There must have been a reason.

I was thinking about how the mother of my children testified in court that she never denied access when she had previously said she had denied access many times for no reason. The judge remarked in her decision that she must have had a reason. She didn't elaborate on whether she was excusing the perjury or the contempt of court by refusing to abide by the court order.

I'm positive those connected to acting unlawfully and then on the same day create and insert in my file a total lie will be telling a lot more lies. It wasn't because of putting under duress as the worker never noticed. she put it in my file because I told her she was acting unlawfully. Falsifying the record of events on a government document was to cover her ---, she knew at the time when she said "no sign, no check".

I don't know what lies will be told so I will cover them all be laying out the complete story here.

In 1995 she moved out. I loaned her both my pickup and the company truck and said, "haul till you.ve got everything you want or the place is empty. The next month we sat down and drew up a separation agreement that where she would receive 2/3 of all the assets and took it to our lawyer to have it drawn up.
One day she walked into Peter Kennedy's office and said she was not going through with the agreement but was taking me to court. Mr. Kennedy at the time said she won't get near this much from the courts.
She quit a full time job to go on welfare to get a free lawyer. After she secured Michael Thornton she then went on unemployment benefits. At the time it was beyond me why Thornton would even take the case considering the ink was still wet on the settlement agreement unless there was a lot in it for Thornton. Remember that, it'll come up again.

Although she sold our brand new car and pocketed it I also paid any extra child support ordered. In 1996 I was diagnosed with cancer. Thornton requested to the courts any missed payments to come out of my share of the assets. The judge said that was a most unusual request. Even though I was not required to pay child support with a life threatening illness I volunteered to pay and an order for the minimum amount was drawn up.

Acting in accordance with the law I sold some of my personnel possessions to pay a joint debt of money we borrowed from my mother. I was found in contempt of court for not notifying the courts of my action in a timely fashion. Thornton tried twice to have the judge rule it was unjust enrichment because it went to a member of my family but both judges tossed that and held the contempt rule.

In 1998 the final decision was held, the money was turned over and soon after that FMEP took away my right to work. I was denied all access to my children under sole custody rules so I took losing my rehire status I worked all my life for drove me into a deep depression that still surfaces but for shorter duration.

I'm depressed not crazy.

I have never even threatened her with any sort of violence let alone raise a hand. It appears to me I've done everything right so it must be about the money. The story goes a judge ordered Thornton be paid before the children so he made out in a bill a scooped the child support money right out of the pool courts held.
FMEP is sticking to the story, even though child support was named by the federal government as the most important think to a child of divorce apparently there's a judge that puts the lawyers fees ahead of child support. I was wondering what was in it for Thornton when he took the case as a legal aid lawyer, he was going to corner a big chunk of the money by eventually charging full rate.