Posted on 10/30/2014 8:16:31 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy
Not that the timing makes it any more egregious, but six days after being named the 17th richest member of Congress, it’s being reported that U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson‘s estranged wife has been issued an EBT card to help feed his children.
Lolita Grayson was approved for public assistance by the state of Florida, and their four minor children — they have five children altogether — are also enrolled in the free lunch program in Orange County schools, according to ABC affiliate WFTV.
The stay-at-home mom was asked if she ever thought she’d be on food stamps.
“No,” Lolita responded. “Never, because my husband, he’s been the sole provider for me for the last 29 years.”
In filing for public assistance, Lolita said her monthly income consisted of $592 per child.
Grayons’ attorney attributed her actions to politics the week before an election, telling WFTV his client pays about $10,000 a month for the mortgage, utilities and phone bill for the home. “This is abusing the public,” attorney Mark Nejame said. “She’s going out and asking for support because she can’t support herself on $120,000? That’s outrageous.”
Married to the bombastic congressman for 24 years, she filed for divorce early this year and it didn’t take long for things to get messy. There was a physical altercation at their home a short time later — she accused Grayson of battering her and he countered by saying she hit him. He would later charge his wife with bigamy while filing for an annulment of their 24-year marriage.
The Democratic lawmaker, a former trial lawyer, is not paying spousal support because he says the marriage was never valid because of the bigamy charge, WFTV reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
Thanks - I was trying to figure out what it was about him that was so unappealing -
Grayson: “My kids? Just die!”
Grayson: “My kids? Just die!”
Sorry, but like I said I take NEITHER side at face value, and I don’t care if your last name is Kennedy or Smith, 10k a month is indeed enough to where you should not be needing food stamps to eat.
Guy could be a complete jackass, and if he is, the courts will rectify it in time. However, if there truly is that kind of money monthly around, there is no excuse for needing food stamps to feed the kids.
I trust absolutely NOTHING when it comes to anything related to family law, nothing. I’ve seen women screwed by their husbands, and understand why women nearly instantly sympathize with any woman in the situation, and I’ve seen men absolutely destroyed by their ex wives. Family law is not meant, or capable of being fair, its basically a legal avenue for people to pursue vendettas and can do so for the rest of their lives if they choose to.
You think TORT law is bad, pray you never get involved in the family court system.
Admittedly, you can’t see this from any lens other than your own, and I probably can’t because I’ve never gone through a divorce. But if you read the wording again, it does not say he GIVES $10,000 a month to her, it says he “pays” it. She has no income and no access to money so even if she was living in a $50,000 mansion, if he is paying that mortgage instead of giving her the cash, she still doesn’t have money to feed and clothe her children.
Unfortunately laws that govern behavior are written to punish, not to reward.
Over the years there have been work arounds by some politicians to benefit themselves or their friends but in general purpose laws written to affect everyone equally it is always punishment rather than reward.
It’s tough to focus on your career with 5 kids and pa out of town all the time.
“Isn’t Grayson the loud mouthed Pinko?”
He’s the much-worse-than-a-Pinko, loud-mouthed escapee from junior high school.
IMHO
The sort of jerk that wants to avoid splitting the assets they acquired during the marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.