PART 2: ‘you went into this with eyes wide open’ – OR DID I? March 5, 2011
Filed under: Barbara Speaks,cyber,gridney,online affair,prostitutes,sex addict,truth,yidwithlid — Hester Prynne @ 2:01 am
Tags: accusations, false, gridney, john, julie moya, julienyc, online affair, prostitutes, sex addict, smear campaign, yidwithlid
To give those who read this and don’t know me, some insight.
Here are tidbits (unedited) from my separation/ divorce documentation to ESTABLISH MY STATE OF MIND, BODY & MY EMOTIONAL STATE at the time YWL “looked me up” and coerced & seduced me into an inappropriate relationship.
Again, YOU decide… eyes wide open? was I in any state of mind to make a good decision about my involvement with YWL? Did I even know what day it was?
Expensive Divorce Pictures, Images and Photos
Barbara XXXX, PLAINTIFF
v.
XXXXXX XXXX (my ex-husband), DEFENDANT
GROUNDS
(1) The cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff by the defendant such that the conduct of the defendant so endangers the physical or mental well being of the plaintiff as renders it unsafe or improper for the plaintiff to cohabit with the defendant.
- defendant regularly verbally abused plaintiff, calling her names and using sarcastic put downs; both prior to the births of and in front of their children
XXXX XXX, who lived near them from 1990 to 2003 stated for the record that Defendant called Plaintiff “lazy,” “stupid,” “a moron,” “an idiot,” and that this escalated in 1995 when the plaintiff became disabled.
- XXXX XXX and XXXX XXXX (friends and neighbors of Mr. and Mrs. XXXX) also stated that Defendant was physically cruel to Plaintiff, especially after she became disabled.
This included: slapping, pushing and throwing objects at her. Not helping her to the bathroom when she was severely ill, in fact stepping over her. Pulling covers off the bed. Not helping and in fact, being severely verbally abusive if Plaintiff became sick to her stomach. Shoving her into her car door and kicking her. Making plaintiff sleep on the floor or couch when he was angry; knowing plaintiff has scoliosis and severe physical pain diagnoses. This was seen and heard by both witnesses.
- From March 2004 – September 2004, Defendant made unauthorized use of Plaintiff’s automobile while she was unable to leave the home or hospitalized. Possible use of automobile to stalk or harrass Plaintiff’s friends and acquaintances.
- Defendant told minor children to ask Plaintiff what certain graphic sex acts entailed. Defendant told minor children to tell Plaintiff she was a “nyphomaniac.” Defendant reprimanded by Court for this treatment of minor children.
- Defendant filed against Plaintiff during these divorce proceedings alleging “Munchausen’s by Proxy” for giving minor child, XXX asthma medication as prescribed by her pediatrician. Additionally, for treating other minor child, XXX with antihistamines or fever reducing medications when necessary. Defendant further claimed that Munchausen’s by Proxy was an outcropping of Plaintiff’s own disability; which in his statement he called, “nothing more than an attempt at getting attention.” Allegation found to be unfounded and in fact, slanderous in nature. (Plaintiff is legally disabled, objective laboratory tests on file)
- Defendant systematically derided Plaintiff’s professional choices and made appointments so that she could not make auditions. Defendant refused to pass on phone messages often unplugging the phone so Plaintiff could not get calls.
- Defendant would ask Plaintiff for advice on legal matters (Plaintiff was a paralegal) and to help him with certain paperwork. Once these were done, Defendant immediately resumed the verbal abuse. There was never any acknowledgment of Plaintiff’s help.
- Defendant alleged systematically ended friendships Plaintiff had by making the ‘friend’ uncomfortable or telling them, away from Plaintiff, they were no longer welcome at their home or to call Plaintiff. This resulted in Defendant allegedly isolating Plaintiff.
- Witnesses verify that Defendant made it very difficult, either by word or deed, for Plaintiff to leave the home without him or his express permission.
- Defendant refused to allow Plaintiff to hire help for the home or with minor children (when infants). Plaintiff was physically ill and was diagnosed with Post Partum Depression which lasted close to 13 months. Plaintiff is unable to work or clean the home on a daily basis due to severe chronic pain.
- Plaintiff’s last employment (1992-1995) was an evening shift to make extra money as a paralegal/ document processor with SXXXX & CXXXX. Defendant asserts Plaintiff took job at that hour so “she didn’t have to be with me.” Assertion unfounded.
- At one time Plaintiff was primary breadwinner and paid all bills. Defendant denies. Past tax filings validate Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff did all necessary appointments and paperwork to obtain U.S. Green Card for Defendant. Validated.
- Defendant, since 1991 (6 years into marriage) started to withdraw physical relations as a means to punish or manipulate Plaintiff. Assertion by Plaintiff. Subject to forensic therapist exam.
Plaintiff was an Infertility Patient (due to PCOS) since 1985 and sexual relations were often scheduled. Defendant admits he used this schedule to avoid spontaneous relations at that time and still maintain semblance of “marriage.”
(example: in 1996, when Plaintiff was in partial remission, it was found she was extremely allergic to a variety of substances and smells, including spearmint. Some could cause Plaintiff anaphylatic shock. Her Doctor, XXX XXXXXX, explained this in person and in writing to Defendant. Less than 2 weeks later, Defendant bought Spearmint flavored and smelling toothpaste, mouthwash and foot lotion. Still uses to this day.)
- Plaintiff attempted two (2) times get Defendant psychological help and at least once (1) to get marital counseling. All times Defendant left after second or third session. Subpeonaed statements all concur Defendant would not stay unless ‘all marital problems were blamed on Plaintiff.’
Plaintiff felt marriage counseling was another attempt to “control” her. Defendant cancelled counseling when subject turned to his behaviors prior to 2002. Plaintiff filed complaint with APA against marriage counselor (Bxxxx Hxxxx) in January 2003. (on file)
- Defendant asserts that Plaintiff “put a curse on him” to “get cancer.” Defendant’s proof of this is that he got skin cancer on his right leg. (Defendant belongs to a running club and runs marathons, often in summer. Defendant also rides bicycle to job in WTC area, NYC) Assertion not admissible.
- Defendant made fun of any career efforts Plaintiff made. In 2001-2002 the minor children were attending XXXX XXXX School. Principal (subpeonaed) reported that Plaintiff was very active Board Member at school and made large contributions of time and work to School. Principal XXXX XXXX says Plaintiff was well liked and highly ethical. Nonetheless, Defendant made a number of derisive comments about Plaintiff to Principal.
- Defendant and Plaintiff’s mother, XXX XXXX, would participate in what Plaintiff called “bash sessions” against her. Confirmed by Plaintiff’s father, brother and sister in law. Plaintiff’s mother had diagnosed mental illness as well as congential, progressive heart disease.
- Defendant’s mother, XXX XXXX, a Canadian citizen, stalked Plaintiff and Defendant directly after their marriage for a period of 3 months. On file with 114th Precinct, Queens, New York.
Defendant’s mother made slanderous and defamatory comments about Plaintiff’s family to Defendant, which he believes to date. Comments unfounded.
- Since Plaintiff’s conversion to Judaism, Defendant makes hurtful and antisemitic comments to Plaintiff in front of family, friends and neighbors. Plaintiff has agreed, in writing, to bring children up in the Christian faith. Defendant will not allow Plaintiff to take children to her Temple. Also, Defendant frequently “forgets” to get home in ample time for Plaintiff to attend Shabbos services on Fridays, which involves Defendant caring for minor children when Plaintiff goes out.
- Defendant would frequently leave Plaintiff for days alone, with infant children, while she was suffering from Post Partum Depression and bleeding out. Dr. XXXX and Dr. XXXX tried a number of times to hospitalize her only to receive angry calls from Defendant that Plaintiff ‘needed to learn her lesson an be a mother’ and ‘there was nothing wrong with’ Plaintiff. Dr. XXXX and Dr. XXXX have submitted statements expressing their ongoing concern for the physical and mental well-being of Plaintiff in this situation.
- Defendant would frequently follow Plaintiff or have her followed since her disability in 1995, when she went to doctor appointments or on the occasions she was well enough to be with friends.
- Defendant kicked in the door of Plaintiff’s home in August 2003 since she would not give him a key. Domestic Violence call to 115th Precinct confirmed. No action taken due to Defendant being part owner of home. Repairs in the amount of $464. paid by Plaintiff.
Defendant has demanded key and requested that the Court obtain a key. Court upholds Plaintiff decision for no key and asks a locked door be place in the entryway between their apartments. Defendant appealing.
- Plaintiff slept on the floor of her children’s rooms at the Crescent Street and subsequent XXXXX Street residence.
At shared Crescent Street residence, Plaintiff was not allowed in the marital bed after 1998 because Defendant felt that she “sweat too much” and he “needed to sleep to go to work” and could not be “getting up” with the children. No sexual contact since 1997.
At XXXXX Street residence, Plaintiff slept on the floor of minor child, XXXX’s room and was frequently ‘kicked’ awake by Defendant. This was observed by the minor children.
- Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has stolen monies from him. No evidence to support this allegation.
- Defendant told their children that [YWL] was ‘going to be their new daddy’. Their minor children asked Plaintiff who [YWL] was. Plaintiff stated in 2 depositions (2003 and 2005) that [YWL] is married and she had ‘no intention of breaking up’ his marriage.
Instant message conversations presented to attorneys for both by the defendant show that Plaintiff actually tried to recommend marriage counseling and other means of remedy for marital issues to [YWL], proving the opposite of the Defendant’s assertions. Children are in therapy now – taken by Plaintiff.
- Defendant scheduled marital counseling after discovery of the emotional affair between Plaintiff and [YWL] September 2002. Ended after 8 sessions when Plaintiff would not give up private information about [YWL] to Defendant.
- Defendant called Plaintiff [YWL]‘s “shiska -jezebel-” and [YWL]‘s “-jezebel-” in front of their children and outside parties, from September 2002 forward.
Defendant states he already has [YWL's] home and work addresses and phone numbers, obtained from keylogging efforts in 2002. Plaintiff has requested Defendant be restrained from contacting YWL and his family in order to not cause the latter’s family further harm.
- After keylogging Plaintiff’s computer conversations & emails, Defendant read ‘cyber-sexual’ conversations between Plaintiff and [YWL] aloud to minor children.
Above all show an ongoing and constituent as well as escalating pattern of mental and emotional cruelty.
(2) The constructive abandonment of the plaintiff by the defendant for a period of one or more years.
Last marital relations was April, 1997. Since that time Defendant has not initiated and has in fact, refused marital relations. Plaintiff did make herself available to Defendant until June 2003 when they moved to separate apartments in a shared home. Defendant blames Plaintiff. Plaintif validated by forensic psychological exam.
(3) The commission of an act of adultery.
a) Plaintiff asserts that she has not had physical relations with anyone but Defendant since their marriage in 198X. Private investigator, XXX XXXX, hired by Defendant was unable to find any evidence of a physical relationship with anyone other than Defendant since the time of their marriage.
b) Plaintiff admits to an emotional affair online with one: [YWL] aka ‘gridney’ starting in April 2002. Plaintiff knew [YWL] at XXXXX State University, New York from 1975-1977 and had physical relations with him at that time approximately 3-4 times. Plaintiff states that from 1975-1977 there was only a very ‘perfunctory’ relationship.
Defendant admits to keylogging computer prior to and during this “emotional affair.”
(Defendant downloaded emails, chats and other information to his employer’s computer servers – which are overseen by the U.S. Department of Justice. Defendant has been reprimanded for so doing and his employer has been notified.)
Forensic therapists reports requested by Defendant on both parties concur that Plaintiff was victim of ongoing verbal and emotional cruelty resulting in possible ‘Stockholm Syndrome’, ‘Battered Woman Syndrome and low self-esteem, as well as possibly contributing to her deteriorating physical state. Plaintiff is receiving ongoing psychological and pharmaceutical therapy on her own by her own decision. Minor children are in therapy due to decision by the Plaintiff.
Defendant’s mental state suggests, after forensic exam to possible Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Undifferentiated Neurosis and Sexual Anorexia. Defendant disagrees and refuses therapy unless court ordered at a later date. Plaintiff has asked for no Anger Management for Defendant but would like no less than 18 months of Batterer Counseling for Defendant.
Defendant has demanded that Plaintiff go also.
The court sees no need for additional counseling for Plaintiff at this time and takes advisement that forensic exam of Plaintiff was a positive one. That Plaintiff is coping as can be expected and that Plaintiff has made her own decision to see professional help and received a favorable report from her therapist.
Defendant must also pay for all counseling for minor children as well as Plaintiff’s.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Passive Door Pictures, Images and Photos
DEFENDANT REQUEST FOR COUNTERSUIT
against:
[YWL] (address & phone redacted)
ALLEGATION OF ALIENATION OF AFFECTION
Defendant (my ex-husband) alleges:
That [YWL] embarked upon an intentional pattern of conduct over a prolonged period of time which was intended for the sole purpose of seducing Plaintiff, eroding the mental health of Plaintiff and destroying her marriage to Defendant.
The Defendant was required to prove to the court that he or she was, indeed, emotionally or mentally damaged and must have sought and received treatment from the medical community (family physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists) for treatment to the symptoms of the damages caused to that person. Defendant did not do so.
The symptoms of such mental or emotional suffering by Defendant had to be explained to the court (loss of weight, sleep, appetite, etc.). Defendant offered only one (1) marital counseling report which shows no physical or emotional distress on Defendant’s part.
Plaintiff requested that Defendant not contact [YWL], his spouse or his employers in September 2002, so as to cause no further harm to YWL‘s spouse or his minor children. Court upholds request at this time. Defendant requests appeal.
Generally, testimony was introduced as to what type of medication was prescribed to remedy the symptoms complained of by Defendant and then testimony would then be offered regarding how said symptoms disappeared or became greatly reduced once the parties separated. Plaintiff is only one of the persons in this action on medication for clinical and chemical depression and the only one receiving, of her own free will, therapy as well.
Forensic review of ‘instant message’ documentation provided by Defendant do show a relationship as well as a pattern of seductive and manipulative behaviors by [YWL] towards Plaintiff but find no direct harm to Defendant as alleged.
Marital erosion and constructive abandonment by Defendant had ocurred prior to April 2002 and the divorce action was not a direct result of this ‘online affair’ but a result of of cruel escalating actions by Defendant against Plaintiff going back to 1990.
Therefore court finds Defendants request for suit against [YWL] to obtain damages unfounded. Defendant has failed to show that he gave the Plaintiff no cause or provocation for the latter’s behavior.
The alleviation of some stressors in the XXX marriage was accomplished by the Plaintiff and Defendant moving to individual homes. In fact, it was found that Defendant, not Plaintiff, engaged in stress-inducing behavior that distanced and destroyed marital trust by:
Starting a lot of unnecessary arguments in the house started by Defendant;
Yelling, screaming, or often displaying rage in the household by Defendant;
Accusing the Plaintiff of being worthless or otherwise minimizing her importance in the household by Defendant;
Constantly criticizing the Plaintiff’s abilities as a homemaker, breadwinner, parent, spouse by Defendant;
Coming and going from the household at odd hours without explaining Defendant’s whereabouts;
Refusal or inability to communicate in a reasonable fashion with the Plaintiff and refusal to see that as a problem by Defendant.
Generally, it is explained to the court that the victim spouse (in this case Defendant) has confronted the other spouse in a positive and constructive fashion and has asked the wrongdoer spouse (in this case Plaintiff) to attempt to seek counseling or otherwise correct his or her behavior and that these requests were refused by word or by deed.
In this case, it was the exact opposite. The Plaintiff, who had the “emotional affair” confronted the Defendant, who is now alleging “alienation.” It was the Defendant who had alienated Plaintiff, in fact and deed, well before the “affair.” To bring a successful Alienation of Affection claim, the party suing (in this case, Defendant) must prove four elements:
Conduct that is intentional or reckless
Conduct that is extreme and outrageous
The wrongful conduct caused the emotional distress
Severe emotional distress
Defendant has not met this burden of prove and in fact, proved the opposite. Plaintiff’s counsel alleges that Defendant’s behavior possibly drove Plaintiff to a “sympathetic” outside person and that outside person [YWL] may have manipulated and coerced a vulnerable Plaintiff into an inappropriate, albeit non-physical relationship. Plaintiff’s counsel used Instant Messenger conversation excerpts (obtained illegally by Plaintiff) to illustrate.
Counsel however suggests and asks Court to make note that Plaintiff has possible action again [YWL] for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and includes Plaintiff’s visit to NYPD Computer Crimes Squad, 1 Police Plaza, NY, NY on March 25, 2004 in this suggestion. Plaintiff has declined to legal action at this time.
________________________
Despite the inner turmoil I have dealt with for the last 6 years, I have CONTINUED to protect YWL’s family (against all legal & personal advice) because I do believe 2 wrongs do NOT make a right.
“It was the losing of myself that caused me the most anguish. I could feel it, the brainwashing, like a vampire, and he claimed he didn’t know anything was wrong, didn’t know what I meant when I said I was sad all the time and couldn’t trust a word he said.”
- ECHO NO LONGER by Mary Borg Cunen
My Nana was right: NO GOOD DEEDS GO UNPUNISHED
So do still think my eyes were “wide open” when I was manipulatied into that situation with someone as morally insane as YWL?
Your call.
