Transgender Widow to Plead No Contest to Theft Charges

Updated: Monday, 05 Dec 2011, 10:20 PM CST
Published : Monday, 05 Dec 2011, 10:20 PM CST

    John Perera

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/111205-transgender-widow-to-plead-no-contest-to-theft-charges

HOUSTON - The former transgender spouse of a fallen Wharton firefighter will plead no contest to a theft charge.

The victim accused 36-year-old Nikki Araguz of drugging her and stealing her $2,800 Rolex watch.

----

Transgender widow of firefighter agrees to plea deal in Rolex theft case

by KHOU.com staff
Posted on December 5, 2011 at 5:21 PM

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Transgender-widow-of-firefighter-agrees-to-plea-deal-in-Rolex-theft-case-135060368.html

HOUSTON – The transgender widow of a Wharton firefighter who's been fighting for the validity of her marriage in court will plead guilty to an unrelated theft charge in the coming weeks, her attorney said.

-------

Transgender widow to plead guilty to theft
By BRIAN ROGERS, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Updated 08:57 p.m., Monday, December 5, 2011

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Transgender-widow-to-plead-guilty-to-theft-2345614.php

The transgender widow of a Wharton firefighter who is battling her dead husband's family over the legitimacy of the couple's marriage will plead guilty to felony theft after the holidays.

I'm confused. If there is anyone knowlegable regarding US legal process or Texas process, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

in theory it has no bearing on the inheritance case.

But it's horrible optics.

I don't see how her gender and marital status is relevant to the case.

To me, this is very disturbing:

QuoteAraguz's attorneys say they're pleading no contest on Jan. 13, 2012 to make it easier for their client.

They say Araguz doesn't trust a Houston jury to be fair and the risks would be too great.

Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/111205-transgender-widow-to-plead-no-contest-to-theft-charges#ixzz1fqkIVKoY


The suggestion seems to be that, she denies the charge, but is accepting it because she thinks she will be persecuted by the legal process otherwise.

This seems to be a way of insulting the legal system, while asking it to support her.

But more seriously, accepting guilt, especially for something a serious as stealing from someone in a vulnerable state when you are not seems utterly stupid.

How can anyone simply walk away from their personal integrity?

cover story

Quote from: Tammy Hope on December 08, 2011, 12:52:40 AM
cover story

I'm sorry, I don't understand what that means. Can you explain?

claiming she was doing it (pleading out) in order to concentrate on the other case is an attempt to avoid the embarrassment and consequences of going to trial and losing.

It is better, in her mind, to say "well yeah i pled guilty but for a greater purpose" than to insist on innocence and be convicted.

The cover story is "I had to think about the other case" but what she is covering for is the reality that she knew she'd be convicted.

Quote from: spacial on December 06, 2011, 09:14:02 AM
I'm confused. If there is anyone knowlegable regarding US legal process or Texas process, is this a good thing or a bad thing?

I'm not lawyer or anything. Just an NPR fan and legal historian, but I don't know that that makes me 'knowledgeable'

My initial opinion would be that this case is pretty insignificant because these are criminal charges, and not civil suits. In any case, if I recall correctly, district courts in Texas have upheld that trans people can't engage in heterosexual marriages because Texas doesn't recognize their transition. (which, oddly enough opens up the possibility of 'gay' marriage in Texas.)

My gut feeling is that she is going to lose the incarcerate fight.

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.

spacial you make some logical assumptions here which turn out to, nevertheless, be incorrect:

QuoteThe issue seemed to rest upon the recognitions which the couple achieved, in another state.

Actually no. The conflict here turns on the precedent set in the Littelton case that specifies that whatever paperwork may have been changed - once a man always a man and thus, no marriage for you. The place of marriage is irrelevant. In the ongoing Scott case (a divorce) a transman (post op) married a woman which under Littleton should have been illegal but no one prevented it or challenged it until now. The wife petitioned the court for summary judgement that the marriage was void (again, because of Littleton) but the judge denied it. they were married in Texas - the location of the marriage is not, in fact, the point of debate in the Araguz case.

that said...

Quote. 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.

Simply logical, right? turns out not to be true.

There is a clause in the Constitution called the "full faith & credit" clause, which reads:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

The plain meaning of that should suggest that a legal contract (which is all a marriage really is) would obviously be honored across state lines. In fact, one of the major talking points the Religious Right uses against gay marriage anywhere - the excuse for people in one state to meddle in the referendum in another - is that the FF&C will do just that. If the age in which you can legally marry in, say, Alabama is 16, and in Florida it's 18 - a 16 year old Alabama bride is still understood to be married if they move to Florida before she's 18.

Enter DOMA.

The defense of marriage act does two things - one of those things is to prevent the Federal government from recognizing a same-sex marriage in it's official business, which Congress has the power to do. The other is to specify that no state need recognize a same sex marriage preformed in another state.if that type of marriage is not legal in their state.

It's unconstitutional for them to do that, or so it seems to me, on the face of it - both under the FF&C and under the 14th amendment (since the gay couple does not enjoy equal protection to that enjoyed by our 16 year old bride.

But it's yet to be challenged in court for some reason.  Until the court finds it unconstitutional, it's in force.

so yes, IF the Araguz couple married out of state (I'm unaware that they did) and IF they married as a male/male couple (which is not what Nikki claims) then Texas is within it's rights under DOMA to not recognize it.

BUT as I've heard the case explained, it's not DOMA that provides the ex her opening, but Littleton.


All that said, there's a lot going on with Nikki that seems, looking in from the outside, to reflect poorly on her. It seems to me that a lot of her case in terms of the husband's estate rests on her character - the last thing she needed to do was give the appearance of lacking in that regard.

Quote from: spacial on December 07, 2011, 06:14:43 AM


How can anyone simply walk away from their personal integrity?

They walk away because the courts are a meat grinder now. It's ALMOST to the point of having to prove your innocence when accused of something, whereas before you had to be proven guilty. It's a cost / benefit thing as well, she may end up spending far less on the fines than an extended court case, and she may be alright with the conviction. Some people are at peace with whatever they did or didn't do, no matter what a court says about it.

Thank you both. I'm not any sort of lawyer, nor do I have any knowlege of current US legal or constitutional debates. I wish you well, of course, but you will understand that I have enough problems dealing with those here, not to mention the EU, to have any reason to invest at time in US internal affairs.

But from the point of view of a supporter, I find it difficult to continue to support someone who has admitted in court, that they went out with an apparent friend, got that friend drunk, stole their expensive watch, then rushed to pawn it.

Some of this is conjecture of course. That the friend was very drunk, while Nikki was not, is evident from the subsequent possession of the watch and Nikki's capability to take it to a pawn broker.

I appreciate that some people will admit things simply to have them over and done with. I don't understand someone who would hand over their integrity and reputation, not to mention their credability in their current dispute over their marriage, I just accept that such people exist.

There are, however degrees. To admit to something minor, even up to a minor theft, for exmaple, taking something from a shop, when you clearly didn't. That, just stuipd and lacking self respect. But to admit to such a mean confidence trick upon someone who thought they were your friend? To admit that you're a piece of worthless scum, not fit to have any friends at all?

I also accept that there are always other explainations. A fairy could have appeared from another dimention and altered reality. But we need to look at what we know and what is likely.

Admitting to a serious offense when you didn't do it, is actually lying. Dammed either way.

Quote from: spacial on December 12, 2011, 06:39:41 AM

Admitting to a serious offense when you didn't do it, is actually lying. Dammed either way.

Happens all the time. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm "Other problems included negligence by criminal justice officials, coerced confessions, "frame ups" by guilty parties, and general overzealousness by officers and prosecutors." 2,000 or so innocent people convicted every year of something they didn't do because they can't prove the other people are wrong (removing 80% of all other wrongful convictions for various reasons).

HOWEVER, she's pretty dumb to place herself in this situation during the heat of another case.