179 - Version 2Cretins, crooks, and convicts beware… the days of focusing on your hurts, habits and hang-ups will soon be superseded by a new Bill of Rights for victims, courtesy of Bill C-32, the Conservative government’s fulfillment of its election promise to recognize the forgotten victims of your crimes.

With the passing of this new law, victims will be empowered to ask questions and get answers about their offender’s history, bail conditions, plea bargains, parole terms, and other assorted procedures that to date have forced victims to strain to look inside the halls of justice, from a vantage point obscured by savvy defence lawyers and complacent prosecutors.

Case in point: an Ontario mother’s son was stabbed eighteen times with a penknife, suffering a horrible demise. His mother counted on Canada’s justice system to punish the offender in a manner commensurate with the brutality of the crime. When she learned, after the fact, about the plea deal that saw a reduced charge with a lenient prison term she and her family felt as if their son’s death was nothing more than an inconvenience, a second victimization.

The high-profile sentencing of pedophile Graham James to a mere two-year jail term rightly astonished his victims, adult survivors of James’ sick sexual proclivities. Thankfully, the Manitoba Court of Appeal righted the wrong by increasing his sentence to five years, still not enough for a man who repeatedly victimized young hockey players.

The proposed legislation also provides that where a victim loses his or her life, surviving family members and conjugal partners will have the ability to exercise the rights that would have been available to the victim, had he or she survived. Of course, family members charged and convicted of interfamilial homicide would not enjoy these rights.

With the new law, victim impact statements must be considered by sentencing judges and the ramifications of the victim’s physical, emotional, psychological, and financial scars will play a more central role. As well, under the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights specialized bodies will be established to review complaints from victims or their families whose rights under the legislation have been breached. Financial restitution will also be available.

Quite properly, the rights granted will not be permitted to impede or interfere with police investigations or prosecutorial discretion, nor can they be used to create excessive delay. Indeed, the new Bill of Rights will not give victims of crime any status as parties or interveners in criminal law proceedings. These rights are designed to address victim’s concerns without overburdening the justice system.

Of course, not everyone is happy with the proposed law. Not surprisingly, several criminal defence lawyers oppose the bill, including Toronto’s always colourful Clayton Ruby who said the law was a “mess of porridge”, nothing more than a political ploy to sucker victims of crime.

Other naysayers include the John Howard Society, whose mandate is to advocate for offenders, particularly upon their release from prison. Meanwhile the Assembly of First Nations have complained they were not consulted, a startling proposition if it is accurate, considering the rampant victimization of aboriginal girls and women post- Willie Pickton.

While the bill may not go far enough for some, it is Canada’s first recognition that victims of crime deserve courtesy, respect, and compassion.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Terror in the Home: The Scourge of Domestic Violence

_DSC4179 - Version 2 A pair of tragic events has sadly reminded me of the scourge of domestic violence in our society. As a young woman I found myself in a relationship where the sudden, unexplained rage of my partner exploded in punches to my head, several times occurring while I was sleeping. These frightening events were always followed by tearful apologies and my departure from the relationship. However, time after time, the purplish bruises healed and I returned and forgave him, only to have the cycle repeat itself.

Sonia Cella is another survivor of domestic abuse, her secret revealed this week when her estranged husband, Andre Richard, age 44, attacked her and her 14-year-old daughter with a hammer after lighting the family home in Langley, British Columbia on fire. Thankfully, she escaped the blaze with her two children, her home destroyed.

Records show that Mr. Richard was charged with assault in 2009 and in February 2014, charges still before the court, and was subject to a restraining order, barring him from contact with his wife. I understand why the recent charges are pending, but can’t imagine why an assault in 2009 has not been adjudicated, some four years or more after the event.

The media reports that Ms. Cella’s ordeal this week was precipitated by her filing divorce documents in court, a step which all too commonly triggers threats of retaliation, and in some cases, leads to violence, even murder.

Across the country in Ottawa, a mother of five was beaten in her home on the same day as the B.C. incident, by her husband wielding a baseball bat. She fled the home and was found bleeding in her driveway, with her husband standing beside her, his weapon discarded. Shocked neighbours called 911.

Police officers located the bat and arrested Chris Hoare, age 44, for the attempted murder of his wife. As news of the attack spread, Hoare’s business colleagues couldn’t believe that the former president of the Ottawa Real Estate Board could have lashed out with such violence.

Early reports indicate the couple were having financial trouble, not unlike many middle-class families who creatively stretch their pay check under difficult circumstances.

But divorce and financial issues plague families all the time, so why did these two men respond with a hammer, a baseball bat, and arson?

Harvard law graduate Teresa Ou conducted research for a thesis titled “Are Abusive Men Different? Can We Predict Their Behavior?” She discovered that convicted abusers often seemed proud when they talked about kicking, slapping or biting their wives or girlfriends. Others completely denied being batterers, despite being arrested for assault.

She concluded that abusers were more anxious, irritable, moody, defensive and self-centred than the control group of non-abusers. They were also more stubborn, demanding, argumentative, suspicious and aggressive, characteristics that lead to a propensity for sudden outbursts of anger.

Yes, up to 50% of Canadian women over the age of 16 have suffered from some sort of domestic abuse. They are only too familiar with police intervention, covered bruises, overnights in tacky motels or crouched low in corners of their home to escape their attackers.

Even more frightening is that an estimated 362,000 Canadian children witnessed or experienced domestic violence in 2006, according to a UNICEF/United Nations report.

Is it any wonder that young children exposed to violence often become trapped in cycles of abuse themselves? As parents, relatives, and friends it is up to each one of us to do our part to educate and intervene.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Newlywed Pushes Husband Off Cliff: Sentenced to 30 Years

DSC00447_2 (1)With some of the most spectacular viewpoints in the world, Glacier National Park in northern Montana, all one million acres, is one of nature’s paradises, abounding with hundreds of lakes, flora and fauna of all description, a place where grizzly bears, mountain goats, and a vast variety of bird species make their home.

However, this haven for hiking, fishing, and swimming, was the scene of a terrible accident last year, according to newlywed Jordan Linn Graham, age 22, from Kalispell, Montana.

On July 7, 2013 she and her husband of eight days, Cody Johnson, age 25, drove 25 miles from Kalispell to the park, a visit that ended with Cody’s body at the bottom of a high cliff. But Ms. Graham hid the truth, telling her friends and relatives that he had gone on a “joyride” with friends to Washington State.

That lie quickly unravelled when Cody’s broken body was found three days later, after a friend and co-worker reported him missing. Ms. Graham’s falsehoods finally caught up with her as authorities and friends questioned her ever-changing explanations.

Remarkably, while engaged in the charade that she didn’t know what happened to him, she advised police that she drove to the park and found his body, suggesting that the spot where she located him was a favorite of his. She apparently believed that her random discovery would be considered legitimate by the police. It was not.

She eventually told the police that she and Cody went to the park to talk about her second thoughts about their marriage, but only after the police showed her videotape of her and Cody at the park.

She then admitted their conversation escalated into a heated argument where she alleged that Cody grabbed her arm and in defending herself, she pushed him from behind where he tumbled off the edge of the cliff to the ravine below.

Last December her trial began with a not-guilty plea, however, just before closing arguments and jury deliberation she plead guilty to second degree murder. In exchange, prosecutors withdrew the first degree murder charge.

Her strategy was obvious, a guilty plea to second degree murder with an explanation that the homicide was accidental, would surely lead to a lenient sentence, perhaps as little as ten years, or so her lawyer thought.

Unfortunately, it didn’t quite work out that way, as today Ms. Graham was sentenced to 30 years in prison by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, with no possibility of parole.

Justice Molloy did not mince words saying “There is only one person in this room that knows what happened, and I don’t think she’s been entirely truthful about what happened.”

The judge also said that the court was still waiting to hear an apology from Ms. Graham, but all they heard was a tearful explanation that “It was a moment of complete shock and panic…I have no other explanation.”

Is Ms. Graham an evil person or has our culture made human life so disposable and our egos so predominant that a push over a cliff is akin to swatting a fly?

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

A New Way To Divorce: Conscious Uncoupling

La Spiga 2011-03-22In the wake of actress and sometime singer, Gwyneth Paltrow, and rock musician Chris Martin’s not unexpected separation, a new way to divorce has emerged.

Referred to by Ms. Paltrow as “conscious uncoupling”, the phrase prompted much hilarity and ridicule, especially by Twitterers and the entertainment media.

Salon magazine suggested her method of divorce was another of her “clueless air-headed” ideas, calling it a “woo-woo Eastern-ish” philosophy, in keeping with most of what is endorsed by Gwyneth on her website “Goop”.

But now that I have stifled my giggles, what on earth is Ms. Paltrow talking about and why, as a divorce lawyer, have I never heard of it before? I know about collaborative divorce, sharia divorce, no-fault divorce and uncontested divorce and I know that common-law marriages never end in divorce, they just end.

The brain-child of Katherine Woodward Thomas, a psychotherapist licensed in California, she offers her course, “The Art of Conscious Completion” as an online seminar, at no charge. Her method has three goals: to release the trauma of a breakup, to reclaim your power and to reinvent your life”.

Thomas’s philosophy of marriage is that it is not “the tie that binds” and in 21st century living where ones’ longevity has far eclipsed earlier centuries, it is foolish to think that people will only have one lifetime partner. She says:

“I’m a fan of marriage but recognize that most people in their lives will have two to three longtime relationships–which means one to two breakups…”

Ms. Paltrow’s celebrity endorsement of Thomas’s teachings is apparently a big surprise to her, as she admits she has never met the Paltrow-Martin clan, but who can blame her if she capitalizes on the publicity?

But not everyone is mocking Paltrow’s message. Many others believe that, despite the new-age language, Paltrow and Martin are taking control of the process and modeling a civilized way to terminate their marriage, but not their friendship and shared parental roles. In fact, they are reportedly vacationing together now.

As for me, it is naïve to think that utilizing the psycho-babble of a catchphrase like “conscious uncoupling” can eliminate the pain of rejection, the loss of a dream, and the anguish of divorce’s most innocent victims, namely, children.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang