Cindy Sheehan: She knew about the divorce...but didn't? [update]
Cindy Sheehan responds to many of the concerns raised by bloggers. Here are her comments with regards to her divorce. She tries to put the issue to rest, but to me it seems like she's confirming my worst suspicions regarding the way she sees her family as a far distant concern, not nearly as important as her protests and her politics.
Update: I think the question of when the papers were prepared and filed can be answered. Also, Patrick is not looking for a quick and easy divorce, but is pushing hard to protect his own interests. Indeed, he is looking for Cindy Sheehan to pay spousal support to him!
[See important updates at the end of the article]
From MichaelMoore.com (August 17):
The first one is about my divorce. I addressed this on my blog the other night. My divorce was in the works way before I came out to Crawford. My husband filed the papers before this all started. It just recorded last Friday [sic]. My husband didn't know that it would become public record, and public knowledge. He had told his lawyer not to serve me with the paperwork or even bother me while I was at Camp Casey. He was trying to do the right thing. He didn't want me to find out. Enough about that.
This is what she wrote in her blog:
When they start sliming my home life and my family, that's where I draw the line. Yes, my husband has filed for divorce and yes he filed before I left for the VFP Convention and this trip to Crawford and yes IT IS BETWEEN MY HUSBAND AND I.
Now in my post, I pointed out that the dates showed clearly that her almost desperate insistence that "yes he filed before I left for the VFP Convention" was clearly and demonstrably false.
She left for the convention on or before August 5.
The papers were stamped on August 12.
My own reading as well as comments from readers leads me to understand that papers are filed in person at the court house where a clerk stamps them immediately.
I suggested a possible reason for lying was that she, Cindy, did not expect that the papers would become public, so she did not expect to be caught in a lie, and that the lie was an attempt to keep people from learning that Patrick had filed after she left. The suggestion that her family was abandoning her as she protested in Crawford would not have played well with middle America, hence the lie aimed at them.
So back to her statement today.
"My divorce was in the works way before I came out to Crawford." No doubt. I do doubt that Cindy Sheehan knew much about it though. It seemed to be "in the works" with Patrick.
"My husband filed the papers before this all started. It just recorded last Friday [sic]." This is a sticking point. Everything I have read suggests that this is simply not true. Papers are filed in person and stamped immediately.
If you have an existing family law file, please have your case number ready to give to the Clerk.All documents must be signed and dated prior to presenting them to the Clerk.
If you request copies, you must supply the Clerk with a self-addressed, stamped envelope and ample postage to accommodate your copy request.
I'll try to find more confirmation on this.
"My husband didn't know that it would become public record, and public knowledge." She is shifting the fault to Patrick Sheehan. I hold that she did not know that records would become public knowledge. She was the one who spoke the lie, not Patrick. She clearly did know that the lie would be found out, or she would not have spoken it.
"He had told his lawyer not to serve me with the paperwork or even bother me while I was at Camp Casey." But if the divorce was in the works "way before" coming to Crawford, then why wasn't this already taken care of, instead of being a distraction for Cindy and her protest? Poor planning on Patrick and Cindy's part? Or is there something else going on?
"He was trying to do the right thing. He didn't want me to find out." It was something else! What was she not supposed to find out about? That they were getting a divorce? That he was filing papers? She says she knew about these things all along. And yet she wasn't supposed to find out? More likely is that she is lying, and she did not know about the divorce petition Patrick was preparing. That was what he was hiding from her. Patrick did initiate divorce proceedings on his own and waited until she was out of state to do so. He was doing it behind her back, without her knowledge or her cooperation. Cindy Sheehan is still trying to portray a family united at some level ("He was trying to do the right thing") but has been forced to admit that Patrick has his own agenda ("He didn't want me to find out").
Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but Cindy Sheehan's attempt to put this divorce issue to rest has only confirmed my own worst suspicions. While Cindy Sheehan was preparing to go to Dallas to deliver her screed against the President, Patrick Sheehan had come to the decision to initiate divorce proceedings. They might have talked about it. Cindy Sheehan might have asked that they deal with this when she returned from Crawford. But Patrick had had enough, had come to his decision, and filed papers, or else why would she insist that Patrick "didn't want me to find out"?
The optics are lousy. It goes a long way to confirming what many suspect: Cindy Sheehan is oblivious to the pain in her family, or simply does not care, having devoted herself entirely to her cause. That sort of callousness will severely erode the goodwill she enjoys with America's middle class -- dads and moms who are concerned about the course of events in Iraq, but who still believe in flag and family. A leader of the radical anti-war movement who is seen to put family a distant second behind politics, who is seen to be the kind of person who cares little for the pain her husband and children are suffering, will have serious problems connecting with the majority of Americans.
Recall these words:
[Cindy Sheehan]: Carly the oldest has coped by throwing herself into school. Andy is coping by becoming Casey. Janey is coping by drinking and partying.Unfortunately, I am not able to help them that much because of my pain, and because I feel so compelled to fight the injustice and bring the troops home.
I'm not sure how many wives and mothers will have sympathy for a woman so caught in her politics that she allows her daughter to indulge heavily in drinking and partying. I'm not sure how many husbands and fathers won't find sympathy for Patrick Sheehan, and wonder if they too would petition for divorce from such a woman.
Update: "My husband filed the papers before this all started." This is a lie. One page 2 of the Sheehan petition for divorce, Patrick Sheehan and his attorney, Glen A DeRonde, sign the papers, dating them August 8. This is at least three days after Cindy had left for Dallas. It is means that there is no way the papers could have been filed, even by mail.
And at the risk of raising the shade of Dan Rather, these documents are typed (apparent by the verticla misalignment in the final line of the attorney's address as the preparer moved the paper back a smidge to avoid typing over the "TELEPHONE NO:" pre-printed text. Most people don't own typewriters, but they are common enough in a lawyer's office, used by assistants to professionally prepare a legal form such as this one. I think these documents were prepared and signed on August 8, well after Cindy had left, and perhaps with no input from Cindy. No input? How can I justify that? Read the second update.
Update: Also in the petition, we see that Cindy's assertion that Patrick is trying to make this as painless as possible ("He was trying to do the right thing. He didn't want me to find out.") is not borne out by the petition:
- Patrick Sheehan is asking for permission to amend the petition with a list of his own separate property assets and debts, presumably untouchable by Cindy Sheehan.
- Patrick Sheehan is looking for Cindy to pay all court costs and attorney's fees.
- Patrick Sheehan is looking to the court to deny Cindy Sheehan any spousal support.
- Patrick Sheehan is looking to the court to make spousal support payable to Patrick Sheehan!
These are not the actions of a husband trying his utmost to avoid pain for his wife. These are the actions of a husband looking out for his own interests only, not interested in what happens to his wife after the divorce is final. It would appear that he wants to be free of Cindy Sheehan, but he also believes she owes him support, perhaps as payment for the lack of support she has been providing the family for a year or more. Or perhaps as punishment for destroying his family with her monomaniacal crusade. Certainly, he doesn't seem too concerned that she would have to give up on Camp Casey and her political activities if she was forced to get a job in order to pay alimony.
[Captain Ed has a post about two Minnesota politicians on their way to Camp Casey. He also thinks the question of perception will be important in the state: "Minnesotans will want an accounting from both politicians as to their support for the vile rhetoric coming from Camp Casey in the next election cycle. [Congressional candidate Coleen] Rowley will soon learn that in politics, not all publicity is helpful."]
[Michelle Malkin has a round-up of the current Cindy Sheehan blogs.]
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
"Cindy Sheehan is oblivious to the pain in her family, or simply does not care, having devoted herself entirely to her cause."
It will also lead to more unpleasant questions about just what kind of relationship she had with her late son. 'A mother's pain' is all well and good, but most mothers feel pain when their living children are suffering, too. Maybe her kind of motherhood only comes into its own when the children are safely dead.
Posted by: Wanda at August 17, 2005 09:03 AM
Angry, I'm not sure her divorce factors much into the discussion of her motivations. No one wants details of their family meltdown to become public, whether they are protesting the war or running a big company. Anyone would be tempted to lie when their high school sweetheart publicly dumps them after 25 years. It's just a f'd-up deal regardless.
Instead of the divorce, it would be a lot more damning if you focused on her connections and her political life. She's got a lot of ideas and a lot of friends that her sympathetic left-of-middle supporters would be outraged by. If you start showing what kind of a political animal she is, they will see she is a hard-left wolf wearing a grieving mother's skin.
Posted by: J-P at August 17, 2005 11:46 AM
"Angry, I'm not sure her divorce factors much into the discussion of her motivations."
They factor into her credibility. They factor into the perception people will have of her. Those are important issues, as she is putting herself out there as America's every-mom, fighting for all mothers and sons. These details (not just the divorce, but the manner in which it appears to be happening) will make it difficult for that "every-mom" label to stick. Instead, she might well be seen as just another radical, with little or nothing in common with mom and pop USA.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at August 17, 2005 12:23 PM
But your point is taken, J-P, and I had intended to shift away from this to other aspects (or other stories altogether) at my next break.
Problem is that Cindy Sheehan drives the story. She posts about how she knew exactly what was going on with the divorce, and it turned out there was a story there.
Posted by: Angry in T.O. at August 17, 2005 12:24 PM
Yes Angry, you really need to move on from the Sheehan smear job. There are other important stories for you to cover; For example:
this one
CLEVELAND -- The day after burying their son, parents of a fallen Marine urged President Bush to either send more reinforcements to Iraq or withdraw U.S. troops altogether.
"We feel you either have to fight this war right or get out," Rosemary Palmer, mother of Lance Cpl. Edward Schroeder II, said Tuesday.
Schroeder, 23, died two weeks ago in a roadside explosion, one of 16 Ohio-based Marines killed recently in Iraq.
The soldier's father said his son and other Marines were being misused as a stabilizing force in Iraq.
"Our comments are not just those of grieving parents," Paul Schroeder said in front of the couple's home. "They are based on anger, Mr. President, not grief. Anger is an honest emotion when someone's family has been violated."
Palmer accused the president of refusing to make changes in a war gone bad. "Whether he leads them out by putting more troops on the ground or pulling them out - he can't just let it continue," she said.
...
The couple applauded Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier who has camped out in protest near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, for bringing the war to the public's attention.
"We consider her the Rosa Parks of the new movement opposing the Iraq war," Palmer said.
...
Their son went to Iraq filled with optimism about the mission but gradually became disillusioned with the war's progress, his parents said.
"He said the longer it went on the less and less worth it seemed," Palmer said. "They're not doing the job right now. It's not the fault of the troops. It's the fault of the plan."
______________________________________________
Quick Angry! Get to work! E-mail Michelle and Rush, get after these traitors! How dare they support the troops by demanding the President do his job!
C'mon, there must some kind of dirt you can dig up on these grieving parents...an alcoholic uncle, speeding tickets, something...
Posted by: A Hermit at August 17, 2005 12:43 PM
Hermit, you must realize that Cindy Sheehan has considerably raised the bar for "grieving mothers" everywhere. I read the article you attached, and was shocked, SHOCKED, to discover a quote from the still-married parents, standing "in front of the couple's home", and "urging" the President. What's wrong with these people? Why aren't they conducting a nude sit-down protest in the middle of the freeway? Don't they care about how inauthentic they look?
Posted by: Wanda at August 17, 2005 01:03 PM
I'd be more comfortable making the divorce a part of the story if there was a statement from the husband directly stating that he was leaving her over her involvement with the leftist's nut job, hate America/get Bush/remember the sixties movement. But, without that from him, it is all too much speculation, and so unnecessary in order to show that her credibility is zero. We have her own contradictory words to prove that she lacks credibility, the meeting with Bush was a good thing then, bad now; BS, as they say.
The woman is just ill. She isn't a bad person, just so caught up in her emotions that she doesn't what she is doing. She is no good to her living children in this state, as she admits, nor to herself. In her present state of mind, she serves only the Michael Moore's of this world, and when she is no longer the hot new front man du joir for their pointless crusade, they will allow her wallow in her dysfunction until she is bitter beyond repair.
God bless her, I hope she gets well soon. Especially since her actions are helping to get more young men killed. Casey, and her other son Andy (who she says is becoming Casey, another soldier soon?), would not want others to die because she can't control her grief.
Posted by: Richard at August 17, 2005 01:21 PM
the fact that so much time has been spent on this sheehan situation speaks to the impotance of what she is doing. But please, isn't there something else happening on this planet to be discussed. thank-you
Posted by: ken evans at August 17, 2005 01:37 PM
"importance"sorry
Posted by: ken evans at August 17, 2005 01:40 PM
Hermit, I think we get your subtle point. But the fact is, the Palmers have acted respectfully - keeping their message focused on *changing policy.* Sheehan has instead opted to go the nagging wife route by "demanding" an explanation, as if this would make any difference to the soldiers there now. Do you see the difference? The Palmers are acting like adults; Sheehan is acting like a petulant child.
Posted by: J-P at August 17, 2005 01:51 PM
Sorry, whatever the other family's name is...my bad.
Angry, I sure wouldn't mind other news here. You got so much good stuff, I hate to see it get buried by this woman and her tantrum.
Posted by: J-P at August 17, 2005 01:53 PM
Angry;
Before you move on from this topic I'd like to suggest one last post.
It would focus on how the left holds Cindy up high in spite of being completely discredited. You could use comments from all of the previous posts and show their steadfast support through every stage. You could show their hypocracy from thread to thread. You could easily illustrate how they think based on emotion rather than logic and facts...
Just a thought...
Posted by: Richard Evans at August 17, 2005 02:38 PM
I'm not tired of the Cindy Sheehan story,
unlike Michael Moore who throws something at us and then quickly disapears to the safety of his bat cave,
she is making herself " available " to us.
We can observe a real live moonbat in it's natural element!
how often do we get the chance to do that?
... and anyway, Angry can do what he wants on his blog.
Posted by: Friend of USA at August 17, 2005 03:46 PM
It's over already. She is not getting the air time and more importantly the blog time she was getting only just yesterday. Not only has she been outed as a nutjob scam artist, but so has her champions - Scam America. Michael Moore is a proven moron, he should just amble back into his hole and hit the feedbag for awhile. And poor little Mother Sheehan is left with no family, no friends, no money and no brains.
Once again - the left has trumpeted that "This Is It, This Is The Straw That Will Break Bush's Back And Get Him Impeached".
And Once Again - "It" slithers back under the rocks from whence it came.
Posted by: Cheryl at August 17, 2005 04:55 PM
Here's how the same hypocrites condemning Cindy Sheehan and her supporters "supported the troops" just a few years ago
Quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia:
"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
Funny thing is, we won that war without a single killed in action.
Posted by: A Hermit at August 17, 2005 05:42 PM
Oh, and the parents of Cpl Schroeder are asking exactly the same questions that Mrs. Sheehan is. It's those questions that deserve our attention, not anyone's personal life. It's easier to attack teh person than answer their questions, but that's the way of the coward and the bully.
Would anyone have heard Cpl. Schroeder's family if Sheehan wasn't making all the noise she is?
Posted by: A Hermit at August 17, 2005 05:46 PM
"God bless her, I hope she gets well soon. Especially since her actions are helping to get more young men killed."
Oh that's good, Richard; it's Cindy Sheehan's fault people are dying in Iraq!?
But President "Let me get on with my life" Bush doesn't bear any responsibility?
So much for accountability...
Posted by: A Hermit at August 17, 2005 05:52 PM
Ciney Sheehans protest is getting out of hand I tell you. It is spreading all over the country, something has to be done about this woman.
See the latest report from Nebraska.
www.thepeoplescube.com
Posted by: Dave at August 17, 2005 06:53 PM
Hermit seems to think that we 'won that war' in Bosnia with no casualties. Yet, we still have troops there with no 'exit strategy' and nobody wants to mention it because it was Clinton who ordered it.
If Clinton did it , it was ok. Yet we know what Clinton DID NOT Do and that was take action when it WAS required concerning Atta and UBL.
Now that George Bush IS doing something and we ARE at war because we were attacked, somehow to these leftists think this is a 'war gone bad'. This is NOT a war in Iraq. We won that war quite handily. We are there now to ensure that Iraq gets a head start and gets on her feet so that we do NOT have to fight this war again. What about this is difficult for those who follow and support the likes of the Cindy Sheehans, Michael Moore's and the Moveon.org crowd to understand?
They run around trying to get an impeachment going against President Bush, who has been an outstanding President who has actually taken the job seriously and undertaken to handle serious situations foreign and domestic.
Clinton clearly never held a candle to anybody let alone Bush.
These people need to understand that we are in a time of WAR. The THEATRE of War in Iraq is only one piece in the puzzle and the overall effort.
They do serious damage to that effort by their behaviour ,their rhetoric and their actions.
Cindy Sheehan has indicted herself by her very words. " No peace until Israel is out of Palestine"? No peace until the US is out of Iraq? Just what does that tell you?
We are just not getting what we fight in the West. Unless and until we know our enemy we will continue to make deadly mistakes like listening to the likes of Cindy Sheehan. What a disgrace this woman is!
Posted by: Snowbunnie at August 17, 2005 06:55 PM
The updates certainly paint a grim picture of the Sheehan family life. One small suggestion I'll make - Cindy Sheehan may not be deliberately lying by saying that her husband filed the papers before her departure. She might just be ignorant of what the word "filing" means in legal terminology, and she might think it means "writing". She doesn't strike me as especially bright, and people sometimes do just pick up a word and use it without actually know what its full meaning is. Perhaps Patrick told her, 'That's it, I'm filing for divorce,' and she figures that that covers all his subsequent actions. Just a possibility.
Posted by: Wanda at August 17, 2005 09:15 PM
The bottom line for Cindy seems to be that what was her home in California may no longer be. She chose to become a high profile person in what has become an unpopular uprising. She will most likely find resuming a quiet life very difficult in the future no matter where she goes, she has made herself very recognizable on any sidewalk in any town anywhere. I work with the father of one of the first soldiers to have become a victim of a fake surrender at the beginning of the war, he shows nothnig but pride in what his son gave his life for. I doubt I live around or work with the few, I suspect Cindy will find in the future she is a very unpopular and sometimes unwelcome person.
Posted by: Dave at August 17, 2005 09:39 PM
Checkout the smackdown on Drudge -
Cindy Sheehan is FAR FAR from the image she is wont to portray for the public.
Posted by: Cheryl at August 17, 2005 10:15 PM
Wow - Coulter has the ultimate smackdown.
Posted by: Cheryl at August 17, 2005 10:26 PM
CS (don't want to aggregate her name) has become built up to such a degree mostly via the twits who aggrandize her by giving her the light of day by supposedly 'opposing' her.
Even straw dogs become effective and real if enough people try to raise them.
Emotions need emblems to attack. Reason simply states its case without creating straw-dog emblems to skewer.
Please give this twit-woman sad mother a break by simply ignoring her. You are as unfair to her son as she is.
Posted by: edward mills at August 18, 2005 02:20 AM
Coulter? Cheryl, Coulter IS the ultimate smackdown - No facts, no truth, no history, just smackdown.
Mills denigrates without context.
Snowbunnie demeans a secure and quiet peace, fought for and preserved by Americans and others around the world.
Dave is trying to argue rationally, thank goodness.
And Richard is believing his own continuing fantastical positions, devoid of any proof whatsoever.
Cindy has asked to answers to specifics. Answer those specifics, and send her home.
Posted by: Hank a at August 18, 2005 02:50 AM
"Home"? What home would that be? The one in California she no longer shares with her family? It looks to me like a Texas ditch IS her home now.
Posted by: Wanda at August 18, 2005 09:18 AM
If Coulter has no facts, then this comment has no words in it.
Posted by: Friend of USA at August 18, 2005 04:21 PM
Obviously you know nothing about the lawyers work. When a person files for divorce through an attorney, it can take months for the attorney to get the papers written up and filed. Therefore, it is entirely possible (and probable) that Cindy's husband did see the attorney and fill out paperwork to file for divorce when she said he did (before the VFW convention). However, by the time the attorney had it ready and it went to the court, it was well after that.
Perhaps now you can find a topic you actually know a little about to write on (which apparently isn't much other than trying to vilify a woman who lost her son). You obviously don't know much about the war. You likely don't know people who have been there fighting as they typically come back and say what a joke of a war it is and how we don't belong there and are not liked there.
You seem to be so anti-Cindy Sheehan and pro-war, perhaps you would like to sign up to head to Iraq for the "noble cause"?
Posted by: Interested in facts! at August 20, 2005 09:55 AM
 
|
|
