[This file was written on March 30, 1996, two days after the divorce verdict.] From: gswann@mailhost.primenet.com (Greg Swann) Subject: We Won.2 Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: I wanted to talk a bit about the way we worked, especially the way Ken and I worked, because it's at least mildly interesting. One of the things I say to Ken all the time is, "Prediction is the threshhold of science." Accurately predicting future events doesn't prove that a theory is valid, but _failing_ to predict future events is proof positive that the theory is invalid. We have spent a great deal of effort modeling the circumstantial evidence we had available to us to attempt to predict downstream events. One of the most effective models, it turned out, was the Mercenary Hypothesis, which is mentioned in the file Email.txt on my web page. In general, to the extent that we _failed_ to properly anticipate future events, it was as a result of an unwillingness (generally mine) to countenance the conclusion indicated by the Mercenary Hypothesis. Where Mr. Ken insisted that we had to follow the data, we were rarely wrong, and rarely more than incrementally wrong at that. (For example, the Mercenary Hypotesis would argue that Meredith would not be here this weekend, and she isn't. There is no one left to posture for.) There is a _lot_ to this, and a full discussion of it would take a book. What we did, ultimately, was take the arguments about human behavior made in Janio at a Point, developed in the extended essays I've posted since last August, _further_ developed in many, many phone calls between Mesa and Memphis, and applied all of that--a full-blown theory of why people behave the way they do--to the problems of this divorce. It's a theory of literature, too, of course, and you can see it at work in the small in the Willie story "X". "X" is not about my divorce, but it sure is about what we learned by _watching_ my divorce. The literature of the past was about hero versus villain. Rand brought us hero versus hero. The direction I've been working toward is this: the ego, completely invisible to others except in its secondary consequences, either for or against itself. We said from the beginning that they were destroying themselves. It was certainly no benefit to them to fight with Ken and I, considering that we accurately and cogently _named_ their evil every step of the way. Madness seeks confusion, and Ken and I fought it with dreaded clarity every step of the way. Secondary consequences _are not_ proofs. They are interesting details that either buttress a proof or mislead a careless observer into reaching an invalid conclusion. But they _are_ interesting, and here are two that are bouncing all around in my head: 1. My ex-wife an her boyfriend are obviously much worse off than they were before they began this idiocy, but I am immeasurably improved--stronger mentally, tougher physically, _much_ clearer in my thought, _much_ more penetrating in my prose. Were it not for the horrible injuries inflicted upon my children, this experience would have been all gain for me, steep tuition for a _priceless_ education. I think the same factors apply to Ken. 2. My ex-wife screwed up so badly that she went into divorce court and was treated like a male. This is simply amazing to me. Incidentally, Ken was convinced we were "forked" when my ex-wife began to campaign with the custody evaluator that joint custody could not work. Ken assumed that they wanted to force Dr. Joy to recommend sole custody to Ann. In fact, Dr. Joy recommended joint custody anyway. So they campaigned with Judge Dairman that joint custody could not work. They prevailed, but not the way they hoped. On the general subject of prediction, I want to paste in one bit of the email that passed between the two of us. This is a note that Ann refrred to with Dr. Joy as "particularly threatening email" and was the basis for the first round of screeching about "harrassment". I had written the original reply to Ann and passed it on to Ken for comment. He wanted to pursue a Prague Spring strategy, so he re-wrote my draft message as three messages, each of them _squeamishly_ soft, I thought at the time. You can see all three in Email.txt, all dated October 29, 1995. The one I'm showing here made me _itch_ it was so soft, and, over Ken's objections, I added the matrix and the paragraphs above and below it. Even then I thought, "Ick! This is so importunate it supplicates!" This is signal, I suppose, because I don't consider _anything_ Ken or I wrote during this divorce to be "abusive" or "harrassing". Certainly this message is clean, quiet, soft-spoken, reasonable. It "threatens" no one by pointing out facts Ann may not have considered. As it works out, Ken has the honor of having written the second most waved-around piece of text in this divorce. From the very beginning, my wife's attorney has been waving around the infamous "Stupid Bitch" note. Since late last year, she has taken to waving around this "Bug Jail" note, too, and Ken has actually been incorporated into the permanent archives of the Arizona State Court of Appeals--take a bow! With that as introduction, below you will see reproduced, uncut, unedited, uncensored by the censorious impulses of mercenary divorce lawyers, Part III of 'Re: "Bug Jail" and Other Issues' by Ken Hooper, abusive harrasser and esteemed scholar of liars. Greg Swann 3/30/96 To: AnnSwann@[omitted].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