Transgendered Widow Sues for Life Insurance Proceeds

GEO#1It’s over ninety degrees in Texas but it’s going to get a lot hotter. A court battle is heating up over the estate of Thomas Araguz in Wharton, Texas. Araguz, age 30, was a fire captain in the Wharton Fire Department before he lost his life in a blaze on a local chicken farm on July 4, 2010.

Araguz’s life insurance policy of $500,000 should be distributed to his wife of two years, Nikki, and his two children from a previous marriage, however, Araguz’s parents and ex-wife are asking a court to block the distribution and anul Mr. Araguz’s marriage to Nikki Araguz, because she was born male and had sexual reassignment surgery. If that occurs, the children will receive the entire life insurance policy proceeds, presumably to be managed by the children’s sole custodial parent, Araguz’s ex-wife.

The family is relying on a case decided in Texas in 1999 where the court held that same-sex partners cannot marry and the State of Texas does not recognize gender reassignment.

Nikki was born Justin Perdue in 1975 and claims that her husband knew about her gender reassignment and supported her during reconstructive surgery. The problem is that earlier on, Mr Araguz’ ex-wife was challenging Mr. Araguz for custody of their two children and to present the best case in court, both Thomas and Nikki Araguz swore under oath that Mr. Araguz knew nothing about her previous life as a man.

Now Nikki says that they both lied to the court in order to receive a more favourable result in the custody action. Public opinion in Texas is mixed but most people believe the money should go to Nikki. I believe a fair result is the division of the proceeds equally between the two children and Mr. Araguz’ widow.

UPDATE:

In 2011 the Texas Court ruled in favour of the Araguz family and against Nikki Araguz. However, in April 2014 the appeal court reversed the decision and ordered a new trial with a stipulation that Ms. Araguz cannot be prejudiced by her change in gender.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Divorce Revenge

_DSC4179 - Version 2A Supreme Court judge in New York recently referred to a divorce litigant as “despicable”. What could possibly garner this strong reaction from an otherwise cool, calm and collected judicial official?

Just before the litigant’s wife filed for divorce, her husband decided to come clean with the tax authorities and filed amended tax returns for 2004 to 2007, disclosing an additional $1.6 million of income from his contracting business.

As a result, he owed the government $1.2 million in taxes, a sum that was coincidentally equivalent to the value of the family home. He also made it very easy for the tax authorities by attaching to his amended tax returns details of the assets he owned, the bank who held the mortgage on the family home, and other pertinent collection information.

The wife was shocked and horrified because the law in New York, as in many other jurisdictions, including British Columbia, provides that a debt incurred during the marriage for the family will be a family debt that is sharable between spouses. Unpaid income tax owed on family income is considered family debt.

The couple had been married for almost fifteen years and had four children.

The New York Supreme Court considered the husband’s evidence of the large family debt and determined that the husband had made the disclosure, not because he was being audited or investigated, but because he wished to cause as much pain as possible to his wife.

The trial judge found that his conduct was malicious and revenge was his motive.

Unfortunately, for this husband, his plan backfired, as the court held that given the egregious circumstances, he would be solely responsible for the debt.

Confucius once said, “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.”

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Canada’s Shared Parenting Bill Voted Down in Second Reading

GEO CASUALSaskatchewan Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott’s indefatigable efforts to introduce shared parenting into Canada’s Divorce Act has been an exercise in futility, its defeat yesterday an event that is no surprise to its advocates, who eventually realized that none of Canada’s political parties, except for the Green Party, would throw their support behind it. At the end, even the Conservative party, whose platform boasts shared parenting, abandoned Mr. Vellacott, in what was his third attempt to reform the present law.

The gist of Bill C-560 was the introduction of certain “presumptions’ including a presumption that allocating parenting time “equally” between parents is in the best interests of children, rebuttable only by evidence that equal parenting would not”substantially enhance” a child’s best interests.

Vellacott’s proposed law also allowed that current custody and parenting arrangements could be varied taking into account the new “equal parenting” philosophy by declaring the reformed law a “change in circumstance”, a legal requirement under the present Divorce Act to amend an existing custody order or agreement.

Critics of the bill complained that a presumption of equality does away with the tried and true “best interests of the child” test and elevates parental rights over the rights of children. They also resist the notion that parents across Canada may invoke the new law to reopen their custody orders and agreements, potentially leading to a landslide of fresh litigation.

Was the bill so flawed that its failure was inevitable? In my opinion, it was not, but it did contain a “trigger” that unsettled those who still believe shared parenting is merely a ploy of the father’s rights movement to reduce or eliminate child support payments.

One of the triggers was the use of the term “equal” which brought back the early days of the Child Support Guidelines, which provided that parents who had custody of their child 40% of the time or more, could bring an application to reduce their child support payments, based on the reasonable proposition that their own costs in caring for their child were increased and thus, their counterpart parent’s costs reduced.

Judges became arbiters of whether 40% included school hours; hours when the children slept; and other mathematical conundrums raised by parents seeking to assert or deny the 40% rule. Fear that these arguments would be resurrected cannot be understated, however, lawyers and litigants soon learned that few judges were prepared to accede to child support reduction applications.

But more importantly in the context of shared parenting, a fully involved parent is not necessarily a parent who can or should insist on perfect equality, in fact in many of the jurisdictions that have implemented shared parenting, lawyers, parents, and legislators have recognized that precise equality is not achievable, typically because parents’ and children’s schedules are incapable of being sliced in half.

What ought to be paramount is a cultural switch that emphasizes that children need both parents in their lives, and that, in and of itself, is in a child’s best interests, despite society’s increasingly male-absent procreation and child-rearing agendas. Outdated research that celebrates maternal preferences is no longer valid, but try telling that to Canada’s lawmakers.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Lawyers Behaving Badly

49afd8240a58bf0fb97d4a86105572c1I’ve been told that sociopaths have three favorite occupations: practicing law, running large companies/CEO’s or holding government office/politicians! It’s a joke, but I’m sure more than a few people would agree. This week two “bad” lawyer articles came to my attention, thus my title “Lawyers Behaving Badly”.

The first is Fort Wayne Indiana lawyer James Allen Hanson, age 41, who in a fit of pique penned a Facebook message to the ex- husband of his matrimonial client, Nachole Mevis. Hanson was acting for her in respect of her divorce and in regards to an assault charge she faced where her former husband was the victim. It’s not clear why Mr. Hanson was so riled up, although media reports indicate his client was in jail for domestic assault. The message he sent read:

“You pissed off the wrong attorney. You want to beat up women and then play games with the legal system…well then you will get exactly what you deserve. After I get Nachole out of jail. I’m going to gather all the relevant evidence and then I’m going to anal rape you so hard your teeth come loose. I tried working with you with respect. Now I’m going to treat you like the pond scum you are. Watch your ass you little (expletive). I’ve got you in my sights now.”

Ms. Mevis’ former spouse, Chad Vice, contacted the police and attorney Jim Hanson was arrested and charged with felony intimidation, admitting that he sent the message to Mr. Vice while protesting that Mr. Vice gave as good as he got.

Meanwhile in Philadelphia Pennsylvania another lawyer came off the rails. Francis Malofiy brought a copyright infringement lawsuit against pop star, Usher, and nineteen other defendants in regards to Usher’s song, “Bad Girl”. In the course of representing his client, Dan Marino, Mr. Malofiy was described by trial judge Paul S. Diamond as “a paradigm of bad faith and intentional misconduct”, an unflattering portrait that was close to an understatement.

In a pretrial discovery/deposition of a certain witness, attorney Malofiy was deliberately abusive and obstructionist, making lengthy, baseless objections. He was also rude and sexist. In one exchange with defendant’s counsel he said “Don’t be a girl about this..” Opposing counsel responded “I would appreciate you not referring to me as a girl, which you have done repeatedly on the record and off the record.”

He continued to volley insulting and intimidating comments including:

“Counsel you’re defending thieves and you’re acting like somebody who should be hanging out with them at this point”

“You coached him to hell and the Judge came out and slammed you. Slammed you!”

“You’re like a little kid with your little mouth”

During one deposition Mr. Malofiy’s behavior prompted this response from the deponent:

“And for the record I’d like to say that I feel menaced and threatened by Mr. Malifiy and his continual outbursts and seemingly anger-driven conduct today.”

In a written submission to the court Mr. Malofiy addressed his argument “Response in Opposition Re: Joint Motion for Sanctions by Moving Defendants Who are Cry Babies.” The content of the argument included such brilliant points as “this is hogwash and claptrap”; “defence counsel are lying through their teeth”; “defence counsel is bizarre, off-kilter, absurd and professional complainers”.

Even worse than Malofiy’s abusive tongue, however, was his conduct in misleading an unrepresented defendant to believe he was merely a witness and was not being sued, behavior which drew the court’s most rigorous criticism. Mr. Malofiy defended himself by saying that he was a relatively unexperienced lawyer who needed a mentor to help him, protestations that were met with disdain from the court, who sanctioned him, leaving more stringent discipline, including disbarment, to be determined.

Two more reasons why lawyers are often branded as bullies!

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Jersey Boy Frankie Valli Wins in Divorce Court

DSC00280How much do we love Frankie Valli? Tons! From Big Girls Don’t Cry to Walk Like a Man to Ragdoll…he’s the boss! And yes, I’ve seen the musical Jersey Boys and will probably see it again.

This week California’s Supreme Court gave Mr. Valli, who the San Jose Mercury News says is 80 years old (shock and awe!) a gift in the form of a reversal of an appeal court decision that said he was not entitled to 50 per cent of a $3.75 million life insurance policy purchased just before he separated from his third wife, Randy Valli in 2003.
California is a community property state which means that assets acquired during a marriage are split equally upon marriage breakdown. In this case Mr. Valli used family monies to purchase the policy on his life, but he made his wife the owner of the policy, as well as the beneficiary. He testified that he expected his wife to divvy up the insurance proceeds among his three children upon his death.

But Frankie didn’t die, he got divorced. His wife took the position that the policy and its cash value, about $375,000 at the date of separation, belonged to her and the lower court agreed.

It took seven judges of California’s highest court to right the wrong. As the Mercury News reports many thought that Valli’s ex-wife was being particularly greedy since it was reported that he pays her $500,000 a month in spousal support. Yes, you read that correctly! (But my research says that FV makes about $500,000 a month so the San Jose paper must have that wrong)

This living legend still performs, he’ll be headlining the July 4, 2014 Celebration in Washington, DC, and the movie “Jersey Boys” is due for release on June 20, 2014. Clint Eastwood is the director.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Celebrity Jason Patric Gives Voice to Fathers

10950859361151CDPSadly, many fathers will suffer through Father’s Day with a heavy heart, fathers who have lost contact with their children, many through no fault of their own. These fathers are the forgotten ones; who have no voice and no one to listen to them.

Actor Jason Patric is not one of those fathers. As the son of Pulitzer Prize and Tony award-winning playwright/actor Jason Miller and mother, Linda Gleason, yes, Jackie Gleason’s daughter, his journey is no less heart-breaking.

Mr. Patric appears to have led a charmed life, starring on Broadway and in movies and television, even turning down the lead role in The Firm, a part that Tom Cruise picked up. He has dated Hollywood’s loveliest including Robin Wright (dazzling as Claire Underwood on “House of Cards”), model Christy Turlington, and the always brilliant Julia Roberts.

Then he met Danielle Schreiber. They stayed together for almost ten years, with several breaks in between. Along the way they had a son, Gus, who was conceived by in vitro fertilization. At the time, he and Danielle were separated and he saw no need to ensure that Gus’ birth registration listed him as “father”. But Jason was Gus’ biological and psychological father since the couple reconnected and lived together for almost two years after Gus’ birth.

So what went wrong? Their relationship ended, and apparently Ms. Schreiber took the view that Mr. Patric was nothing more than a sperm donor, forgetting that he and she played mom and dad for two years before the final curtain fell.

Unfortunately, in February 2013 a California judge saw it the same way Ms. Schreiber did and refused to allow Mr. Patric to make his case for fatherhood and pursue an ongoing relationship with his son.

But yesterday everything changed when the California Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision, opening the door for Mr. Patric to return to Court to prove his parental relationship and argue that his son’s rights have been thwarted by a bitter mother and a wrong-headed judge.

In August 2013 after Mr. Patric’s defeat in the lower court, a Senate bill was presented to the California Legislature which would amend the law in California to provide that where a sperm donor can show a parental relationship with his child, the current law that says sperm donors are not fathers, will not apply.

Mr. Patric and his counsel are confident that the Court of Appeal ruling will give him the chance he deserves to show his true relationship with Gus via photos, videos and cogent evidence that he is more than a donor, he is Gus’ father.

Congratulations Mr. Patric!

To learn more visit standupforgus.com

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

5 Big Lies About Shared Parenting

_DSC4179 - Version 2Canada’s MP’s will continue their debate on Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott’ s private member’s bill C-560 on shared parenting on May 27, 2014, with a vote expected to follow days later.

Recent polls from Nanos confirm that 80% of Canadians want a change in the way custodial decisions are made and the chaos in our family courts has united parents, lawyers, and judges to insist on real reforms to eliminate the soul-destroying financial and emotional devastation wreaking havoc among Canadian families who dare step a foot into the litigation pond.

So the passage of the bill should be a fait accompli, nest-ce pas? Not so fast….

It appears that both Liberals and New Democrats have changed their views on shared parenting since the 1998 Joint House of Commons/Senate Report entitled “For the Sake of the Children”, a much-heralded report commissioned during Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s tenure, where politicians of all stripes recommended that shared parenting be implemented to enable divorced parents and their children to maintain a close and continuous relationship after marriage breakdown.

That was then and this is now, and today the Conservatives alone stand to support an initiative whose time is well over due. You ask, if Canadians support shared parenting why wouldn’t their political leaders follow suit?

That puzzles me too because the psychological literature in the 1990’s regarding custody, access, and parenting was rife with findings that favoured a maternal preference, while today those old wives’ tales and custody myths have been demolished by cutting-edge, international research, such as American Dr. Richard Warshak’s 2014 treatise on shared parenting that has garnered the written support of another hundred experts in the field.

So what kool-aid are they drinking? It appears that many of the political naysayers are guzzling the views of the Canadian Bar Association, who purport to represent the views of Canada’s lawyers, who I say, have got it wrong. So what is the truth about shared parenting?

1. Shared Parenting Means Giving Up the Best Interests of the Child Test. NOT TRUE

-A rebuttable presumption of shared parenting does not abandon an examination of what is in a child’s best interests, it merely codifies the position that both parents, if fit, have a shared responsibility to parent their child.

2. Shared Parenting Focuses on Parental Rights Rather Than Children’s Rights. NOT TRUE

- Shared parenting permits children to have a real relationship with each parent, which is their right and a parent’s obligation.

3. Shared Parenting is Strictly a Men’s Rights Issue. NOT TRUE

-While men have been the primary victims of our custody laws, women are also affected as parents, grandparents, partners of parents and supporters of a fair and just system of family law. An American- based group “Leading Women for Shared Parenting” with international membership, voices women’s concerns about outdated custody assumptions.

4. Shared Parenting is Not What Children Want, They Want One Home. NOT TRUE

-Renowned American psychologist and parenting expert, Dr. Joan Kelly, dismisses the myth that kids want to live with one parent and highlights the negative consequences of one-parent homes.

5. Shared Parenting Only Works for Older Children and Teens. NOT TRUE

-Dr. Warshak’s research shows that the misguided notion that children under six-years-old are too young to have overnights with both parents has done a frightening disservice to children and parents alike.

If we had implemented the recommendations from 1998, Canada could have led the way down a path that is being adopted by multiple countries and many jurisdictions in the United States. Will we allow our lawmakers to miss the boat a second time? I hope not.

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