Nikki Araguz: She Says E-Mails Prove Husband Knew She Was Born A Man

[Shana A]

Nikki Araguz: She Says E-Mails Prove Husband Knew She Was Born A Man
By Craig Malisow, Mon., Aug. 2 2010 @ 2:27PM

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/08/nikki_araguz_e-mails.php

​The fallen Wharton firefighter whose transgender widow is at the center of a nasty probate lawsuit knew about his wife's sexual reassignment surgery as early as October 2008, two months after their wedding, according to an e-mail exchange released today by his wife.

Hair Balls has also obtained another e-mail that contains the itinerary of Nikki Araguz's trip to Trinidad, Colorado.

That e-mail (whose veracity we cannot vouch for) is dated October 4, 2008, and contains the details of Araguz's trip to Trinidad, Colorado, for the procedure. Thomas Araguz is listed as a recipient.

---------

Widow offers 'proof' husband knew history
E-mail, witness are presented to back up claim he was aware of her gender surgery
By PEGGY O'HARE and MATTHEW WOOLBRIGHT
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Aug. 3, 2010, 12:38AM

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7136503.html

Attorneys for the widow of a Wharton firefighter killed in the line of duty presented Monday what they called proof that the fallen hero knew of his wife's gender history.

The evidence they presented — including an e-mail exchange and a witness statement - proves, they said, that the late Wharton fire captain Thomas Araguz III knew that his wife, Nikki Araguz, had undergone gender reassignment surgery after being declared a boy on her birth certificate and after being diagnosed with a genetic disorder that kept her from growing into a fully developed man.

------------

Transgender Widow: E-mail Proves Husband Knew

Updated: Monday, 02 Aug 2010, 10:06 PM CDT
Published : Monday, 02 Aug 2010, 10:06 PM CDT

      SALLY MACDONALD
      Reporter

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/100802-transgender-widow-e-mail-proves-husband-knew

Now she's offering what she calls proof her husband knew she was born a man soon after they met in church in 2007.

It's a supposed email exchange between the couple on the day Nikki had her sex change operation in Colorado.

[Jillary Woolen Xσx]

The fact that they are still trying to make this poor woman prove something about her relationship with her Husband is absolutely ridiculous.
Why the Hell would the mother know something her husband didnt???
That Mother should be ashamed of herself.

[tekla]

If you get between people and money, you're always in great danger.

[Suzy]

FWIW, this case hits extremely close to home for me.  The amazing thing is that all of the local news stations are covering this, and all of them are coming across as very sympathetic to Nikki.  Everyone is having their TG awareness raised big time.  The other side is looking more and more like the money grubbing bigots they are with every statement they make.  Nikki was quite well known in the community here and it is inconceivable that he did not know.  Phyllis Frye and Cristan Williams are doing an incredible job supporting Nikki.  I hope to be at the courthouse next time there is a hearing.  Many of the local experts are projecting that this case has a good chance to making it to the supreme court.  So I hope people follow this with great interest.  Of course, if it does, there will likely be no money left to take care of the children.  I thought this was all about making sure the money would be there to take care of the kids.  Naive me, I guess.

[spacial]

That occured to me as well.

I have only second hand knowledge of the legal systems in the US. But I have heard of cases where most of the money at issue was swallowed up in lawyers fees.

That child actor's parents for example, Caulkin I think he was.

But for Nikki, this is about her self respect. My understanding is that they are trying to take everything away from her, including her own possessions and earning. Moreover, they are attempting to leave her isolated and cast out.

We can only hope that the courts there are as responsive to common sense as Kirsti says the population is.
Post Merge: August 03, 2010, 05:19:13 PM
Another point. In England, costs, which are all fees, can be awarded, (ie billed to) the looser in such a case.

Does this not happen in the US?

[Suzy]

Perhaps a lawyer can answer that question.  I do know that in civil cases often legal fees are included in the amount sued for.  But I have yet to see mention of anything like that.

[tekla]

I have only second hand knowledge of the legal systems in the US.

So, basically, you don't have any real knowledge at all do you?

[Muffin]

tekla don't you get bored of being a jerk??? ever???

hhmmm..

I was thinking about this this morning and thought that when she wins she should turn around and just take that bitch heather and the family to the cleaners ... absolutely everything and then custody of the children if she hasn't already. They don't sound like worthy parents.
A good taste of their own medicine. I don't usually get so riled up over things like this but I so want to see them pay for this. BIG time.

[Keroppi]

Another point. In England, costs, which are all fees, can be awarded, (ie billed to) the looser in such a case.

Even in English law, not all cost get awarded depends on the type / specific of the case. For example, part of the reason libel shopping is popular is because even if the defendant win outright, only a maximum of either 50% or 75% are awarded (I can't remember the actual %).

[glendagladwitch]

I think the difficult part in this case is the state's rights issue, and their ability to determine the legal sex of people born there, versus present in their jurisdiction.  If the federal court were to rule that Texas can't say that Nikki is a man becasue they have to give full faith and credit to California's birth certificate that says she is female, and that was issued long before the marriage occurred, then the opposite would also obtain.  Specifically, a person born in a state that refused to legalize their transition to the opposite sex would then not be recognizable as female in any state. 

But if the feds let Texas choose to decide who is male or female in its borders, regardless of what is on their out of state issued birth certificate, or was on it at birth even, or anything about how they were born, then Texas can even refuse to recognize that people are female for purposes of marriage in any case, even if they were born female and never transitioned.  Imagine if Texas tried to say that all women, even natal women, born outside of Texas are male for purposes of marriage.  That's obviously too much discretion for a state to have.

[Calistine]

Wow.  That must have been a difficult delivery, giving birth to a full grown man.   

When will people ever stop with that BS?

I was NEVER born a man.  I was born with boy parts and assigned the sex of male.
At best one might say I was born a boy but only physically.

I was never a boy in my heart or mind and I've damn sure never been a man.

Sheesh!   

I agree. I can understand why they would say born a boy because you are declared a boy or girl after birth. But NOONE is born a man. You become one.

[TheAetherealMeadow]

I totally agree. I think "assigned male at birth" is a more appropriate way of phrasing it.

[Autumn]

I think the difficult part in this case is the state's rights issue, and their ability to determine the legal sex of people born there, versus present in their jurisdiction.  If the federal court were to rule that Texas can't say that Nikki is a man becasue they have to give full faith and credit to California's birth certificate that says she is female, and that was issued long before the marriage occurred, then the opposite would also obtain.  Specifically, a person born in a state that refused to legalize their transition to the opposite sex would then not be recognizable as female in any state. 

But if the feds let Texas choose to decide who is male or female in its borders, regardless of what is on their out of state issued birth certificate, or was on it at birth even, or anything about how they were born, then Texas can even refuse to recognize that people are female for purposes of marriage in any case, even if they were born female and never transitioned.  Imagine if Texas tried to say that all women, even natal women, born outside of Texas are male for purposes of marriage.  That's obviously too much discretion for a state to have.

If the federal government recognizes your sex legally via social security office, then every state needs to follow that. It's simply the only way to avoid all of this cluster->-bleeped-<-ing.

[spacial]

Spacial gives Tekla a really bug hug!

[Suzy]

And this just in.  Frank Mann III, the lawyer for the other side is such a slime ball.  I hope that they yank his license over this.

http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2010/07/nikki-araguz-update-7-opposition.html

[Muffin]

I just watched a better video of the press conference from the 2nd aug and it was much clearer. They seemed to be discussing the whole fact that they were married pre-op for a few months before srs, which is true but it doesn't matter because as soon as she has srs the state then recognised her sex change and accepted her as a female. So if they'd kicked up a fuss during those married pre-op months then they'd have a point? But from sept 09 till the time of death it was a legit marriage. So they have no case really. Their marriage was legit at the time of death which is all she needs to be able to claim any of the money in my understanding.

[Keroppi]

I just watched a better video of the press conference from the 2nd aug and it was much clearer. They seemed to be discussing the whole fact that they were married pre-op for a few months before srs, which is true but it doesn't matter because as soon as she has srs the state then recognised her sex change and accepted her as a female. So if they'd kicked up a fuss during those married pre-op months then they'd have a point? But from sept 09 till the time of death it was a legit marriage. So they have no case really. Their marriage was legit at the time of death which is all she needs to be able to claim any of the money in my understanding.

If that were the case, then the family's lawyer argument will be the marriage (I'm assuming for the State concerned) never legally took place since the ceremony took place when the two persons was of the same sex.

[Muffin]

But somehow it obviously did............. and was amended during sept 2009.
I don't know any details or facts or what is required from who etc. But to me it seems to be legit.... if it was amended then that would make it official in my understanding regardless of what happened or didn't happen before that?
I'm no doubt missing some vital point of info to help validate my point oops.
Maybe it might just means that they were not officially wed until sept 2009? *shrugs*.

[glendagladwitch]

Well, Texas law doesn't say you have to be post op to establish the identity for purposes of marriage.  It says you have to present one of several enumerated forms of ID that establishes the identity, and one of those types of ID is a birth certificate.  My understanding is that Nikki had a new birth certificate issued from California, her birth state, before the marriage, and that she presented that birth certificate to obtain the marriage license.  That's why she ought to win, even if she were still pre op.  She complied with the law to establish that she is female for the purpose of marriage, same as anybody else.

Moreover, the Texas legislature voted unanimously in 2009 to add a court ordered gender change as a type of ID that can be presented to obtain a marriage license, without placing any limitations on what circumstances such a court order should be issued or deemed valid.  Now that happened after Niki was married, but I don't think it matters because she presented a birth certificate, not a court order, to establish her identity.

If a judge rules that she was a man for purposes of marriage at the time the marriage took place, he will be legislating from the bench, and then how will he be able look his fellow intolerant right wingers in the eye?