Dr. Joy, I am distressed. I had a discovery package of stuff that Ann had sent to you on December 5--the first discovery package I have had from Ann--and the documents are filled with lies. I'm not talking about spin control or differences of interpretation, I am talking about actual acts of deception, distortion, misrepresentation and blatant, bald-faced mendacity. All I intend to do in this letter is address points of fact. Probably I don't need to bother, but I can't abide to leave these matters unanswered. On page 9 of Appendix IIE, Ann says, "I can't _imagine_ where he'd get something like" the idea that she would rather my children live with her father than me. As you'll recall, she said this in front of you and I in your office. The Ramblin' Gamblin' Willie story Superman--the only Willie story that comes anywhere near this divorce--turns on this statement. Throughout her quotations of various Email documents, Ann is making mendacious omissions. There is no reason to make omissions at all in the Email Ann is quoting, since her claim is to show what was there, since she gives the strong impresssion that the matter quoted is unabridged and since she does not draw attention to her abridgements. In Email protocol, one is expected to make plain that the current writer introduced the omission; I use "[....]"; other people use icons such as "" or "". Failure to highlight an omission or a resequencing of quoted matter is presumed to be prima facie proof of deception. Ann is denoting her omissions by placing ellipses in text that, in the original, is peppered with ellipses. This is not a trivial matter, as will be demonstrated. The ellipsis on the third line of page 15 of Appendix IA denotes omission of these 79 lines: and we don't have to take my word for it: [940703AS.TXT] [Ann Swann] Something my therapist said to me on the subject has really stuck in my mind: she said that, "Steve will always be Meredith's birth father; Greg will always be her real father - and that's her truth, that's her story." No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, for Meri, Greg is her father. And as *much* as I wish I could give back to you what I took from you, the chance to be Meri's father (and you will NEVER, *EVER* know how *much* I wish that), I can't (at least without tearing my daughter apart, and of course I won't do that). Greg fully believes that the only important connection between a parent and a child is the one built through the years of their relationship. I certainly agree that it is primary, but it is not the only one. I can't know what will be important for Meredith, can't assume that what is important to Greg will be so for her, as well. [940710SW.TXT] [Ann Swann] >Something my therapist said to me on the subject has really stuck in my >mind: she said that, "Steve will always be Meredith's birth father; Greg >will always be her real father - and that's her truth, that's her story." >No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, for Meri, >Greg is her father. And as *much* as I wish I could give back to you what >I took from you, the chance to be Meri's father (and you will NEVER, *EVER* >know how *much* I wish that), I can't (at least without tearing my daughter >apart, and of course I won't do that). [Steve Wright] Oh, darling, I'm sorry. Of course you can't; I only wish you didn't have that dilemma in your life. Greg loved her and connected with her and was there for her. I've spent more time than you can imagine, wondering about how and where and if I might meet Meredith as her birth father. Even if there is ever a time when I will also be a step-father, I *know* that Greg will *always* be her father, and that she will *always* need him as her daddy. [941114AS.TXT] [Steve Wright] >>Something else that I've been experiencing: I deeply invested myself >>in my second (my "own", I started to say) family and child, trying to >>give to Lucinda and Mimi everything I hadn't been allowed to give you >>and Meri. And I came to feel that attention to Meri (and implicitly >>you) was disloyal to Mimi (and implicitly Lucinda). [Ann Swann] I certainly understand this. I've told you how much I've admired the ways in which I felt that you *did* preserve the boundaries between our families. And I guess I was frightened of blurring those boundaries, myself, so I *didn't* mention to you my disappointment over this sooner (although I wasn't really comfortable talking with you in those early years, myself). And, of course, another issue has been (and still is) my own sense of loyalty to Greg as Meri's father - as the man who has given *so* much to her and to me on her behalf. This is still a terrible dilemma for me, that one part of me *never* wants him to feel that I regret making him Meri's father, while another part of me *deeply* regrets the choice I made. But he's been a good and loving father who has *completely* taken responsibility for her, and who has *never* wavered in that commitment - even when another man might have.... [941128AS.TXT] [Ann Swann] I will always love this man, Steve. He stood by me the best way he knew how when I was pregnant, when my mom died, through all the stuff I've gone through all these years. He is a good man. He's given me all he could. He's been a good and loving father to the kids. He hasn't been all I wanted, but he *has* given me a *lot.* He gave me the freedom to be home with my children, to be able to greet every single day of the last almost-six years with the knowledge that I didn't have to leave them in someone else's care. He's worked like a dog to do it. Whatever imperfections he has, I can*not* let myself get caught up in a bitterness that will poison me and my kids. Line eight of page 6 of Appendix 1B ends in a ellipses, which is followed by Ann's signature, clearly implying that the original text ended that way. In fact, that message goes on for another 100 lines. The section that would appear next, were it not omitted, contains this text: I think *you* might have understood what Dr. Kigin said to *you.* First, she has affirmed to both me and Steve that (between the two of you) Meri's *relationship* with you is the primary one (no surprise; that's the way it should be). That is *not* the same thing as saying that, at any given moment, "time with you is of a higher priority for Meri than is time with Steve," or "time with Steve is of *no* priority." As you have surely guessed, the quotations from my public Email to others are badly distorted. First, only cricket-spit messages are quoted, and even then they are egregiously edited (as denoted by ellipses preceded by space modifiers). I'm enclosing an actual piece of public Email from me, just so you can see what it looks like. And I'm also enclosing a flame I received, so that you may see what a flame looks like. I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything, but the fact is that I don't flame, to the dismay of my allies. I was a _lot_ rougher on opponents prior to the accident, but even then I have never sent a message that would qualify as a true flame. Public debate on the nets is a form of intellectual pugilism, and it looks odd to outsiders, but this is the way of it. The mail from me is called "Friedman", a message to David Friedman, author of "The Machinery of Freedom". The flame is called "Flame". From page 1 of Appendix IIA: "[P]osts messages on a daily basis"--untrue; I come and go, but I'm talking very little in public. "[T]o a half-dozen or so different groups"--untrue; I post messages to three places; until lately only one. "The last one he showed me[....]"--a friend archived my contributions to this thread; his file is enclosed under the name "Rights to the spectrum". The quotations Ann attributes to me are made up or paraphrased, and the characterization of the debate as "vicious" is not borne out by the opponent, who sent a "get well" card after the accident. Characterizing the Email quoted as "relatively mild" is mendacious: this is all the cricket-spit Ann could find, and some of it isn't even cricket-spit. Pam Probst apologized privately for enforcing the rules (which I had broken intentionally) publicly. In his reply to me, Mitchell Halberstadt said "I appreciate your feisty individualism". I have no idea why Ann is sending my fiction to you. On Sunday, November 27, Ann placed a phone call to me in which she screamed at me at the top of her lungs and swore in the bluest of language. Part of what she was screaming about was Prufrock's honor, and I told her then that her bizarre interpretation of the story was incorrect. Very briefly: Willie stories make fun of ideas; that's what they're for. I can't imagine what Ann hopes to prove by showing you that I think Catherine MacKinnon is comical and contemptible. Tête-à-tête in Tombstone was written just after Cameron and I spent a day in Tombstone. The Doc Holliday character is modeled on and looks just like the gunslinger on the left in the photo enclosed--although Doc is even better dressed. Another gunfighter, one who looked remarkably like John Wesley Hardin, told us a story that parallels the central action of the story. Finally, I was playing with the idea of a gunfight-like duel in the modern era, and the story is meant to be read as a companion to Escaping Room 101. In the same way, the central action in Prufrock's honor comes from events I witnessed at the Mesa Public Library in the middle of August. Two very ugly people--described literally--were having a "secret" liason at the library. I gave them better dialog, and Flaubert and Eliot gave them a literary cachet, but they remain as they were: grotesque. As I told Ann on the telephone, I have not read her Email, only searched into it. Presumed quotations, with one exception, are coincidental, perhaps subconcious memories of things I'd seen or which Lucinda had reported, paranoid (as with "distracted"), or wholly fabricated by Ann. The one exception is "his word is his life," which I used because it so perfectly portrays the unintended irony of adultery generally. If Ann sees herself and Wright in this story, her opinion of the two of them is far worse than is my own. For whatever it's worth, if I mention a literary figure or work, it's a signal that I'm playing with words. Prufrock's honor borrows the plot of Madame Bovary and quotes from The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock at key moments. Meet the Third Thing and Whordeom play the same game, with the latter probably being the first time Melissa Etheridge has turned up in a buried literary reference. Tennyson is cited twice in Thumper, but he actually shows up more than a dozen times. In Reflecting His Radiance, I say of His Radiance, "His teeth were straight and white and perfect." Later I say of the Gangster that he "struck a meancing pose." In both cases, I am quoting from Superman, and the (very hidden) point is to argue that Shotterman can grow up to be god or the devil, with no guarantees. In any case, while there are subtle things going on in what I write, the absurd claims Ann is making are untrue, and I have told her on the telephone that she is mistaken.) Also for what it's worth, The works of mine that actually _do_ reference this divorce in one way or another are these: Superman--a Willie story about child custody Escaping Room 101--a general philosophical essay that uses Wright's remark in front of you that "we do what we fear" as an example, without attribution Cameron at four--an essay about Cameron on his birthday Whoredome, boredom, love, lust and a great big tree--an autobiographical essay Thumper--an essay about Meredith celebrating her seventh birthday Thumper is brand new, but the first three are all available to Ann on my web page, and I can only speculate why she omitted to include them in her package to you. In any case, I am enclosing my entire corpus of publication-quality work for the last six months, just so you will have _everything._ In the same respect, I am enclosing all of Ann's email to me, and all of mine to her, so that you have the full and literal context of everything that has passed between us. Frankly, I don't expect you to read any of this, but, if you want to, you have the right to read text that is complete and unedited. From Ann's letter to you: Page 1: "Cameron's delay in potty training." As you might expect, Cameron learned to use the potty here. Ann delayed all Summer, with the result that Cameron was using the toilet here but not there. Cameron mastered the potty on the weekend we went to Tombstone. Page 3: "'Dad sys he still loves _you_ a little bit...."' If Meredith actually said this, she was lying to her mother. I have told both children that I don't hate their mother, which Ann has either told the two of them or, possibly, led them to believe by her behavior. Moreover, as we'll discuss, Meredith has been lying to Ann on a consistent basis. Page 6: As was true in the Summer, Cameron's bowels move four or five times in the 51 hours a week he spends here. Invariably, his bowels move within one hour of arriving here, and this holds true when Ann drops him over during the week, as well. I have repeatedly asked Ann to log Cameron's bowel movments in her home, and so far she has not done so. Page 7: "Most of his days begin[....]" I've never known Ann to be able to get up on time in the morhing. On three days last week I phoned for Meredith and woke Ann up--45 minutes before Meredith would be late for school--all three times. When we lived together, I got up with the children by default. This whole segment reads like a response to Cameron at four. Page 8: "If I am 5 minutes late in picking him up from Greg's, he worries frantically that I am not coming." What I told her is that, when she is late, Cameron insists, "She's not coming," by which he means that he believes his mother has abandoned him. Even though I've entreated her to come on time, so that he doesn't go through this horrid doubt of her fidelity to him, she continues to show up 10 to 15 minutes late every week. Page 8: "I've received calls"--one call--"[...] begging me to bring him home[....]" Ann skipped a scheduled phone call, and Cameron was convinced that she had abandoned him. I called _her_ home for him, and he wanted to go to her house to make sure she was still there. Is it reasonable for Cameron to have this fear that his mother will abandon him? I hope she hasn't said so, but she said to you over and over that she is willing to do it. Page 8: "Cameron wouldn't let me leave[....]" He wanted her to play computer games and watch TV with him. Every week, both children beg to stay at my house, and on the night of November 27, Meredith 'escaped' from us and locked herself in my apartment. Page 10: "Greg did not call between visits at all[....]" I called when I had promised to, without fail. "[H]e objected to my calling there[....]" I objected to her promising then failing to call. "I do not regard his calling to talk to the kids as an intrusion[...]" I succeed in actually talking to my children one call in four. Page 10: In passing, I think Meredith is much too young to have an email account. I have sent her mail to help her celebrate a fait accompli, but I am disturbed at the idea of a seven-year-old on the nets. Ann has told me that she invades the privacy of Meredith's account, which also makes me queasy. Page 10: "I cannot _count_ the times I've been willing to have Greg spend "extra" time witrh the kids." I can. Very few, and almost all of them coincide with activities of Ann's that would require the use of a sitter. I'm grateful to have _any_ extra time with my children, but they have never been permitted to come here for their own reasons, rather than for Ann's. Page 12: "Greg has been conducting a campaign of abuse an harrassment through the electronic mail[....]" All of the email contact--begun by Ann, ended by Ann--is enclosed. Twice in the last fifteen days, Ann has phoned my home and screamed at me at the top of her lungs and swore at me in the most egregious language. Page 13: In fact, negotiation with regard to Cameron has never been a problem, since Cameron remains protected by the law. Even though Ann refuses to negotiate without the lawyers, she negotiated with me for Cameron to attend a birthday party on November 4. The time the children spent with me before Thanksgiving--I surmise Ann needed to be rid of them to clean her house--was not negotiated through the lawyers. The breakfasts, the Student of the Week ceremony, and the new, mostly dysfunctional phone schedule were all handled without the lawyers. As a matter of interpretation, I think Ann is trying to box you and Judge Dairman into not recommending joint custody. Page 13: "Greg and I have been utilizing the locked diary you mentioned[....]" Purchased by me, used by me, rarely used by Ann. Page 13: "[W]hen I let him know recently about Meri's lying[...]" In fact, I told _her_ that I had noticed Meredith lying to her on the telephone, and, further, that the lying was a matter of concern because Meredith seemed to be lying to Ann in a way that betrays a very clear understanding of Ann's psychological predispositions. In other words, Meri is lying to Ann about physical pain and emotional distress, I surmise as an attention-getting strategy. The incident of the skating party is similarly misrepresented. The matter of immediate concern is that Meredith seems to have Ann's number, and is dialing it repeatedly because it produces results. I am dismayed that Ann learned precisely nothing from my having ventured to tell her that Meredith is manipulating her. Page 14: "[S]o that I could have spared Cameron any more grief." Like last night, 12 minutes late, and again he said, "She's not coming." While Ann was preparing the photocopies of this package, the children stepped outside of Kinko's by themselves, Meri says to get some fresh air. Meredith got a one-hour time out as punishment for having been neglected by her posturing mother. Page 15: I have no idea what Ann is attempting to prove with her remarks about my writing. In fact, I have said nothing that is not completely undisputed, non-controversial and known in detail to both children. Ann overstates the size of my audience (my web page has had 769 accesses as of this morning, which includes repeat visitors (including Ann)), but it is true enough that I am writing for strangers. Someday, my children may read what I have written, and, frankly, I hope they do. If they do, they will learn about a style of mind I admire intensely, and, in the essays about them in particular, they will revisit a history that I surmise is right now being steadily erased. Cameron at four and Thumper are intended in due course to lend them a cache of splendor when they may need it most. I hope my children will be with me when they are teenagers. But if they are not, I have already established the means by which I will be with them. Page 15: "Greg commissioned a total stranger to abuse, threaten, and harrass me[....]" What I told her is this: since it was plain that my own text was only making her crazier, Ken Hooper and I resolved to let him try to tone things down, with the goal being to get her to the table. Therefore, I would draft my initial replies to Ann's messages, then Ken would soften them up (over my strident objections) and then I would make minor changes (often over his objections) and transmit them. Ann can call this deceptive if she wants. Ken and I both have _years_ of experience dealing with liars in email, and we attempted to find a strategy that would at least assuage Ann, whose behavior was in no way distinct from an email liar. In fact, it had no effect at all. From Appendix 1A, this is the entire message from me that is shown at the bottom of page 2 in abbreviated form: To: AnnSwann@aol.com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: A Fuller Explanation Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: >2) I mentioned to you over the weekend, when addressing your proposal that I >drop Meri off for two nights/days starting Sunday, that I don't want the kids >to spend that much time apart in so short a time frame. That was part of the >reason that I wanted to push Meri's visit off from Monday to Tuesday night; >the kids were *so* glad to see each other on Sunday, and I wanted them to >settle back into their routine a bit before it got disrupted again. How am I to react? You put this game in motion. Predictably--I predicted it last week--this silly episode has unhappy consequences. >3) So, in response to your pointed comment about Meri's wants not being >paramount, let me say explicitly that I am trying to factor in both Meri >*and* Cam's *needs* (which don't always parallel their *wants*), and to take >into consideration a number of things at the same time (like the tradeoff >between their having spontaneous time with you versus their need for >predictability and a routine they can count on). 1. This is not "spontaneous" time. You have referred to it all along as compensatory time. It does not compensate for what you have taken from Meredith, but that's how you referred to it. 2. I have been arguing for the children's needs while you have consistently defended your manipulation of Meredith by reference to her desires. Her desires now conflict with yours, so the gloves come off. 3. Hiding behind Cameron's "*needs*" is really no better redoubt. Cameron "*needs*" time with me every day. Yet in Dr. Joy's office, you made a point of spouting, "I don't _care_ what you think Cameron needs!" 4. Similarly, it is vain of you to speak of "their need for predictability and a routine they can count on" when we are discussing means for ameliorating your having disrupted their standing routine of spending the weekend together here with me. Your past spin-control messages have been better, if no less transparent. If you want to impress me, these words will suffice: "Withholding Meredith was a mistake that won't be repeated." --GSS On page 6 of Appendix 1A footnotes 10 and 11 attempt to argue that Ann did not lie in court documents about our finances. In fact, the matter footnored makes plain that she _did_ lie, and the footnotes amount to spin-control. Also, as a matter of practice, replying to email in a way that physically cannot be responded to is regarded as a deceptive practice. With respect to footnote 12 on that same page, I have an immense memory for dialogue. If you like, I can demonstrate that Ann does not. In the middle of page 7 of Appendix 1A, there is an ellipsis. I don't know if I'm seeing all of the omitted matter in these pages, since the ellipses are so well concealed. The matter ommitted by the ellipsis cited here is flagged within {braces} below: Had I done this to you with respect to my mother's invitation, both children would be heaving big spitballs of resentment at you. {This is exactly the kind of inappropriate behavior I _know_ Dr. Kigin has warned you about.} You gulled Meredith into making a decision that is not a child's to make. I daresay the matter between the braces was not omitted to save space. With regard to "Bug Jail" in appendix 1B, you can read the entire exchange in the email if you like. Ann's retelling of the initial event is very distorted, including her contention that what they saw was in fact a Black Widow. When she mentioned these events to me, the marking was on the spider's back. In other words, as I argue in the email, what they saw was not a Black Widow. Footnote 23 on page 10 of Appendix 1B is amazingly bogus. The quotation attributed to Dr. Kigin--"she's too young to make that discrimination"--makes me suspicios of Dr. Kigin. On Saturday in a pet store, Meri walked up to a tank and said, "Look at that big Lion Fish." Meri has evinced no interest in fish, so I aksed the clerk if it really was a Lion Fish. The clerk nodded. Meri said, "They're very poisonous," and the clerk nodded again. I think she may be able to identify every venomous animal in the field guide I bought her. As to Meredith's "compliance" with Ann's rules, I have seen her going for bugs in Ann's presence, and Ann has said not one word. Page 1 of Appendix 1C refers to "particularly threatening email". One of the reasons the protocol of quoting email has evolved is because paraphrasing presents the opportunity to characterize things dishonestly. Here is the "particularly threatening email" Ann is mischaracterizing: To: AnnSwann@aol.com From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: Re: "Bug Jail" and Other Issues Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: While I bring up the following in another message to you, I think it deserves a message of its own. This may be the most important email our children never read, and I hope you'll consider it carefully. >...[Dr. Kigin] has affirmed to both me and Steve that (between the two of you) >Meri's *relationship* with you is the primary one (no surprise; that's the way >it should be). If you agree that that's the way it should be, then there is absolutly no reason for us to be in court at all. If you agree that that's the way it should be, then we can settle this thing and all go about the important business of our lives. If you agree that that's the way it should be, then there is no reason for you not to concede the Schneider ruling on Meredith's paternity. The sole purpose for pursuing the Scheider ruling is to bring legal force to your argument that my relationship with Meri is of no importance whatsoever. Either you believe that it is, or you believe that it isn't. If, as above, you believe that it is, then what you're telling me is that _you yourself_ believe that the Schneider ruling is nothing but a pretext. You do not need a legal pretext to withhold my children from me if you do not intend to withhold them. If you do intend to withhold them, even while you believe that their relationship with me is of primary importance, then you're admitting that you intend to act to their injury for reasons of your own choosing. I don't think you want to act to their injury, and I think you really do believe that my relationship with the children is more important to them than their relationship with Steve Wright, even if his relationship with them is of some import. The only time you maintain otherwise is when you're in court. Ann, either you know something I don't, or you haven't thought this through, or you've been badly advised. I don't know which, but by my lights there is absolutely no advantage to either of us in continuing this legal war, and there is certainly no advantage to the kids. You may already know some or all of this, but I think it ought to be laid out clearly: * Whether or not you continue to defend your paternity suit, and whether or not you win it lock, stock, and barrel, I will still be given some visitation rights to Cameron, if only to him. In other words, the absolute _worst_ I can do is some legally required visitation with Cam. * Judge Dairman will almost certainly act on the recommendation of Dr. Joy, and Dr. Joy is irrevocably opposed to splitting the children up (with good reason). * There is a short list of reasons for which a custodial parent may be allowed to leave the state by a judge; matrimony with someone in another state is not among them. In other words, since I will have at least some visitation with Cameron, you and the kids are going to be staying right here in Arizona until Cameron reaches the age of majority. My children are not going back to Seattle no matter what happens. * That is, attempting to win in court does nothing to hasten your return to Seattle because there isn't going to _be_ a return to Seattle no matter how well you do in court. If your intention is somehow to accomplish a return to Seattle, your campaign is completely futile and very destructive and expensive. Now, let's look more closely at my appeal to the Schieder ruling: * Our Special Action has a fairly good chance of success. It requires that we make new case law, not a happy cirucumstance, but Rose has done well in the Appellate Branch, the fact pattern with respect to Meredith's paternity is perfect, and your own conduct and Wright's have been ideally reprehensible. I rate the Schneider ruling at no better than 50-50. * If we don't get the Special Action, we have to go through the normal appellate turnstile. The chances are the same, but the process will take up to three years, during which time you and I will remain legally married. * If we are looking at an extended appeal, the courts will undoubtedly review my figures. You and I both know that the money I am obliged to pay you is calculated based upon a fiction; your unearned income is going to drop precipitously. * If we lose the appeal, Wright will be liable to me for 6.5 years of back child support, plus interest--and the figures you claim to need for Meredith's maintenance are quite exorbitant. Child support obligations precede all others and cannot be escaped by resort to bankruptcy. As I said before, there is no circumstance under which I will not do a lot better than the offer you made in February. I have made the following matrix to illustrate our relative positions with respect to the appeal of the Schneider ruling: +------------------------+----------------------- | GREG GETS | ANN GETS -----------+------------------------+----------------------- GREG LOSES | More than Ann's offer | Less than Ann's offer -----------+------------------------+----------------------- GREG WINS | More than Greg's offer | Less than Greg's offer -----------+------------------------+----------------------- That is, my position is win-win, and yours is lose-lose. Wright's sperm cell is an unduly important game piece, and it gives you an undue advantage, but it is at risk and it is undefended by any other piece. I have nothing but pawns, but I have a lot of them. On the other hand, you have an array of objectives--custody, moving to Seattle, marrying Wright, having more children--where I seek only custody. If we lose our appeal to the Scheider ruling, I lose nothing I haven't lost already. But if you lose the appeal, you lose a great deal. You have nothing to bring to Dairman's court with regard to custody but one sperm cell, and you've based your entire legal campaign around this pretext. If that pretext turns out not to support your weight, I have a vast array of valid arguments against your fitness for custody of which I may avail myself, all of them generously provided by you. You know the long list, so I'll keep it short: your adultery, your usurpation of custody, your many documentable lies in court, including lies about our finances, the mercenary nature of the paternity suit itself, etc. That is, if you lose, you lose a _lot._ Even if you win, you _still_ lose a lot--up to three years of marital and child-bearing time with Wright, probably the succor of your share of $2,300 per month that I do not make, years of litigation and its costs, which will no longer be borne out of my income, Wright's back child support obligations, and so on. And _none_ of that would do either of us, or the children, any good. I have no interest in making legal history or legal histronics. I'd like to stop all this. Ann, come to the table. Will you pull the Schneider ruling; cooperate with me in my legal adoption of Meredith; and sign your name to a settlement in the form of joint legal/joint physical custody of both children with the proportions set by Dr. Joy? --GSS In the message quoted at the top of page 2 of Appendix 1C, the ellipsis denotes the omission of the text in {braces}: {Two additional notes: 1. I have no problem at all with the arrangement: Cam here tomorrow at noon, you pick him up here Saturday at 11, you return him here after the party. That's perfectly fine with me, if that's what you want to do. 2. }No future attempts to negotiate discretionary visitation transmitted by Fromm to Miller will be passed through to me. I hadn't instructed him yet or I would not have heard of this request. The ellipsis one-third of the way down page 3 of Appendix 1C denotes the omission of these 116 lines (the central 77 lines are also omitted from page 15 of Appendix 1A): You did this to yourself, Ann. You sold Meredith to Wright in order to avoid playing straight through this divorce, and I think you're only discovering now what it's going to cost. When I pointed out in Dr. Joy's office that, should you die, Meredith will go to a stranger, rather than to her father, I think that's the first time the true import of what you've done came clear to you. Similarly, even if you _don't_ marry Wright, you have already ceded joint legal and joint physical custody to him; you won't have the power to deny to him what you are so steadfastly trying to deny to me. Should you attempt to do so, you will be compelled to argue that your years with Meredith are paramount after you have already argued that my years with Meredith are meaningless, this his sperm is immense when needed to deny my parentage and insignificant when it threatens yours. This is stupid and comical, exactly the kind of moronic contradiction I _love_ to laugh about. Except for this: you are waging this war with my children. Steve Wright ejaculated in Meredith's behalf and then ignored her for years. You can excuse him however you like for his neglect, and I really don't care. The fact is that I raised Meredith and he didn't, and we don't have to take my word for it: [940703AS.TXT] [Ann Swann] Something my therapist said to me on the subject has really stuck in my mind: she said that, "Steve will always be Meredith's birth father; Greg will always be her real father - and that's her truth, that's her story." No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, for Meri, Greg is her father. And as *much* as I wish I could give back to you what I took from you, the chance to be Meri's father (and you will NEVER, *EVER* know how *much* I wish that), I can't (at least without tearing my daughter apart, and of course I won't do that). Greg fully believes that the only important connection between a parent and a child is the one built through the years of their relationship. I certainly agree that it is primary, but it is not the only one. I can't know what will be important for Meredith, can't assume that what is important to Greg will be so for her, as well. [940710SW.TXT] [Ann Swann] >Something my therapist said to me on the subject has really stuck in my >mind: she said that, "Steve will always be Meredith's birth father; Greg >will always be her real father - and that's her truth, that's her story." >No matter what happens in the future, nothing can change that, for Meri, >Greg is her father. And as *much* as I wish I could give back to you what >I took from you, the chance to be Meri's father (and you will NEVER, *EVER* >know how *much* I wish that), I can't (at least without tearing my daughter >apart, and of course I won't do that). [Steve Wright] Oh, darling, I'm sorry. Of course you can't; I only wish you didn't have that dilemma in your life. Greg loved her and connected with her and was there for her. I've spent more time than you can imagine, wondering about how and where and if I might meet Meredith as her birth father. Even if there is ever a time when I will also be a step-father, I *know* that Greg will *always* be her father, and that she will *always* need him as her daddy. [941114AS.TXT] [Steve Wright] >>Something else that I've been experiencing: I deeply invested myself >>in my second (my "own", I started to say) family and child, trying to >>give to Lucinda and Mimi everything I hadn't been allowed to give you >>and Meri. And I came to feel that attention to Meri (and implicitly >>you) was disloyal to Mimi (and implicitly Lucinda). [Ann Swann] I certainly understand this. I've told you how much I've admired the ways in which I felt that you *did* preserve the boundaries between our families. And I guess I was frightened of blurring those boundaries, myself, so I *didn't* mention to you my disappointment over this sooner (although I wasn't really comfortable talking with you in those early years, myself). And, of course, another issue has been (and still is) my own sense of loyalty to Greg as Meri's father - as the man who has given *so* much to her and to me on her behalf. This is still a terrible dilemma for me, that one part of me *never* wants him to feel that I regret making him Meri's father, while another part of me *deeply* regrets the choice I made. But he's been a good and loving father who has *completely* taken responsibility for her, and who has *never* wavered in that commitment - even when another man might have.... [941128AS.TXT] [Ann Swann] I will always love this man, Steve. He stood by me the best way he knew how when I was pregnant, when my mom died, through all the stuff I've gone through all these years. He is a good man. He's given me all he could. He's been a good and loving father to the kids. He hasn't been all I wanted, but he *has* given me a *lot.* He gave me the freedom to be home with my children, to be able to greet every single day of the last almost-six years with the knowledge that I didn't have to leave them in someone else's care. He's worked like a dog to do it. Whatever imperfections he has, I can*not* let myself get caught up in a bitterness that will poison me and my kids. So, for whatever reason, Steve Wright ignored my daughter for the first six years after her birth. And then he decides to assert his fatherhood--or rather, _you_ decide to assert his fatherhood--and the sole consequence is to injure Meredith terribly, to rob her of her identity and to pour salt on the wounds caused by this divorce. It's possible that he will make a decent stepfather. I don't claim to know. I've never observed him to behave as an adult, but I haven't paid much attention to him. But he will not become Meredith's father by robbing her of her _real_ father, and he will do her nothing but harm by trying. He did her no good before, but at least he did her no harm. Now he's doing her nothing but harm, as are you, and the two of you are inflicting this horrible injury on _both_ children for nothing more than a vain and stupid legal advantage. You have no hope that I will ever be particularly "cordial" to either of you. There's some chance that you might earn my respect, but certainly not by doing things I think are vile. On Sunday November 27, Ann phoned me, and in the course of her call, screamed at me and swore at me at the top of her lungs. The following day, she phoned again and we spent five hours on the telephone. Many of the manglings of things she alleges I said to her came from that phone call. In her turn, she made a number of claims for herself, claims which I proceded to check. I stopped checking after I proved to my satisfaction that the first two were wholly false. Later that week, I gave her documentation demonstrating that both claims were mendacious. That night she phoned again, again screaming and swearing, demanding to know why I had checked up on her. I said: "Ann, what do you think it means when I say I don't trust testimony? Did you think, after all we've been through, that I would take you on faith?" I can't imagine what she thought she was doing when she sent this package to me; did she think that I wouldn't check on this, either? I haven't bothered to challenge her footnotes to my fiction, since they're al rooted in a false premise. I am grateful to her for quoting so much from my email and showing how _she_ thinks it relates to the truth of her life, but, in fact, her gross interpretation of the fiction is incorrect. But I keep returning to the tail end of footnote four of page 6 of Appendix IIE: "implying that the truth was my enemy and my life a lie". In both Whoredom and this letter, it is no mere implication. Best regards, Greg Swann 12/11/95