This case came to my attention and I'm sure many others, because it seemed so cut and dried.
A husband and wife, living a respectable life in Texas. Husband dies doing his job. Employers have a hefty payout for wife. Suddenly, an ex-wife shows up looking for her share. Ex launches into a blistering full frontal assault on widow, backed by manipulative lawyers and circumstantial law.
In spite of the problems over her apparent gender, it seems that a side effect of the case is that the law in Texas will be changed, defacto. She had her SRS out of state and her correct gender is now recognised on her birth certificate. I believe, though I might need to check this up, that they claimed to have been married out of state.
The issue seemed to rest upon the recognitions which the couple achieved, in another state. It would be unthinkable for any judicial area to refuse to recognise a marriage made legally in another. This is why I can't really understand what the problem is for gay marriage in the US. If one state recognises it, then go there, get married and return home. Your home state would surely be breaking law as well as norms, if they refused to recognise that marriage.
I for one, felt even more supportive when the ex tried to claim that various legal documents, marriage, gender change, even the date of the SRS or when the dead husband was told, were not as claimed by the widow. All legal documents can be checked and it would be preposterous to claim that while this couple had been married when the woman was still pre-operative, even though her correct gender had been recognised
The first hurdle was lost. No big deal, it was a very junior court, staffed by elected officials, so their decisions were always going to be more concerned with the next ballot than law or justice.
Now I openly confess, from my position in the land of driving on the correct side of the road, I made no secret of my eager support for this woman. I'm an insignificant ordinary citizen, with few notable qualifications and even fewer high grade social contacts. But for what it was worth, this individual, openly and respectfully supported this woman.
Then the whole case seemed to turn into a publicity machine. More about the campaign than the principal. We were told that it was all the fault of publicity seeking lawyers and Nikki would be well advised to dump them. Which she apparently did.
Then this. It is reported that Nikki, went out with some woman of casual acquaintance. Got her utterly drunk then stole her Rolex watch to immediately pawn.
The defence is that the police, the courts the pawn shop owner, the apparent victim, have all lied.
We are being expected to believe that professional police officers and a pawn shop owner, would lie, in some sort of conspiracy. I can accept that, possibly, courts that are managed by election might twist truth. I cannot for the life of me, understand how anyone could have any sort of faith in an elected court. The very basis of the function of any court is its majesty and impartiality.
I can possibly accept that the police might be corrupt. It's actually a lot more difficult than TV would have us believe, dishonesty by even a single officer will reflect upon and make the job more difficult for all officers. The next officer might be facing a guy with a gun. But it can happen. So I will reluctantly accept that two institutions have behaved dishonourably.
The victim. Yeah right.
But the pawn shop owner? Sorry, not a chance. These people are universally, hard headed, business like.
I once heard a broker, (someone very similar to a pawn shop owner), tell of a very nice and down trodden looking family, claiming to be selling the entire contents of their home, so they could afford the fare to his brother's house. The man, apparently, had had a work place accident, the woman had several kids and so on. The clincher was an apparently very pretty little girl, offering to sell her seemingly favourite doll along with everything else the family was offering.
The broker walked away from that deal as an obvious scam.
So I'm sorry Nikki, not interested.
I made the mistake here of getting involved, however insignificantly, in a US legal matter. It seems that, in any legal matter, there are no honest people in America.
