PDA

View Full Version : Mark Sanford Caught Trespassing At Ex-Wife's Home




angelatc
04-16-2013, 06:19 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/ap-ex-wife-says-former-sc-gov-sanford-trespassed/


Documents acquired by The Associated Press Tuesday say Jenny Sanford confronted her ex-husband leaving her South Carolina home on Feb. 3. Her attorney filed a complaint the next day and she confirms the documents are authentic.

In them, she says he was using his cellphone as a flashlight as he left.

The couple’s divorce settlement says neither may enter the other’s home without permission.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/ap-ex-wife-says-former-sc-gov-sanford-trespassed/#ixzz2Qfvbk3J2

green73
04-16-2013, 06:20 PM
Oh, Sanford.

KrokHead
04-16-2013, 06:33 PM
Nice...

jj-
04-16-2013, 06:34 PM
:<><><><><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

kathy88
04-16-2013, 06:35 PM
Hmmmm...

mz10
04-16-2013, 06:36 PM
What a dumbass. He deserves to lose.

jj-
04-16-2013, 06:38 PM
Jenny must hate Sanford.

itshappening
04-16-2013, 06:39 PM
What a dumbass. He deserves to lose.

Don't be silly. He'd be one of the top 5 in Congress.

Send him some $

supermario21
04-16-2013, 06:42 PM
Jenny is being a real b**** here. The sons want Mark to win! Do it for them.

TaftFan
04-16-2013, 07:16 PM
He probably has some stuff there.

jkob
04-16-2013, 07:17 PM
interesting timing

Brian4Liberty
04-16-2013, 07:23 PM
Jenny Sanford said Tuesday that she has custody of the couple’s four boys.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/ap-ex-wife-says-former-sc-gov-sanford-trespassed/

Dropping off or visiting his kids? Was he in the house with the permission of the boys?

jtstellar
04-16-2013, 07:29 PM
i know feminists hate him

angelatc
04-16-2013, 07:40 PM
Dropping off or visiting his kids? Was he in the house with the permission of the boys?


The complaint filed by Jenny Sanford’s lawyer, Deena Smith McRackan, said that Mark Sanford has “entered into a pattern of entering onto plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff has informed defendant on a number of occasions that this behavior is in violation of the court’s order and has demanded that it not occur again.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/ap-ex-wife-says-former-sc-gov-sanford-trespassed/#ixzz2QgFjkK8k

Classic Sanford. He's a total narcissist. (If he was a commoner, he'd just be an asshole.)

Brian4Liberty
04-16-2013, 07:55 PM
Classic Sanford. He's a total narcissist. (If he was a commoner, he'd just be an asshole.)

I can understand him not going into the house alone. Is he violent or dangerous? The kids are there, and it is understandable that he may be "on the property" at times with them. Who knows though, nasty divorces are nasty.

sailingaway
04-16-2013, 08:43 PM
I can understand him not going into the house alone. Is he violent or dangerous? The kids are there, and it is understandable that he may be "on the property" at times with them. Who knows though, nasty divorces are nasty.

If there is a court order neither should go in the other's house, that isn't casual, I'll bet. And if she says he has a 'pattern' of doing it, it doesn't sound good. Using his cell phone for a light sounds a bit awkward as well. But I'll wait to hear his side.

Right now it sounds at minimum pretty stupid.

Given how the marriage ended, the ex wife being angry and not wanting him there is a pretty forseeable reaction.

The Goat
04-16-2013, 08:46 PM
Probably has a flashlight app on his phone. they're pretty useful.


If there is a court order neither should go in the other's house, that isn't casual, I'll bet. And if she says he has a 'pattern' of doing it, it doesn't sound good. Using his cell phone for a light sounds a bit awkward as well. But I'll wait to hear his side.

Right now it sounds at minimum pretty stupid.

Given how the marriage ended, the ex wife being angry and not wanting him there is a pretty forseeable reaction.

sailingaway
04-16-2013, 08:48 PM
Probably has a flashlight app on his phone. they're pretty useful.

They aren't very bright. If you are being casual and just forgot you don't live there any more (if he ever did) it would be odd to use that. Have you ever used yours walking down a hall in your house?
But I have no interest in making him more guilty than he is, it just doesn't make him seem very likable, and he didn't need that. I'm sure we'll hear more over time.

angelatc
04-16-2013, 08:50 PM
I can understand him not going into the house alone. Is he violent or dangerous? The kids are there, and it is understandable that he may be "on the property" at times with them. Who knows though, nasty divorces are nasty.


Their agreement is quite specific about that particular point, so we can assume they understand the reasons. Since it is spelled out for him, it is not "understandable" in the least.

Well, except for the self-involved, above-the-rules personality defect thing.

The Goat
04-16-2013, 08:52 PM
Mine lights up pretty bright. My phone has a double LED flash so that might make a difference.

As for the likeability issue, Yes, the story makes him sound shady as hell. especially with his present run for congress.


They aren't very bright. If you are being casual and just forgot you don't live there any more (if he ever did) it would be odd to use that. Have you ever used yours walking down a hall in your house?
But I have no interest in making him more guilty than he is, it just doesn't make him seem very likable, and he didn't need that. I'm sure we'll hear more over time.

angelatc
04-16-2013, 08:54 PM
Mine lights up pretty bright. My phone has a double LED flash so that might make a difference.

As for the likeability issue, Yes, the story makes him sound shady as hell. especially with his present run for congress.


Yeah Sailing nailed it. He didn't need this blow to the likability factor.

Wasn't it nice of AP to hold this until after the primary?

(And DH's flashlight app is really bright, too.)

itshappening
04-16-2013, 08:58 PM
there's probably an explanation that his political enemies arent going to tell you.

Relax, Sanfrod knows what he's doing.

cajuncocoa
04-16-2013, 09:09 PM
there's probably an explanation that his political enemies arent going to tell you.

Relax, Sanfrod knows what he's doing.
Yeah, just like he knew what he was doing when he ran off to Argentina 5 years ago. :rolleyes:

itshappening
04-16-2013, 09:12 PM
Just be aware that any ex can make a complaint it doesn't mean it has any merit.

If it was anything serious she would had him arrested and in jail so it's obviously BS.

cajuncocoa
04-16-2013, 09:13 PM
Just be aware that any ex can make a complaint it doesn't mean it has any merit.
True, but I hope you won't be too devastated if it does have merit.

itshappening
04-16-2013, 09:23 PM
Divorces are seldom not messy.

both sides claim stuff and it's going to be up to a judge to sort out.

I wouldn't worry about this.

Just mud being thrown .

He'll push back against it tomorrow.

The AP might have broke a law here publishing sealed docs?

Outrageous violation of privacy. He can spin it that way and grand stand.

erowe1
04-16-2013, 09:28 PM
For crying out loud. This is a big part of why it's hard to support him. I can't trust him to keep his personal life under control.

itshappening
04-16-2013, 09:29 PM
For crying out loud. This is a big part of why it's hard to support him. I can't trust him to keep his personal life under control.

He's a man going through a divorce, do you expect that to go smoothly? there's property and potentially a lot of $ at stake.

jmdrake
04-16-2013, 09:29 PM
Jenny must hate Sanford.

Can't say I blame her. Yes all men make mistakes, but he seems to be revelling in his.

erowe1
04-16-2013, 09:29 PM
Documents acquired by The Associated Press Tuesday say Jenny Sanford confronted her ex-husband leaving her South Carolina home on Feb. 3. Her attorney filed a complaint the next day and she confirms the documents are authentic.

Does the bold "she" refer to Jenny or her attorney?

jmdrake
04-16-2013, 09:30 PM
He's a man going through a divorce, do you expect that to go smoothly? there's property and potentially a lot of $ at stake.

Which is why you don't do something stupid like violate a court order. Send someone else to get your property.

itshappening
04-16-2013, 09:31 PM
If it was that bad she would have had him arrested.

it's obviously some little incident the attorney is using to bolster the case and get more $ in a settlement.

these things are always messy.

BlackTerrel
04-16-2013, 09:45 PM
Break ups and divorces are always messy. I don't lend much credence to this sort of thing.

itshappening
04-16-2013, 09:47 PM
Which is why you don't do something stupid like violate a court order. Send someone else to get your property.

She and the attorney have a slight interest in making him look like an absolute monster so the judge grants her everything she wants.

If Sanford did anything bad then the police would have been involved.

supermario21
04-16-2013, 10:06 PM
Getting him to DC and away from Jenny might be the best thing for him.

angelatc
04-16-2013, 10:11 PM
He's a man going through a divorce, do you expect that to go smoothly? there's property and potentially a lot of $ at stake.

The divorce was finalized in 2009. 2010 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/TheLaw/jenny-sanford-granted-divorce-gov-mark-sanford/story?id=9955400#.UW4hHKKW-So) . Try another spin.

( And she's been nothing but pure class through it all. Trying to paint her as a vindictive ex won't work, because she isn't. )

itshappening
04-16-2013, 10:13 PM
The divorce was finalized in 2009. Try another spin.

I'm not up to speed on his personal life so why are these papers sealed?

angelatc
04-16-2013, 10:16 PM
I'm not up to speed on his personal life so why are these papers sealed?


The court agreed with Jenny Sanford's request to seal the divorce settlement because there were many details included in the agreement that her young children were not aware of. Apparently to keep the children from knowing all the sordid details of the lout's multiple dalliances.

juleswin
04-16-2013, 11:39 PM
Just be aware that any ex can make a complaint it doesn't mean it has any merit.

If it was anything serious she would had him arrested and in jail so it's obviously BS.

That. I think Jenny has so much disdain(from all his cheating) for Mark that if he dared stepped out of line just by an inch, she will be getting the police to arrest him . And you can bet the white knights that make up our police depts are so eager to arrest a man on domestic violence charges.

Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

XTreat
04-16-2013, 11:45 PM
I went through a divorce, I dont recall any trespassing being involved.

jtstellar
04-17-2013, 05:31 AM
so the house was purchased by mark, husband doesn't care, sons enjoy it, but the wife is bitching

KingNothing
04-17-2013, 05:58 AM
Don't be silly. He'd be one of the top 5 in Congress.

Send him some $


This might be true, but at this point... ugh. We could be investing a ton of resources to hold a seat that any Republican could win.

amy31416
04-17-2013, 07:00 AM
Wow. Lots of ex-wife bashing here. How do you guys know he bought the house? She entered the marriage as a pretty wealthy person, probably worth far more than Mark.

Hell hath no fury? The report says that he's trespassed multiple times. How many times will you let your ex waltz into your home before you had enough? Me? I'd give a pass once and let him know that the next time he'd be reported. She could have legally shot to kill for breaking in.

I read that he's actually asked her to help out in his campaign. He asked her for advice in his relationship with his mistress. He's a creep.

Peace&Freedom
04-17-2013, 07:42 AM
Sanford runs off to Argentina to be with a girl, so secretly that no one knows where the then sitting Governor of SC is?

Sanford violates a court order with his ex-wife, in the middle of a campaign?

This guy is a clutz machine, and needs a PR consultant to tell him to stop doing things without sizing up the political implications.

Cowlesy
04-17-2013, 07:51 AM
I just feel bad for his kids.

sailingaway
04-17-2013, 08:00 AM
so the house was purchased by mark, husband doesn't care, sons enjoy it, but the wife is bitching

Not a good approach to deflecting this imho. If they have been formally divorced going on three years and she owns the house, his breaking a court order repeatedly and being called on it isn't 'bitching', it is defending her property rights and privacy against someone who doesn't seem able to respect them for whatever reason.

Particularly when he is inviting his fiance, once his mistress to parties to show their respectability as a couple, and mid campaign, he should be treating his ex with kid gloves.

At the end of the day I don't see South Carolina giving Obama another vote, though.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 09:40 AM
so the house was purchased by mark, husband doesn't care, sons enjoy it, but the wife is bitching


You're just making stuff up now. She comes from a very wealthy family, and in fact was probably considered to be "marrying down" when she married him. It's fairly likely that she bought her own home, and even possible that the house has been in her family for generations.

She isn't "bitching." She's protecting her property. If it was anybody else we'd be encouraging her to get a damned gun and put a hole in him.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 09:46 AM
That. I think Jenny has so much disdain(from all his cheating) for Mark that if he dared stepped out of line just by an inch, she will be getting the police to arrest him . And you can bet the white knights that make up our police depts are so eager to arrest a man on domestic violence charges.

Hell has no fury like a woman scorned.


I think you're confusing her with me. I'd be a screaming harpie, but she's been nothing but the very definition of grace and class through the whole ordeal.

There have been absolutely no accusations of domestic violence. The agreement seems simple enough: When both adults aren't present, she stays out of his house, and he stays out of hers.

The opposite of love isn't hate - it's indifference. I think the real issue is that she simply stopped loving him when she decided the marriage wasn't worth saving, and he can't come to grips with that. She's over it, but he isn't.

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 09:49 AM
Wow. Lots of ex-wife bashing here. How do you guys know he bought the house? She entered the marriage as a pretty wealthy person, probably worth far more than Mark.

Hell hath no fury? The report says that he's trespassed multiple times. How many times will you let your ex waltz into your home before you had enough? Me? I'd give a pass once and let him know that the next time he'd be reported. She could have legally shot to kill for breaking in.

I read that he's actually asked her to help out in his campaign. He asked her for advice in his relationship with his mistress. He's a creep.

^This. I could (almost) see it if he was going by trying to make amends and get back with his wife. But it seems like he's moved on. So...move on.



I just feel bad for his kids.

And ^this.

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 09:51 AM
I think you're confusing her with me. I'd be a screaming harpie, but she's been nothing but the very definition of grace and class through the whole ordeal.

There have been absolutely no accusations of domestic violence. The agreement seems simple enough: When both adults aren't present, she stays out of his house, and he stays out of hers.

The opposite of love isn't hate - it's indifference. I think the real issue is that she simply stopped loving him when she decided the marriage wasn't worth saving, and he can't come to grips with that. She's over it, but he isn't.

That could be. But if that's the case, why the public appearances with the mistress? Or is he just conflicted? Kinda like Tiger Woods who seemed to want to patch things up with his ex while moving ahead with his new flame?

itshappening
04-17-2013, 09:52 AM
why feel sorry for the kids ?

Their fathers an ex-governor and mother is pretty wealthy as well..

They're insanely privileged.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 09:56 AM
^This. I could (almost) see it if he was going by trying to make amends and get back with his wife. But it seems like he's moved on. So...move on.






Before the divorce, he said he wanted to stay married, but asked his wife for permission to "see" the girlfriend. It seems to me that he wasn't actually quite ready to move on, but instead got hit in the butt by the door on the way out.

If he has any handlers worth their salary, they'll keep him far away from the microphones. I seem to recall that he made a fool of himself every time he opened his mouth when the news of the affair was breaking.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 09:57 AM
That could be. But if that's the case, why the public appearances with the mistress? Or is he just conflicted? Kinda like Tiger Woods who seemed to want to patch things up with his ex while moving ahead with his new flame?

He hasn't married the mistress yet. But dumping the girlfriend before getting elected would make him look even worse than he already does.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 10:03 AM
why feel sorry for the kids ?

Their fathers an ex-governor and mother is pretty wealthy as well..

They're insanely privileged.


What on earth is wrong with you? They are kids. They didn't do anything wrong. I would wager that they'd give up all their trappings if it meant their family could be reunited.

I know your generation has been taught that there are no consequences to it, but the reality is that divorce is devastating for kids, and having a father who is in the public eye just makes it 100 times worse. Having a father who is being an idiot in the public eye is humiliating, for starts.

I can't believe that someone has to even try to explain that to you.

itshappening
04-17-2013, 10:11 AM
I'm ambivalent. The kids will get over the heartache of a divorce and go to the best schools and colleges money can buy.

Sanford responds:

-
Sanford: I went to ex-wife's home to watch Super Bowl with son

The former South Carolina governor said he went to his ex-wife's home to watch the Super Bowl with his son.

itshappening
04-17-2013, 10:15 AM
"It's an unfortunate reality that divorced couples sometimes have disagreements that spill over into family court. I did indeed watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14 year old son because as a father I didn’t think he should watch it alone," Sanford said in a statement Tuesday morning.

"Given she was out of town I tried to reach her beforehand to tell her of the situation that had arisen, and met her at the back steps under the light of my cell phone when she returned and told her what had happened."

According to court documents obtained by the Associated Press on Tuesday, Jenny Sanford is accusing her husband of trespassing at her home on Feb. 3. The two have a date in family court on May 9, just two days after Sanford's House special election in South Carolina's 1st congressional district against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch.

The accusations could deal a blow to Sanford's campaign to win the heavily Republican district. The former governor is attempting a political comeback after admitting to an affair in 2009.

"There is always another side to every story, and while I am particularly curious how records that were sealed to avoid the boys dealing with embarrassment are now somehow exposed less than three weeks before this election, I agree with Jenny that the media is no place to debate what is ultimately a family court matter," Sanford said in his statement. "Out of respect for Jenny and the boys, I'm not going to have any further comment at this time.

SOURCE:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/294479-mark-sanford-responds-to-trespassing-allegations

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 10:21 AM
Before the divorce, he said he wanted to stay married, but asked his wife for permission to "see" the girlfriend. It seems to me that he wasn't actually quite ready to move on, but instead got hit in the butt by the door on the way out.

If he has any handlers worth their salary, they'll keep him far away from the microphones. I seem to recall that he made a fool of himself every time he opened his mouth when the news of the affair was breaking.

So I guess that would be one vote for decriminalizing polygamy.


He hasn't married the mistress yet. But dumping the girlfriend before getting elected would make him look even worse than he already does.

You mean it's still possible for him to look worse? ;) Seriously though, it all depends on the reasons why. If he dumped his girlfriend because he had a "religious awakening", wanted to reconcile with his wife and was putting that chapter of his life behind him, I think that would help him politically. But only if that were genuine. He'd have to be ready to live celibate at least for a while.

Krzysztof Lesiak
04-17-2013, 10:32 AM
He's a dick for doing what he did, but his policies are excellant. He would have endorsed Ron Paul in 2012 had his Fox News contact not prevented him from doing so. He was also endorsed by former Libertarian Party candidate in the same district Keith Blandford and the Republican Liberty Caucus.

I stand behind Sanford. He will be of great help to Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Steve Stockman, Kerry Bentivolio, Walter Jones, etc.

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 10:34 AM
"It's an unfortunate reality that divorced couples sometimes have disagreements that spill over into family court. I did indeed watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14 year old son because as a father I didn’t think he should watch it alone," Sanford said in a statement Tuesday morning.

"Given she was out of town I tried to reach her beforehand to tell her of the situation that had arisen, and met her at the back steps under the light of my cell phone when she returned and told her what had happened."

According to court documents obtained by the Associated Press on Tuesday, Jenny Sanford is accusing her husband of trespassing at her home on Feb. 3. The two have a date in family court on May 9, just two days after Sanford's House special election in South Carolina's 1st congressional district against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch.

The accusations could deal a blow to Sanford's campaign to win the heavily Republican district. The former governor is attempting a political comeback after admitting to an affair in 2009.

"There is always another side to every story, and while I am particularly curious how records that were sealed to avoid the boys dealing with embarrassment are now somehow exposed less than three weeks before this election, I agree with Jenny that the media is no place to debate what is ultimately a family court matter," Sanford said in his statement. "Out of respect for Jenny and the boys, I'm not going to have any further comment at this time.

SOURCE:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/294479-mark-sanford-responds-to-trespassing-allegations

Okay. That makes some sense. That said, as the Superbowl happens at the same time every year he could ask for that time ahead of time.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 10:39 AM
I'm ambivalent. The kids will get over the heartache of a divorce and go to the best schools and colleges money can buy.

Sanford responds:

-
Sanford: I went to ex-wife's home to watch Super Bowl with son

The former South Carolina governor said he went to his ex-wife's home to watch the Super Bowl with his son.


Which totally explains the flashlight / cell phone thing. And besides, it is his wife's house. He is not allowed to come hang out there when she isn't home. That can't possibly be any clearer.

And he's now gone and dragged the kids into it. Class Act, there.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 10:41 AM
He's a dick for doing what he did, but his policies are excellant. He would have endorsed Ron Paul in 2012 had his Fox News contact not prevented him from doing so.


If he wouldn't stand up to Fox News, who do you think he's going to stand up to in Washington? "Gee, he would have voted against the Patriot Act, but his Fox News contact prevented him from doing so!"

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 12:40 PM
"It's an unfortunate reality that divorced couples sometimes have disagreements that spill over into family court. I did indeed watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14 year old son because as a father I didn’t think he should watch it alone," Sanford said in a statement Tuesday morning.

"Given she was out of town I tried to reach her beforehand to tell her of the situation that had arisen, and met her at the back steps under the light of my cell phone when she returned and told her what had happened."


Makes sense.

If Sanford was there by himself sneaking around the house, that would be a entirely different story.

RockEnds
04-17-2013, 12:53 PM
The guy lacks the good sense God gave a goose. He also lacks any respect whatsoever for property rights. He's not welcome at the residence of his ex-wife. It's really not a difficult concept. Someone get out the crayons and draw him a picture.

cajuncocoa
04-17-2013, 01:13 PM
why feel sorry for the kids ?

Their fathers an ex-governor and mother is pretty wealthy as well..

They're insanely privileged.
Speechless.

speciallyblend
04-17-2013, 01:56 PM
trainwreck, you can decide who represents sanford. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9KMCUwyxk<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9KMCUwyxk">
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9KMCUwyxk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq9KMCUwyxk)

sailingaway
04-17-2013, 01:59 PM
NRCC has announced they won't be spending any money on Sanford's campaign.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 02:03 PM
The guy lacks the good sense God gave a goose. He also lacks any respect whatsoever for property rights. He's not welcome at the residence of his ex-wife. It's really not a difficult concept. Someone get out the crayons and draw him a picture.


It seems to be hard for some of the guys here to grasp as well.

RockEnds
04-17-2013, 02:11 PM
It seems to be hard for some of the guys here to grasp as well.

Something tells me that if the ex-wife had gone to Sanford's beach house uninvited so that her daughter didn't have to watch the Miss America pageant alone, the fellas here would catch on pretty quickly to what makes that wrong.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 02:14 PM
Something tells me that if the ex-wife had gone to Sanford's beach house uninvited so that her daughter didn't have to watch the Miss America pageant alone, the fellas here would catch on pretty quickly to what makes that wrong.


Heh - indeed!

juleswin
04-17-2013, 02:21 PM
Something tells me that if the ex-wife had gone to Sanford's beach house uninvited so that her daughter didn't have to watch the Miss America pageant alone, the fellas here would catch on pretty quickly to what makes that wrong.

OMG, I for one wouldn't have a problem with it. They have children together and whether she likes it or not, they will have to deal with each other until the boys are of age. The idea that every single move they make to benefit of their children have to be sanctioned by the courts is just absurd. My feeling is she is in a bad place in her live right now and would like to cause as much pain to Mark to get back at him.

sailingaway
04-17-2013, 02:23 PM
OMG, I for one wouldn't have a problem with it. They have children together and whether she likes it or not, they will have to deal with each other until the boys are of age. The idea that every single move they make to benefit of their children have to be sanctioned by the courts is just absurd. My feeling is she is in a bad place in her live right now and would like to cause as much pain to Mark to get back at him.

That has nothing to do with it, this isn't running into someone in a restaurant, it is having your own private home and privacy.

speciallyblend
04-17-2013, 02:24 PM
OMG, I for one wouldn't have a problem with it. They have children together and whether she likes it or not, they will have to deal with each other until the boys are of age. The idea that every single move they make to benefit of their children have to be sanctioned by the courts is just absurd. My feeling is she is in a bad place in her live right now and would like to cause as much pain to Mark to get back at him.

either way sanford wins the dunce award for violating terms he agreed to.

juleswin
04-17-2013, 02:26 PM
either way sanford wins the dunce award for violating terms he agreed to.

Sometimes you have no say in these kinds of matter. Any person that has gone through a divorce trial would tell you that it is oh so biased against the man. Believe me, this woman is trying to make his life a living hell and not the other way around.

speciallyblend
04-17-2013, 02:27 PM
That has nothing to do with it, this isn't running into someone in a restaurant, it is having your own private home and privacy.

under court order i believe he wasn't suppose to be there. He knew he was violating. Before you violate you go to court to change not vice versa.

FSP-Rebel
04-17-2013, 02:28 PM
Such a stupid man and that's coming from someone that is excited that he's running for Congress.

speciallyblend
04-17-2013, 02:28 PM
Sometimes you have no say in these kinds of matter. Any person that has gone through a divorce trial would tell you that it is oh so biased against the man. Believe me, this woman is trying to make his life a living hell and not the other way around.

more reasons you do not violate court orders and if you feel it is unjust you go back to court to change it not ignore it and go to a restricted area.

RockEnds
04-17-2013, 02:29 PM
My feeling is she is in a bad place in her live right now and would like to cause as much pain to Mark to get back at him.

Or maybe she's in a good place in her life and would prefer that her lying, cheating ex-husband doesn't greet her at the door when she comes home from a date.

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 02:36 PM
OMG, I for one wouldn't have a problem with it. They have children together and whether she likes it or not, they will have to deal with each other until the boys are of age. The idea that every single move they make to benefit of their children have to be sanctioned by the courts is just absurd. My feeling is she is in a bad place in her live right now and would like to cause as much pain to Mark to get back at him.

I would not have a problem with her doing that either.

And what would be said if Sanford had just dropped the kid off on the street and told him to go in the house and wait for his mom to get home? "OMG, you can't just leave a child by themselves like that!"

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 02:43 PM
The agreement already says that he can be in the house with her permission. It's not a restraining order. Sanford should have the terms of the agreement changed such that the children are also authorized to allow him in (if they are there) and if Mom is not there and can not be reached.

In a broader sense, we have someone who is "not welcome in the home". What if it's a friend of the kid? A grandparent? A cousin? When should the authorities be called in to handle the situation?

TaftFan
04-17-2013, 02:46 PM
I don't condone cheating, but I have long though Jenny is and was likely a cold woman.

sailingaway
04-17-2013, 02:51 PM
I don't care if she's a cold woman, and I'm already looking past his cheating. But if you come home and find an ex boyfriend girl friend whatever who is not supposed to have keys has been making themselves at home in your house, that sounds revolting.

erowe1
04-17-2013, 02:52 PM
Believe me, this woman is trying to make his life a living hell and not the other way around.

I don't know if this is true. But if it is, I wonder why.

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 02:58 PM
I don't care if she's a cold woman, and I'm already looking past his cheating. But if you come home and find an ex boyfriend girl friend whatever who is not supposed to have keys has been making themselves at home in your house, that sounds revolting.

Well, there's always cell phones, and she apparently wasn't answering hers.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 03:07 PM
Well, there's always cell phones, and she apparently wasn't answering hers.

Why are you struggling so hard with this?

Does the divorce decree say that he can come in if she doesn't answer the cell phone? No, it doesn't. Does the divorce decree say that he's not allowed in her home if she isn't there? Yes, it does.

They are divorced - she is under no obligation to answer his calls. The fact that this clause is in the divorce decree signals to me that he already had issues with boundaries.

And let's not even get into the message that sends to her son. "Yes, I know your Mom said no, but we can just blow her off. "

idiom
04-17-2013, 03:15 PM
Pssh. Court orders don't apply to politicians. Do you think Ron would ever pay attention to a court order?

jtstellar
04-17-2013, 03:50 PM
i will probably have kids in the future but i'm really hesitant to make long term commitments..

kids grow up a certain way without a father or without a mother, each will bring some unique characteristics to that child, which means both mother and father play a role in a child's personality development. you can't really claim one has more prominence over the other. i have friends from both backgrounds.

one without a father will constantly look for replacement figures in his life, that can easily lead them to cult societies or follow the wrong personalities, as they will seek to emulate other prominent male figures more so than those with a father. those without a mother i have noticed tend to have a more difficult time manging their own emotions, and sometimes they have anger management problems.

you can't claim certain characteristics or the lack thereof has more prominence over others, when discussing the effects of a missing father or mother.

it's just funny when a wife thinks she has a special place over the father just by developing bonds with children while the husband has an equally important bond too, but her bond is somehow great enough to entitle herself to everything else in the house and some, when a relationship breaks up.. i mean if the importance of bonds is equal, then the mother and the father should have canceled each other out in a divorce--

both have done their fair share in a child's personality development. great. so why does that entitle the wife to everything else the husband has done in career? this is pretty unique to american culture.. since i am bilingual i am hesitant to get a woman here, but i want someone who speaks perfect english.. the dilemma.

and since i've made a fair share of anti-feminist posts here let me just say i have no problem with finding women, so don't worry about that.. i am quite popular with girls when i don't talk about politics.

the funny thing is i've seen some woman on this board come back and hint the feminist-like attitude counter-hate is because we have trouble with women, and some have made fun of this movement being predominantly male. you know what, the funny thing is many libertarian-leaning males are quite good looking, if you haven't noticed.

i don't know why that is the case either. if you look at libertarian rally photos, facebook, youtube, whatever, people in this movement are generally good looking, both males and females. so no, whatever the reason you think some males here seem to flatter feminism arguments less so than other places or with your submissive male friends when you raise ugly feminist arguments-- it's not from lack of luck with women, jealousy or whatever other childish reason you can think of. it might just be the opposite.

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 04:02 PM
Why are you struggling so hard with this?

Let's start with the obvious: The only reason we know about this is that it is being used for political purposes.

Aside from the politics, yes, Sanford should not have gone in the house. Were there alternatives? Maybe he could have taken his son to his place for the game instead, but maybe there's an agreement against that too. Maybe he could have left the kid by himself, but maybe that would have caused trouble too. Who knows. Aside from the courts, there are everyday situations that need to be worked out.

There are a million complaints that divorced couples have, and a lot of them revolve around the kids, and especially timing and where they are going to be on weekends. That's just the reality.

Back to the political angle, should taxpayers spend money and should courts be clogged with petty arguments between couples? I vote no.

cajuncocoa
04-17-2013, 04:10 PM
Let's start with the obvious: The only reason we know about this is that it is being used for political purposes.

Not necessarily. We know about it because the person involved is newsworthy. We hear about these kind of things all the time with regard to entertainers and athletes. We don't hear about it with regard to the family down the street (unless there is a public disturbance involved), for obvious reasons.

amy31416
04-17-2013, 04:15 PM
I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but I really am. This woman, who didn't grovel, beg or cry on national TV in order to preserve her husband's career, who appears to have a reasonably custody agreement with her creepy ex, is being a petty bitch because she won't let the ex come over any damn time he wants?

Are you people kidding me?

Private property/privacy is only for you men?

If Jenny wanted to destroy Mark, she probably could have done it 10x over by now.

TaftFan
04-17-2013, 04:16 PM
The way I see it he bought the house and he has a right to see his own kid.

He isn't a child abuser.

That might be legally incorrect but then again who says the law is correct.

If government wasn't involved in marriage this might not have even happened.

jtstellar
04-17-2013, 04:41 PM
The way I see it he bought the house and he has a right to see his own kid.

He isn't a child abuser.

That might be legally incorrect but then again who says the law is correct.

If government wasn't involved in marriage this might not have even happened.

as much as i would like to emphasize this is his house, i must also admit to getting tired of seeing people make wrong choices with their spouse. i mean if you have trouble making a decision as personal as this, what do you expect others to do for you?

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 04:43 PM
Ya know, this all reminds me of a film I saw at a divorce parenting class. The dad called the house to speak to the mom but she was out shopping. (Film made before widespread cellphone use.) Dad had tickets to a NASCAR race. He had told his son to ask him mom if he could go. She was all like "No! It's our weekend and I was going to cook some burgers and watch some movies." Son was like "I really want to go and this race only happens once a year." Mom was like "Besides, your dad is behind on the child support and he hasn't fixed our dishwasher so how does he have money for this anyway? And when is he going to fix your bike?" Mom ends up letting son go even though she never says "yes" to him. Son tells dad what mom said (sort of). Dad says "Really? I giver her the check at the first of the month. Tell her she needs to cash it on time. And she can call a repairman in the phone book." Son's like "Oh, and by the way. Mom says I need a new bike. Mine's too far gone." (Son later tells mom that dad says he needs a new bike. Old one is too far gone.) Meanwhile sister is pissed that dad is taking son to the races and leaving her with mom.

Moral of all that? Parents...please get along for the sake of the kids. No don't let your ex-spouse run over you, and don't let your kids manipulate both of you. But at the end of the day, the only "property rights" you'll have will be 3 feet by 6 feet by 6 feet. And on your death bed your greatest regrets in life may be based on whether you do your best to make sure your kids had as happy of a childhood as possible under the circumstances. Someone in this thread said these kids are "privileged" because they have an ex-governor for a dad and a millionaire for a mom? I bet they'd trade all of that to have their biological parents love them and each other. If I had a daughter and she wanted to watch the Miss America pageant and it wasn't my weekend I'd send her over to her mom's house. I sure wouldn't have any desire to watch it.

juleswin
04-17-2013, 04:43 PM
The way I see it he bought the house and he has a right to see his own kid.

He isn't a child abuser.

That might be legally incorrect but then again who says the law is correct.

If government wasn't involved in marriage this might not have even happened.

As it turns out, Jenny has full custody of the boys. Lemme say it again, Jenny has full custody of the boys. This man whose only sin was to fall out of love with his wife did not get even partial custody of his children you just have to wonder how many other ways the judge fucked him in the ass.

Sorry I do not blame him for trying to make contact with his boys on Superbowl Sunday in the man hating society. If jenny had been the one to cheat on Mark, I bet you a million dollars she would still have primary custody of his children and would be forced to pay child support and maybe alimony on top of that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8bDS-Z3gmg

The video above is about female supremacy in the western world for anybody who wants to watch. This man shouldn't be punished this way because he stopped loving his wife and cheated.

amy31416
04-17-2013, 04:44 PM
The way I see it he bought the house and he has a right to see his own kid.

He isn't a child abuser.

That might be legally incorrect but then again who says the law is correct.

If government wasn't involved in marriage this might not have even happened.

First--link to who has ownership/who paid for the house. The house I live in was 100% paid for--by me.

Second--if you have a kid with a woman and she turns out to by a lying, diseased whore, will you agree that she can stop by anytime she wants, without your permission?

There's so many more issues with this mindset that it's just ridiculous. Having a child with someone does not give you a pass to disregard their rights.

amy31416
04-17-2013, 04:51 PM
As it turns out, Jenny has full custody of the boys. Lemme say it again, Jenny has full custody of the boys. This man whose only sin was to fall out of love with his wife did not get even partial custody of his children you just have to wonder how many other ways the judge fucked him in the ass.

Sorry I do not blame him for trying to make contact with his boys on Superbowl Sunday in the man hating society. If jenny had been the one to cheat on Mark, I bet you a million dollars she would still have primary custody of his children and would be forced to pay child support and maybe alimony on top of that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8bDS-Z3gmg

The video above is about female supremacy in the western world for anybody who wants to watch. This man shouldn't be punished this way because he stopped loving his wife and cheated.

Men don't lose custody for infidelity. My suspicion is that he was so caught up with his love affair that he didn't care and let Jenny go her way so he could spend lots of time in Argentina. He stopped loving his kids too when he was so freaking careless with his BS and they had to deal with reading his hyper-sexual letters to his mistress.

And trying to make this some "you're an evil man-hating feminist" if you don't take Mark's side is bullshit. He's a whore, a bumbling oaf and has no principles--if he wanted custody of his kids, he would have fought for it and won it. He was probably far too busy schtupping his next victim and maybe a few others.

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 04:53 PM
First--link to who has ownership/who paid for the house. The house I live in was 100% paid for--by me.

Second--if you have a kid with a woman and she turns out to by a lying, diseased whore, will you agree that she can stop by anytime she wants, without your permission?

There's so many more issues with this mindset that it's just ridiculous. Having a child with someone does not give you a pass to disregard their rights.

What about the "rights" of the child? What about what's "right" for the child? If mom wins this legal battle and son grows up hating her for it, who wins? I don't have all of the facts, but I think both parents could have done better. If I knew my child wanted to do something like watch a major sporting event I wasn't interested in, and I thought my ex might be interested in it, I'd be the one making the call to the other parent.

jtstellar
04-17-2013, 04:53 PM
we should just agree that whatever you put out, it is voluntary, you don't get to ask for financial compensation to somebody else's house or whatever post-fact, like your emotional devotions can be converted to some sort of currency. that's where the cynicism comes from.

if she had her own house, she would have every "right" to refuse visit. legally court may put out some bs decision, as usual, that lets her have the house, but common sense dictates people to do things in violation of bs legal decisions, so he thought it would be ok to visit the house, SINCE HE BOUGHT IT ORIGINALLY regardless of bs legal decisions. some of you women must love 100% of all supreme court decisions. "wElL it iS tHe lAw~~".. "rights" beyond the constitutional bill of rights.. what would some women ever do without big government?

amy31416
04-17-2013, 05:03 PM
What about the "rights" of the child? What about what's "right" for the child? If mom wins this legal battle and son grows up hating her for it, who wins? I don't have all of the facts, but I think both parents could have done better. If I knew my child wanted to do something like watch a major sporting event I wasn't interested in, and I thought my ex might be interested in it, I'd be the one making the call to the other parent.

At the age of 13 a child can be granted the right to decide who they want to live with. It's mom's house, it's her rules.

As I said before, I would give him a pass the first time he violated the "stay out of my house unless you have permission" rule when he broke it the first time, and make the boundaries explicitly clear. Second time I'm going to start getting pissed off--and this article said that he's violated the rule numerous times.

Both parents could have done better--she probably could have done better by not marrying him in the first place, when he refused to commit to being monogamous. Bad on her for that. How Mark could have done better has already been hashed out.

And yes, I'm a spaz when it comes to privacy, even though the most I might have to hide is a sink of dirty dishes. I hate it when people drop by unannounced, much less enter my home when I'm not there--that's just ridiculous.

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 05:06 PM
Private property/privacy is only for you men?


Of course everyone has equal property rights.

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 05:09 PM
As it turns out, Jenny has full custody of the boys. Lemme say it again, Jenny has full custody of the boys.

Well, that probably rules out the option of having the kid over to his house to watch the game, or even meeting up at the local sports restaurant.

juleswin
04-17-2013, 05:10 PM
Men don't lose custody for infidelity. My suspicion is that he was so caught up with his love affair that he didn't care and let Jenny go her way so he could spend lots of time in Argentina. He stopped loving his kids too when he was so freaking careless with his BS and they had to deal with reading his hyper-sexual letters to his mistress.

And trying to make this some "you're an evil man-hating feminist" if you don't take Mark's side is bullshit. He's a whore, a bumbling oaf and has no principles--if he wanted custody of his kids, he would have fought for it and won it. He was probably far too busy schtupping his next victim and maybe a few others.

Its way more than "you're an evil man-hating feminist" if you don't take Mark's side. It is about understanding and being reasonable. Super bowls, World cups, world series are event which most male kids bond with their dads. Jenny if she was a little bit more considerate about the needs of her boys would have tried to make the arrangements herself to see that those boys would have someone to spend the day with.

At first I did not care for the game but I remembered every single World cup finals I watched with my dad and I cherished every single one of em. If something had happened between my mom and my dad where they were no longer together and my mom prevented me from spending that afternoon with him, I wouldn't forgive her for it. She continues down this road and those boys will grow up and they will remember what she did and might just pay her back for it in her old age.

jtstellar
04-17-2013, 05:10 PM
Private property/privacy is only for you men?

she bought the house or did the court "transfer" it to her?

Oooh, it was a "court decision". So legal decision means it is always moral and in good common sense. let's all legislate morality then, against ron paul's advice. why protest jim crow after the fact? before it was abolished, it was moral then.

amy31416
04-17-2013, 05:17 PM
Its way more than "you're an evil man-hating feminist" if you don't take Mark's side. It is about understanding and being reasonable. Super bowls, World cups, world series are event which most male kids bond with their dads. Jenny if she was a little bit more considerate about the needs of her boys would have tried to make the arrangements herself to see that those boys would have someone to spend the day with.

At first I did not care for the game but I remembered every single World cup finals I watched with my dad and I cherished every single one of em. If something had happened between my mom and my dad where they were no longer together and my mom prevented me from spending that afternoon with him, I wouldn't forgive her for it. She continues down this road and those boys will grow up and they will remember what she did and might just pay her back for it in her old age.

If it was that important to Mark, why is it not some expected annual event? Why wasn't it planned for in advance?

How many times has he done this before?

Do you know or have any reason to believe that she hasn't been reasonable for a long period of time?

Why do your fond memories trump her right to privacy? Hint: they don't. Don't view this in such a gender-slanted, emotional way--this is about an individual's right to privacy. I would view Mark's frequent trespassing as not respecting my right to privacy and a "control" thing. He can do what he wants and if you don't go along with it, you're being an "evil man-hating feminist trying to keep the kids away from daddy." What if Mark is being manipulative by playing the "woe is me, just trying to bond with mah boy" card? Far be it for a politician to be manipulative, controlling and dishonest, right?

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 05:21 PM
At the age of 13 a child can be granted the right to decide who they want to live with. It's mom's house, it's her rules.

That varies from state to state, but sure. And if son decides after this "Screw this! I'm moving in with dad!" what has mom won exactly?



As I said before, I would give him a pass the first time he violated the "stay out of my house unless you have permission" rule when he broke it the first time, and make the boundaries explicitly clear. Second time I'm going to start getting pissed off--and this article said that he's violated the rule numerous times.


Yeah. The article isn't a court document though. And again, I'm not saying Mark's right. Did you read post #92 I made? It's likely that in cases like this both "adults" aren't acting as adults.



Both parents could have done better--she probably could have done better by not marrying him in the first place, when he refused to commit to being monogamous. Bad on her for that. How Mark could have done better has already been hashed out.


Maybe at the time she thought she could stomach an open relationship and then changed her mind? Who knows? Everyone makes mistakes. It's the mistake after the mistake that really gets you. Now that they are both linked to someone they don't love by way of children the both love (I'm assuming) the question they both have to ask is "How do I put my own rights aside for what's right for the children?" I've known men who have purposefully not asserted custody rights as far as they could because reverse income disparity (common in the black community) would mean the wife would have to pay the husband child support and it wouldn't work out best for their kids. (Yes there are men that care more about their kids than money). My point is, sometimes it's best not to concentrate on what your "right" is if that means doing what's "right" for your child. This "protective" order has been violated multiple times? Have most of the times been because Mark has been trying to have a relationship with his kids? Maybe he screwed up in the custody fight. Maybe he was feeling so guilty at the moment that he thought "I don't deserve to be in my kids." (Yes men are capable of feeling guilty). Now he's trying to rectify the situation? I know what I'm talking about is possible because I've seen it.



And yes, I'm a spaz when it comes to privacy, even though the most I might have to hide is a sink of dirty dishes. I hate it when people drop by unannounced, much less enter my home when I'm not there--that's just ridiculous.

And I can fully understand that. Again, we don't have all of the facts (at least not to my satisfaction). I was ready to throw Stanford under the bus when I thought he was just "creeping". But if this is about his relationship with his son, I just think both sides need to work harder to come to an agreement. Again, if it was my child and there was something that he/she wanted to do that his/her mother was into and I wasn't, I'd ask them both ahead of time "Do you want to go over to mom's house for this?" No property rights violated and everyone is happy.

RockEnds
04-17-2013, 05:22 PM
As it turns out, Jenny has full custody of the boys. Lemme say it again, Jenny has full custody of the boys.

Not that it has anything to do with him being at her house without her permission, but do you have a link to this information? And would you please define "full" custody? Does she have sole physical and legal custody? The vast majority of divorce decrees in my state involve primary physical custody granted to one parent with the non-custodial parent having visitation and each with joint legal custody. Just what does "full" custody mean, and where did you find this information?

amy31416
04-17-2013, 05:23 PM
she bought the house or did the court "transfer" it to her?

Oooh, it was a "court decision". So legal decision means it is always moral and in good common sense. let's all legislate morality then, against ron paul's advice. why protest jim crow after the fact? before it was abolished, it was moral then.

Once again--proof of who bought the house and who owns it.

Even if he does (by small chance) own the house or paid for it, if he agreed to those terms in the contract, then she has full right to call him out on it for numerous violations. This should not even be part of the argument, but just so you know, Jenny Sanford comes from wealth and it's just as likely (if not more so) that she paid for the house.

If she was as nutty as him and kept showing up in his house, that would be wrong as well. Even if she paid for it, which she may have, just to get him out.

juleswin
04-17-2013, 05:28 PM
If it was that important to Mark, why is it not some expected annual event? Why wasn't it planned for in advance?

How many times has he done this before?

Do you know or have any reason to believe that she hasn't been reasonable for a long period of time?

Why do your fond memories trump her right to privacy? Hint: they don't. Don't view this in such a gender-slanted, emotional way--this is about an individual's right to privacy. I would view Mark's frequent trespassing as not respecting my right to privacy and a "control" thing. He can do what he wants and if you don't go along with it, you're being an "evil man-hating feminist trying to keep the kids away from daddy." What if Mark is being manipulative by playing the "woe is me, just trying to bond with mah boy" card? Far be it for a politician to be manipulative, controlling and dishonest, right?

A man playing the "woe is me" against a woman who he just cheated on? Not even a possibility. He would be laughed at and 90% of the population wont be capable of buying it. Also this repeated accusation that he has done this multiple times against her wishes is something I have a hard time believing. If its actually true that he has come in multiple times uninvited, I would guess that she has had no problem with it in the past and have only decided to raise it as an issue once it had the potential to destroy him politically.

I do sympathize with Jenny but she has to understand that Mark is going to have a presence in her life on the count that they have kids together.

idiom
04-17-2013, 05:29 PM
Yup. This is a man I trust with donations.

amy31416
04-17-2013, 05:30 PM
That varies from state to state, but sure. And if son decides after this "Screw this! I'm moving in with dad!" what has mom won exactly?



Yeah. The article isn't a court document though. And again, I'm not saying Mark's right. Did you read post #92 I made? It's likely that in cases like this both "adults" aren't acting as adults.



Maybe at the time she thought she could stomach an open relationship and then changed her mind? Who knows? Everyone makes mistakes. It's the mistake after the mistake that really gets you. Now that they are both linked to someone they don't love by way of children the both love (I'm assuming) the question they both have to ask is "How do I put my own rights aside for what's right for the children?" I've known men who have purposefully not asserted custody rights as far as they could because reverse income disparity (common in the black community) would mean the wife would have to pay the husband child support and it wouldn't work out best for their kids. (Yes there are men that care more about their kids than money). My point is, sometimes it's best not to concentrate on what your "right" is if that means doing what's "right" for your child. This "protective" order has been violated multiple times? Have most of the times been because Mark has been trying to have a relationship with his kids? Maybe he screwed up in the custody fight. Maybe he was feeling so guilty at the moment that he thought "I don't deserve to be in my kids." (Yes men are capable of feeling guilty). Now he's trying to rectify the situation? I know what I'm talking about is possible because I've seen it.



And I can fully understand that. Again, we don't have all of the facts (at least not to my satisfaction). I was ready to throw Stanford under the bus when I thought he was just "creeping". But if this is about his relationship with his son, I just think both sides need to work harder to come to an agreement. Again, if it was my child and there was something that he/she wanted to do that his/her mother was into and I wasn't, I'd ask them both ahead of time "Do you want to go over to mom's house for this?" No property rights violated and everyone is happy.

Her privacy was important enough to her to get him to agree to this rule, he violated it numerous times and is wrong to do so, is that really so much to ask? All these side arguments are a bunch of horsephooey emotional speculation that merely show that respect/defense of other people's rights is dependent on what you feel. We're all guilty of that and should be called out on it.

Men here are sympathizing with Mark because the poor ol' sap just wanted to watch the ole ball game with his kid and bond. And none of you know that that's really the case--the only fact is that he violated their agreement and her privacy.

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 05:30 PM
If it was that important to Mark, why is it not some expected annual event? Why wasn't it planned for in advance?

Who knows? Maybe last time he called, she answered, and he went over? Maybe he figured it would just work out that way again and this time he didn't reach her? Call for speculation your honor.



How many times has he done this before?


Who knows? Asking for facts not in evidence your honor.



Do you know or have any reason to believe that she hasn't been reasonable for a long period of time?


Do you know or have any reason to believe that he's being manipulative, controlling and dishonest? Call for speculation your honor.



Why do your fond memories trump her right to privacy? Hint: they don't. Don't view this in such a gender-slanted, emotional way--this is about an individual's right to privacy. I would view Mark's frequent trespassing as not respecting my right to privacy and a "control" thing. He can do what he wants and if you don't go along with it, you're being an "evil man-hating feminist trying to keep the kids away from daddy." What if Mark is being manipulative by playing the "woe is me, just trying to bond with mah boy" card? Far be it for a politician to be manipulative, controlling and dishonest, right?

And years from now will this young man be thinking "Kudos to my mom for sticking up for her property rights?" or will he be thinking "My mom was a real ***** for making a stick out of my dad watching the Superbowl with me." If it's the latter than all of the legal rights in the world won't amount to a hill of beans. Again, not defending either party. I think the needs of the children are being trampled under "property rights." We don't even really know the facts of the case. I don't even like Mark Stanford. But it's got to suck to be their kids right now.

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 05:31 PM
Her privacy was important enough to her to get him to agree to this rule, he violated it numerous times and is wrong to do so, is that really so much to ask? All these side arguments are a bunch of horsephooey emotional speculation that merely show that respect/defense of other people's rights is dependent on what you feel. We're all guilty of that and should be called out on it.

Men here are sympathizing with Mark because the poor ol' sap just wanted to watch the ole ball game with his kid and bond. And none of you know that that's really the case--the only fact is that he violated their agreement and her privacy.

I'm sympathizing with their kids. They just happen to be boys, but it would be the same if they were girls. And I'd feel the same if it was Mark making a stink about his ex wife coming over and spending time with their daughter. For you to claim that I'm just "man sympathizing" is really unfair.

Edit: And again, years from now if this works out the way it looks like it might, she may rue the day that she put her property rights above her children.

amy31416
04-17-2013, 05:36 PM
A man playing the "woe is me" against a woman who he just cheated on? Not even a possibility. He would be laughed at and 90% of the population wont be capable of buying it. Also this repeated accusation that he has done this multiple times against her wishes is something I have a hard time believing. If its actually true that he has come in multiple times uninvited, I would guess that she has had no problem with it in the past and have only decided to raise it as an issue once it had the potential to destroy him politically.

I do sympathize with Jenny but she has to understand that Mark is going to have a presence in her life on the count that they have kids together.

Wow. You just can't view this without the gender bias.

Mark has been playing the "woe is me" card since he got caught. He's also bothered Jenny to work on his campaign and give him relationship advice (with his mistress) while they were still married.

Why wouldn't she have complained? Maybe she did, maybe she gave it a pass several times because he is the kids father.

This destroys him politically? She did it? Uhh, no--he did it, she didn't even release the information (though it's possible she did, that's pure speculation.) He's a damned train wreck and needs to take responsibility for his own actions, you can't excuse him for anyone but yourself. And you can't strip someone else of their right to privacy because of your speculations.

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 05:37 PM
Her privacy was important enough to her to get him to agree to this rule

A lot of these agreements are boilerplate "standard procedure" kind of stuff from the lawyers.

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 05:39 PM
He's also bothered Jenny to work on his campaign and give him relationship advice (with his mistress) while they were still married.


Hadn't heard about that. Was it in the media somewhere?

amy31416
04-17-2013, 05:41 PM
I'm sympathizing with their kids. They just happen to be boys, but it would be the same if they were girls. And I'd feel the same if it was Mark making a stink about his ex wife coming over and spending time with their daughter. For you to claim that I'm just "man sympathizing" is really unfair.

Edit: And again, years from now if this works out the way it looks like it might, she may rue the day that she put her property rights above her children.


That is pure speculation.

It's not unfair to say that you're "man sympathizing" because you are. This would not be many folks here defending a woman who shows up at your house without your permission and hanging out for as long as she likes. Hell, why not say it's okay to go through the medicine cabinet when they use the bathroom?

No. Sorry. Not giving in on this one. She has a right to privacy, and the way their kids are being raised, and all the conflicts that come along with it are their business. But with all the speculation, the only thing that is definite is that he is violating her privacy against her wishes.

Right?

juleswin
04-17-2013, 05:45 PM
[/B]

That is pure speculation.

It's not unfair to say that you're "man sympathizing" because you are. This would not be many folks here defending a woman who shows up at your house without your permission and hanging out for as long as she likes. Hell, why not say it's okay to go through the medicine cabinet when they use the bathroom?

No. Sorry. Not giving in on this one. She has a right to privacy, and the way their kids are being raised, and all the conflicts that come along with it are their business. But with all the speculation, the only thing that is definite is that he is violating her privacy against her wishes.

Right?

I wouldn't have a problem with that at all even as you described it in the worst way possible. Remember every story has 2 side so lets wait for the other side to speak before taking her account as gospel.

LibertyEagle
04-17-2013, 05:46 PM
First--link to who has ownership/who paid for the house. The house I live in was 100% paid for--by me.

Second--if you have a kid with a woman and she turns out to by a lying, diseased whore, will you agree that she can stop by anytime she wants, without your permission?

There's so many more issues with this mindset that it's just ridiculous. Having a child with someone does not give you a pass to disregard their rights.

lol. And some around here wonder why there aren't many women in this movement. ROFL



I read that he's actually asked her to help out in his campaign. He asked her for advice in his relationship with his mistress. He's a creep.

You know, Sanford is really coming off as an extremely immature person who certainly does not have his act together.

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 05:49 PM
[/B]
That is pure speculation.


True. But the difference between my speculation and your speculation is that I admit mine is speculation.



It's not unfair to say that you're "man sympathizing" because you are.


Really? You haven't read the entire thread have you? Because I was strictly on Jenny's side until I found out what was going on with their son. The only "man" I'm sympathizing with is still a boy actually. I'm sorry you can't sympathize with him over property rights.



This would not be many folks here defending a woman who shows up at your house without your permission and hanging out for as long as she likes. Hell, why not say it's okay to go through the medicine cabinet when they use the bathroom?


Again, I said I'd be proactive if I knew there was something coming up that my daughter wanted to see that I wasn't interested in and call my ex-wife to see if she wanted to do it with my daughter. Sure Mark could have planned ahead. Jenny could have as well. Neither did and their son is suffering because of it. Maybe the "Solomon solution" should be invoked and CPS should take the boy from both parents since all they seem to care about is "property rights"?



No. Sorry. Not giving in on this one. She has a right to privacy, and the way their kids are being raised, and all the conflicts that come along with it are their business. But with all the speculation, the only thing that is definite is that he is violating her privacy against her wishes.


She has a right to privacy. She only has a right to be involved in the way their kids are raised. She does not have a right to the way their kids are raised. Maybe legally if she has full custody, but not in a natural law sense. What I mean by that is if she is throwing her legal weight around her son will naturally rebel at some point and she will regret her decisions for the rest of her natural life.


Right?

No. Wrong as hell.

supermario21
04-17-2013, 05:55 PM
If Mark ends up losing the election, Maria showing up on run off night is what cost him.

juleswin
04-17-2013, 05:57 PM
If Mark ends up losing the election, Maria showing up on run off night is what cost him.

Right now, she is no longer a mistress, no need hiding her. If I win a primary, you bet your ass that my girlfriend will be there with me celebrating.

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 06:05 PM
Second--if you have a kid with a woman and she turns out to by a lying, diseased whore, will you agree that she can stop by anytime she wants, without your permission?



lol. And some around here wonder why there aren't many women in this movement. ROFL
You know, Sanford is really coming off as an extremely immature person who certainly does not have his act together.

(Full disclosure: I've never been divorced.)

I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate between the genders. I've known several guys in Amy's scenario above, and they would have little problem if the ex was sitting there with the kid when they came home. Seriously. They wouldn't care. "Oh, you're here with the kid? OK." The angry ones would say "OK, I'm home, you can go now." And then call her a few names afterwards. The less angry ones would probably say, "You wanna eat dinner?" And I would point out, these are cases where the woman cheated on the men, and ended the marriage.

Now if you throw a new spouse into the mix, all hell would break loose.

I hate to make a generalization, but women would tend to view this as an extreme violation, and tend to be a little more "territorial", for lack of a better word. Men tend to get less excited about it. Everyone is an individual. Your mileage will vary. It's something that genders view differently though.

MelissaWV
04-17-2013, 06:12 PM
(Full disclosure: I've never been divorced.)

I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate between the genders. I've known several guys in Amy's scenario above, and they would have little problem if the ex was sitting there with the kid when they came home. Seriously. They wouldn't care. "Oh, you're here with the kid? OK." The angry ones would say "OK, I'm home, you can go now." And then call her a few names afterwards. The less angry ones would probably say, "You wanna eat dinner?" And I would point out, these are cases where the woman cheated on the men, and ended the marriage.

Now if you throw a new spouse into the mix, all hell would break loose.

I hate to make a generalization, but women would tend to view this as an extreme violation, and tend to be a little more "territorial", for lack of a better word. Men tend to get less excited about it. Everyone is an individual. Your mileage will vary. It's something that genders view differently though.

Weird. Every guy I've known complains of, at some point, some woman in their life getting too clingy and rearranging his stuff and not respecting his space. I guess showing up uninvited in his home would not qualify as clingy.

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 06:19 PM
Weird. Every guy I've known complains of, at some point, some woman in their life getting too clingy and rearranging his stuff and not respecting his space. I guess showing up uninvited in his home would not qualify as clingy.

Kind of a different issue though (usually before there's really a relationship), and it's too late for that complaint after the kid(s) are born. No doubt that could turn into a concern if it happened too often. If a new woman is involved, then it becomes a huge issue. Men are easy. ;)

juleswin
04-17-2013, 06:23 PM
Weird. Every guy I've known complains of, at some point, some woman in their life getting too clingy and rearranging his stuff and not respecting his space. I guess showing up uninvited in his home would not qualify as clingy.

First of all, what kind of woman leave their sons home alone on Super Bowl sunday? Also a woman coming to your house to tell you how to run your house and a man coming to your house to spend precious time with his sons are 2 different things. One deals with your stuff and the other their stuff. Big big difference

MelissaWV
04-17-2013, 06:27 PM
First of all, what kind of woman leave their sons home alone on Super Bowl sunday? Also a woman coming to your house to tell you how to run your house and a man coming to your house to spend precious time with his sons are 2 different things. One deals with your stuff and the other their stuff. Big big difference

So if you come home and someone you've gone to court to cement the fact that they live elsewhere and to arrange who gets the kids when, is sitting in your house, it's cool.

Again, weird.

If anyone wants to visit me in my home, they should really ask. I don't think he'd want her dropping by his place at random, either.

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 06:38 PM
(Full disclosure: I've never been divorced.)

I believe what we have here is a failure to communicate between the genders. I've known several guys in Amy's scenario above, and they would have little problem if the ex was sitting there with the kid when they came home. Seriously. They wouldn't care. "Oh, you're here with the kid? OK." The angry ones would say "OK, I'm home, you can go now." And then call her a few names afterwards. The less angry ones would probably say, "You wanna eat dinner?" And I would point out, these are cases where the woman cheated on the men, and ended the marriage.

Now if you throw a new spouse into the mix, all hell would break loose.

I hate to make a generalization, but women would tend to view this as an extreme violation, and tend to be a little more "territorial", for lack of a better word. Men tend to get less excited about it. Everyone is an individual. Your mileage will vary. It's something that genders view differently though.

You're probably right. One fact that's getting missed in all of this. Do people ever wonder why in what is still a male dominated judiciary, women so often get the kids, child support, alimony? Wonder why that's true going back as far as any of us can remember, and long before Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court? One place where men are likely to consider women superior is parenting. Might be true, might not be true.


Weird. Every guy I've known complains of, at some point, some woman in their life getting too clingy and rearranging his stuff and not respecting his space. I guess showing up uninvited in his home would not qualify as clingy.

That's just it. We're not talking about "stuff." We're talking about kids. If a woman was certain that her ex was much better at keeping the lawn than him, would he mind her coming around cutting the grass, trimming the hedges etc?

MelissaWV
04-17-2013, 06:50 PM
You're probably right. One fact that's getting missed in all of this. Do people ever wonder why in what is still a male dominated judiciary, women so often get the kids, child support, alimony? Wonder why that's true going back as far as any of us can remember, and long before Sandra Day O'Connor was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court? One place where men are likely to consider women superior is parenting. Might be true, might not be true.

That's just it. We're not talking about "stuff." We're talking about kids. If a woman was certain that her ex was much better at keeping the lawn than him, would he mind her coming around cutting the grass, trimming the hedges etc?

Honestly? If I'm going to divorce someone, I don't want them randomly dropping by and saying hello or mowing the lawn or folding my underwear or being in my house at all. Yes, this would apply even if we had kids together. I'm not even talking court orders or anything else here, just common courtesy. It doesn't seem like either side has heard of it.

jkob
04-17-2013, 06:51 PM
Hopefully this gets lost in the news with all the other major stories

juleswin
04-17-2013, 06:54 PM
So if you come home and someone you've gone to court to cement the fact that they live elsewhere and to arrange who gets the kids when, is sitting in your house, it's cool.

Again, weird.

If anyone wants to visit me in my home, they should really ask. I don't think he'd want her dropping by his place at random, either.

You guys are putting the worst spin on this story. Most likely she knew Mark had keys to the house, most likely she had seen all the missed calls from Mark trying to contact her before coming over, most likely she would have known that fathers and sons love to watch super bowl games together. So lets stop acting like she was all that surprised seeing him with his sons.

I would suggest that she be a little more accommodating because he is going to be in her life one way or another as long as these kids are alive.

juleswin
04-17-2013, 06:55 PM
Hopefully this gets lost in the news with all the other major stories

I hope so, because this is the only way Mrs Busch can win this race.

jkob
04-17-2013, 06:58 PM
if this did blow up, is it too late for Sanford to drop out?

MelissaWV
04-17-2013, 06:59 PM
You guys are putting the worst spin on this story. Most likely she knew Mark had keys to the house, most likely she had seen all the missed calls from Mark trying to contact her before coming over, most likely she would have known that fathers and sons love to watch super bowl games together. So lets stop acting like she was all that surprised seeing him with his sons.

I would suggest that she be a little more accommodating because he is going to be in her life one way or another as long as these kids are alive.

The reason I keep saying "weird" is that, in any other thread on the forums, property rights are pretty sacred. Privacy is also sacred. Somehow, though, she has no right to privacy or property in this scenario because he "wanted to be with his son." Most likely things were not going as wonderfully as you imply, considering the divorce.

They're both acting like morons, but I would say she has a right to not find him in her home. Period. I don't care if he's trying to clean the house, mow the lawn, bake her a cake, watch the Super Bowl with the kids, and do all the laundry (which seems to be the theme... he's just trying to do nice things for his children and it's all just a big happy favor, and mean ole witch woman gets all up in his face).

MelissaWV
04-17-2013, 07:00 PM
The couple’s divorce settlement says neither may enter the other’s home without permission.

When I first read the OP, I thought "what a retarded legal addition... who needs to be told this?"

Then I read the posts. Now I understand.

Brian4Liberty
04-17-2013, 07:12 PM
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_JnfwCALOmPk/S6DvtDlqFwI/AAAAAAAACS8/S56-yPwV5-0/s1600/urban%2B2
"Seriously, you can't come over and clean my place when I'm not there..."

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 07:32 PM
Honestly? If I'm going to divorce someone, I don't want them randomly dropping by and saying hello or mowing the lawn or folding my underwear or being in my house at all. Yes, this would apply even if we had kids together. I'm not even talking court orders or anything else here, just common courtesy. It doesn't seem like either side has heard of it.

I agree with the part that's in bold. I will agree to disagree with the rest. (Well...maybe the folding underwear part). I'd be more than happy for someone that I still trusted with my kids to stop by and check on them. And not all people who get divorced hate each other.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 08:31 PM
The way I see it he bought the house and he has a right to see his own kid.

He isn't a child abuser.

That might be legally incorrect but then again who says the law is correct.

If government wasn't involved in marriage this might not have even happened.

It isn't his house. He didn't buy it, he doesn't live there, he has never lived there.

angelatc
04-17-2013, 08:38 PM
Just to throw some more fuel on the fire - Sanford's fiance? At least one of the kids hadn't met her until she showed up as a surprise on election night.


Meanwhile, the Washington Post has learned that tensions within the family flared up as recently as April 2, at the celebration of Sanford’s runoff election victory when the former governor thrust two of his sons on-stage with the Argentine woman who was at the center of the spectacular sex scandal that broke up his marriage.

For Sanford’s teenage son Bolton, that very public moment marked the first time he had ever been in the presence of Maria Belen Chapur.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/04/Sanford.jpg

jmdrake
04-17-2013, 08:43 PM
Just to throw some more fuel on the fire - Sanford's fiance? At least one of the kids hadn't met her until she showed up as a surprise on election night.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/04/Sanford.jpg

Let's see. Superbowl happened on Feb 3. Complaint filed on Feb 4. Sanford is an ass on April 2. This all comes out in the news now. Maybe I'm missing something, or putting too much into this, but it seems connected. Oh, and I bet Sanford's son despises the mistress. You can see it on his face. I am so glad I'm not their kids!

sailingaway
04-17-2013, 09:38 PM
Let's see. Superbowl happened on Feb 3. Complaint filed on Feb 4. Sanford is an ass on April 2. This all comes out in the news now. Maybe I'm missing something, or putting too much into this, but it seems connected. Oh, and I bet Sanford's son despises the mistress. You can see it on his face. I am so glad I'm not their kids!

If it is the kind of tension that creates that look on the kid's face, I find it disingenuous to pretend Sanford's two years divorced wife think it great if he invaded her personal space.

If a woman had done it to a guy, I'd be thinking fatal attraction level stalking.

jj-
04-17-2013, 09:40 PM
She isn't "bitching." She's protecting her property. If it was anybody else we'd be encouraging her to get a damned gun and put a hole in him.

Maybe you, but me, hell no. He went to watch a game with his son. He should die for that? Sanford is nowhere near the type of aggressive man who would go and kill his ex or be physically violent in any way.

jj-
04-17-2013, 09:42 PM
She's over it, but he isn't.

lol

juleswin
04-17-2013, 09:52 PM
Let's see. Superbowl happened on Feb 3. Complaint filed on Feb 4. Sanford is an ass on April 2. This all comes out in the news now. Maybe I'm missing something, or putting too much into this, but it seems connected. Oh, and I bet Sanford's son despises the mistress. You can see it on his face. I am so glad I'm not their kids!


Good catch, this coming out now tells me that someone is out to destroy him. Dunno what role she played with this going public but she should quickly rebuke anyone trying to score political points.

cajuncocoa
04-17-2013, 10:22 PM
Good catch, this coming out now tells me that someone is out to destroy him. Dunno what role she played with this going public but she should quickly rebuke anyone trying to score political points.
How about putting the responsibility for "destroying him" where it belongs? You're shooting the messenger while overlooking the fact that Sanford brought this on himself.

Mini-Me
04-17-2013, 11:57 PM
It sounds to me like a creepy case of criminal trespassing. Am I the first male on here who's calling it like it is? (I can't remember if SailingAway is male or female. ;)) A divorced parent has every right to put as much distance as possible between herself (or himself) and her (his) ex, as long as child custody and visitation rights are being respected. None of us can know for sure what kind of person Mark Sanford actually is behind closed doors, but the details seem to indicate that Jenny specifically did not want him in her house without her present...and for all we know, she might have a damn good reason to be leery of that.

In and of itself, Mark Sanford [supposedly] wanting to watch the Superbowl with his son and being unable to get ahold of Jenny does not even come CLOSE to justifying him violating the sanctity of his ex-wife's home like that, and none of us have any right to equivocate at her expense based on our suppositions about his motives and character and personal beliefs about what divorced parents should act like. Maybe he really did just want to watch the Superbowl with his son, and maybe he really did think she'd be okay with it (oops). Maybe Jenny led him into a trap and let him do this kind of thing from time to time, until suddenly springing legal action on him. Unlike the given excuse, that would actually be a truly mitigating circumstance (some form of promissory estoppel). Then again, it doesn't look like that's the case. For that matter, the Superbowl excuse might even be a bald-faced lie, and he could very well be pissing on her head and telling her it's raining.

Is this being reported now for political reasons? Probably, yes. Does it bear any relevance to Sanford's culpability here? No. Is it possible Sanford is a decent but flawed man who unfortunately fell in love with another woman, then proceeded to make some stupid mistakes based on misunderstandings? Sure. It's also possible he's a pathological narcissist (as angelatc believes) and a total monster behind closed doors, and that Jenny has reason not to trust him farther than she can spit him. She might even have reason to fear violence...because if he IS a narcissist and she's seen his true face, she would see it coming a lot earlier than any of us.

We just don't know, and without more information we don't have the context to accurately judge Sanford on a moral level for trespassing and say what kind of person that makes him. However, we DO have the context to understand property rights, and there's a reason we believe they should be strictly followed: It's because leaving room for equivocation and subjective value judgments (at least outside of the jury box) opens the door to all kinds of gross violations in the name of "good intentions" and the "greater good," or even malicious intentions masquerading as good ones. It's not our place to say it's "okay" for someone to intrude against someone else's home against their will, when we know for sure none of us would want it done to us. If we knew the full context of the situation, we might say, "It was a misunderstanding based on what Mark thought was growing trust, and Jenny is blowing it out of proportion and being vindictive," or we might say, "Mark is a volatile creep who's growing erratic and unpredictable as his life spirals out of control." We don't know, but we do know about property rights, and giving Sanford a pass on violating his ex-wife's rights is totally beneath us.

anaconda
04-18-2013, 12:05 AM
Jenny didn't change the locks?

Maybe he'll dress up like Mrs. Doubtfire and get a job at the house.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtW7eaSvd6A

itshappening
04-18-2013, 12:08 AM
Let's see. Superbowl happened on Feb 3. Complaint filed on Feb 4. Sanford is an ass on April 2. This all comes out in the news now. Maybe I'm missing something, or putting too much into this, but it seems connected. Oh, and I bet Sanford's son despises the mistress. You can see it on his face. I am so glad I'm not their kids!

You mean being the son of an ex-governor you're glad you wont be leading a life of luxury, privilege and attending the best schools money can by?

Yeah, they've got it real bad those kids.

Mini-Me
04-18-2013, 12:15 AM
You mean being the son of an ex-governor you're glad you wont be leading a life of luxury, privilege and attending the best schools money can by?

Yeah, they've got it real bad those kids.

I'd take a loving, trustworthy, emotionally healthy "ordinary" family over extravagent material advantages any day.

jmdrake
04-18-2013, 12:42 AM
If it is the kind of tension that creates that look on the kid's face, I find it disingenuous to pretend Sanford's two years divorced wife think it great if he invaded her personal space.

If a woman had done it to a guy, I'd be thinking fatal attraction level stalking.

Standford didn't bring the mistress to the house to watch the superbowl, and that picture happened after the superbowl. Also I said nothing about Sanford's ex-wife wanting Sanford around. But I'd bet you his fortune and his wife's combined that his son wanted him around for the superbowl. Will he want him around this year after the stunt Sanford pulled in the picture? I don't know. But why do people in this thread keep ignoring the child and just talk about Sanford and his ex?

jmdrake
04-18-2013, 12:44 AM
You mean being the son of an ex-governor you're glad you wont be leading a life of luxury, privilege and attending the best schools money can by?

Yeah, they've got it real bad those kids.

Maybe you and I simply have a different value system. I'd rather live in a log cabin with an outhouse and no electricity and a loving family than to live in the drama that is the Sanford house. I'd much rather have this Sanford as my father.

http://tvland.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/sanford_and_son/cast/sanford_and_son_fred_sanford.jpg?width=150&height=200

sailingaway
04-18-2013, 12:59 AM
Standford didn't bring the mistress to the house to watch the superbowl, and that picture happened after the superbowl. Also I said nothing about Sanford's ex-wife wanting Sanford around. But I'd bet you his fortune and his wife's combined that his son wanted him around for the superbowl. Will he want him around this year after the stunt Sanford pulled in the picture? I don't know. But why do people in this thread keep ignoring the child and just talk about Sanford and his ex?

Because the property belongs to the wife and Sanford as an adult knew it. The kid might want something, but it was Sanford's place to say no, and suggest they see eachother at his place, if that is the case. They've been divorced two years. It isn't early days.

sailingaway
04-18-2013, 01:00 AM
Maybe you and I simply have a different value system. I'd rather live in a log cabin with an outhouse and no electricity and a loving family than to live in the drama that is the Sanford house. I'd much rather have this Sanford as my father.

http://tvland.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/sanford_and_son/cast/sanford_and_son_fred_sanford.jpg?width=150&height=200

Yeah.

jmdrake
04-18-2013, 01:06 AM
Because the property belongs to the wife and Sanford as an adult knew it. The kid might want something, but it was Sanford's place to say no, and suggest they see eachother at his place, if that is the case. They've been divorced two years. It isn't early days.

It could have been ten years. The kid will still want to be around his father. Property rights do not trump all in the moral sphere. As I said, she'll win the legal battle and her son may grow up hating her. I hope she'll be happy with that if/when it happens. Sanford is a douche, no doubt about it. But if it was my son I would have been proactive in contacting the absent parent about doing something with him that he wanted to do that I didn't. Not everything that you have a "right" to do is the "right" thing to do.

sailingaway
04-18-2013, 01:28 AM
It could have been ten years. The kid will still want to be around his father. Property rights do not trump all in the moral sphere. As I said, she'll win the legal battle and her son may grow up hating her. I hope she'll be happy with that if/when it happens. Sanford is a douche, no doubt about it. But if it was my son I would have been proactive in contacting the absent parent about doing something with him that he wanted to do that I didn't. Not everything that you have a "right" to do is the "right" thing to do.

We don't know what the situation with the son was. We do know Sanford knew he didn't belong there and could have just said 'I think it's best if I respect your mom's space. I'd love to watch the next game with you at my place!' My parents are divorced and very amicable and always respected each other in front of us. And wouldn't have gone in eachothers houses short of a true emergency without invitation from the other. In fact I remember wanting my Dad to come in to show him something new I had and he said he didn't want to intrude on Mom's space, and that WAS early days. I was startled, but understood and respected him for it, actually. I never held it against my mom, but my Dad would never have been the sort to blame it on her, either.

And for all we know she IS very proactive, and Sanford doesn't respect limits. But we do know he didn't belong there. I don't have the details of anything other than he was in the wrong place and his ex wife didn't want him there, and it was her home, not his. I'm not saying he's terrible, I think all divorce is hard on kids and unfair, but not putting them in the middle includes not doing this sort of thing.

But with all that, I think Sanford will still win because SC doesn't have to like him to not want to give Obama another vote.

Mini-Me
04-18-2013, 01:32 AM
Standford didn't bring the mistress to the house to watch the superbowl, and that picture happened after the superbowl. Also I said nothing about Sanford's ex-wife wanting Sanford around. But I'd bet you his fortune and his wife's combined that his son wanted him around for the superbowl. Will he want him around this year after the stunt Sanford pulled in the picture? I don't know. But why do people in this thread keep ignoring the child and just talk about Sanford and his ex?

No matter how much a child may want to spend time with a certain parent, that is never an excuse for that parent trespassing in the other parent's house without permission. We don't have a clear notion of how much distrust and hosility the two parents may have, or how much the son may have been shielded from it for his sake. You're approaching this from the assumption that Sanford is doing everything in good faith, and he and his ex-wife should be trusting and accomodating with each other for the sake of their son...but this assumes a priori that they're both good people who won't "take a mile" if given an inch, and it precludes the possibility that he's a completely toxic person who cannot be trusted with anything. In cases where one parent is treacherous and even predatory in their dealings with others, sometimes the best thing for the child is not for the other parent to be cordial and accomodating, but for the other parent to stand their ground and be as cautious as possible dealing with the other. It's not up to any of us to say that two divorced parents "should" have an understanding about being in each other's house unsupervised (or at ALL). That's up to Jenny to decide for herself, and to Mark to decide for himself. For all you know, Mark might not be doing anything in good faith at all: He could very well be a controlling, snakelike, passive aggressive pathological narcissist who his ex-wife has good reason to want OUT of her house, regardless of any protests from their naive teenage son.

jmdrake
04-18-2013, 01:40 AM
We don't know what the situation with the son was.

We know he wanted to watch the superbowl with his dad. And if you don't know that, you don't know boys. And more importantly, many people in this thread, including you apparently, don't even care to know.



We do know Sanford knew he didn't belong there and could have just said 'I think it's best if I respect your mom's space. I'd love to watch the next game with you at my place!'


Again, I'm not defending Sanford. I don't know how many times I have to say that before it sinks in. At the same time the mom could have been proactive and asked her son "Hey, I know the superbowl is important to you, but I don't care to watch it. Do you want to go over to your dad's house?" Maybe she did this, maybe she didn't. It doesn't sound like she did.



My parents are divorced and very amicable and always respected each other in front of us. And wouldn't have gone in eachothers houses short of a true emergency without invitation from the other. In fact I remember wanting my Dad to come in to show him something new I had and he said he didn't want to intrude on Mom's space, and that WAS early days. I was startled, but understood and respected him for it, actually. I never held it against my mom, but my Dad would never have been the sort to blame it on her, either.

And I'm glad that all worked out for you that way. Some parents would have taken a different approach. But it doesn't sound like the same scenario. It doesn't sound like your mom knew, or should have known, ahead of time that this is something you would have wanted to share with your dad, and it's probably something that could have waited. It's not like the superbowl which only happens once each year and is, of course, different each year. Again, go back and read the post I made earlier in this thread about the film I saw in the parenting class. Both parents were wrong. I said that then. And my gut tells me that in this case both parents are wrong. At the beginning of the thread I was critical only of Mark. Now I'm concerned about the parenting of both. There has been a lot of talk from women in this thread about bias from the males, but frankly I think the bias is coming from the other direction. Things are rarely entirely the fault of any one person in a divorce. And again, if this son grows up resenting his mom, will it really matter what the courts say? Will it really matter what you or I think?

jmdrake
04-18-2013, 01:42 AM
No matter how much a child may want to spend time with a certain parent, that is never an excuse for that parent trespassing in the other parent's house without permission.

Good grief! I never said anything about an excuse for the other parent. I said the way the mom's handling this can cause her son to grow up and hate her. I also said she could have been proactive about her son's needs before the superbowl got there. Enough with the stupid straw men.


You're approaching this from the assumption that Sanford is doing everything in good faith, and he and his ex-wife should be trusting and accomodating with each other for the sake of their son..

Bollocks! That's the dumbest thing said yet in this thread! My inital reaction was, like everyone else, to assume Mark was being a jerk. Now, based on new currently undisputed evidence that he spent time with his son during an event that is the most important for many teenaged boys in this country I assume that his son most likely wanted him to be there. Maybe he should have just picked his son up at the curb and taken him to a sports bar. At least that way "property rights" wouldn't have gotten involved. :rolleyes:

Really, it ain't that difficult. A good mother would know what's important to her son. Yes I'm questioning her ability as a parent at this point. We all know Mark sucks. Maybe their son is a book nerd and she didn't think he watched the superbowl. But if he's like your averge 14 y/o, he probably did want to watch it and didn't want to watch it alone. Why is the apparent fact that she didn't take any proactive measure on that lost on most people? And hey, maybe she told him "invite some friends over" and maybe the "friend" he invited was his dad and maybe Mark isn't bringing that out because, for once in his life, he's trying not to be a hyperdouche? Rank speculation sure. But no worse than the speculation you and others are doing.


For all you know, Mark might not be doing anything in good faith at all: He could very well be a controlling, snakelike, passive aggressive pathological narcissist who his ex-wife has good reason to want OUT of her house, regardless of any protests from her naive teenage son.

Rank specuation that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

sailingaway
04-18-2013, 01:44 AM
We know he wanted to watch the superbowl with his dad. And if you don't know that, you don't know boys. And more importantly, many people in this thread, including you apparently, don't even care to know.



Again, I'm not defending Sanford. I don't know how many times I have to say that before it sinks in. At the same time the mom could have been proactive and asked her son "Hey, I know the superbowl is important to you, but I don't care to watch it. Do you want to go over to your dad's house?" Maybe she did this, maybe she didn't. It doesn't sound like she did.



And I'm glad that all worked out for you that way. Some parents would have taken a different approach. But it doesn't sound like the same scenario. It doesn't sound like your mom knew, or should have known, ahead of time that this is something you would have wanted to share with your dad, and it's probably something that could have waited. It's not like the superbowl which only happens once each year and is, of course, different each year. Again, go back and read the post I made earlier in this thread about the film I saw in the parenting class. Both parents were wrong. I said that then. And my gut tells me that in this case both parents are wrong. At the beginning of the thread I was critical only of Mark. Now I'm concerned about the parenting of both. There has been a lot of talk from women in this thread about bias from the males, but frankly I think the bias is coming from the other direction. Things are rarely entirely the fault of any one person in a divorce. And again, if this son grows up resenting his mom, will it really matter what the courts say? Will it really matter what you or I think?

I'm not interested in whose fault the divorce was. For all I know the marriage was over, they both knew it and were holding the marriage together until he was no longer governor so they'd be under less scrutiny for the family. But I don't think it is 'both' their fault that he was in her house against a court order, unless he says she regularly invited him and this was a change in her policy.

sailingaway
04-18-2013, 01:45 AM
Good grief! I never said anything about an excuse for the other parent. I said the way the mom's handling this can cause her son to grow up and hate her. I also said she could have been proactive about her son's needs before the superbowl got there. Enough with the stupid straw men.



Rank specuation that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

In one of the articles she was quoted refusing to discuss it as a private matter, and just saying the papers were real but she had thought they were under seal.

I don't know her, I don't have any reason to take her side as a general matter, I just think an adult shouldn't put a kid in the middle of this, as I think this does put the kid in the middle.

--

edit, my reaction is more searching of Sanford because I really wanted to like him. There was a time I was casting around for 'the next Ron Paul' and hoped he might be close from some things people said. But Ron is character. It is driven home to me all the time how MUCH of his attraction is from his character and being able to trust him. So it bothers me and disappoints me when Sanford acts badly. I was hoping the fiance was a one time grand passion in a dead-but[for-show marriage - bad enough, but understandable in human terms. I now just don't feel any attraction towards him as a person. I still want him to win as a Congressman, given the alternative, however.

Mini-Me
04-18-2013, 01:48 AM
Good grief! I never said anything about an excuse for the other parent. I said the way the mom's handling this can cause her son to grow up and hate her. I also said she could have been proactive about her son's needs before the superbowl got there. Enough with the stupid straw men.
Jenny's handling of this might cause her son to grow up and hate her...but so could Mark's. On the other hand, she could also be protecting herself (or even her son) in ways you don't perceive, because you aren't privy to the circumstances. I never meant to use a straw man argument against you, but some of the things you've said in this thread seem to be about, "Well, SHE should really be doing this..." and the implication seemed to be, "...and if she won't, what is he supposed to do?"


Bollocks! That's the dumbest thing said yet in this thread! My inital reaction was, like everyone else, to assume Mark was being a jerk. Now, based on new currently undisputed evidence that he spent time with his son during an event that is the most important for many teenaged boys in this country I assume that his son most likely wanted him to be there. Maybe he should have just picked his son up at the curb and taken him to a sports bar. At least that way "property rights" wouldn't have gotten involved.
Your scare quotes around "property rights" seem to be treating the trespass like it's trivial. Maybe it is, and maybe he viewed it that way and thought she would too...but she didn't, and for all we know, there might be a very good reason for it to have been a very big deal.


Really, it ain't that difficult. A good mother would know what's important to her son. Yes I'm questioning her ability as a parent at this point. We all know Mark sucks. Maybe their son is a book nerd and she didn't think he watched the superbowl. But if he's like your averge 14 y/o, he probably did want to watch it and didn't want to watch it alone. Why is the apparent fact that she didn't take any proactive measure on that lost on most people? And hey, maybe she told him "invite some friends over" and maybe the "friend" he invited was his dad and maybe Mark isn't bringing that out because, for once in his life, he's trying not to be a hyperdouche? Rank speculation sure. But no worse than the speculation you and others are doing.
There's an important different regarding our speculation: I'm using hypotheticals to point out that we don't know the circumstances of Mark and Jenny's relationship, or Mark and his son's for that matter, so it is totally unfair to judge Jenny's parenting ability or concern for her son based on our limited vantage point. In other words, my speculation serves the purpose of demonstrating that there are enough unknowns to withhold judgment regarding parenting and Jenny's potentially heavy-handed way of dealing with this.

You on the other hand are casting opinionated judgment on someone based on your speculation about their son's interests and the circumstances of the relationships of everyone involved, but there's no telling how far from the mark you might be. For instance, we don't even know for sure if Mark really went over to watch the Super Bowl with his son, or if his son has no interest in the Super Bowl, and the Super Bowl was simply Mark's cover for an ulterior motive. We just don't know.


Rank specuation that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

My point is that we do not know the circumstances, so you do not know what their sons needs are, or what is best for him regarding how Jenny approaches her relationship with Mark. I don't either, but my "rank speculation" is perfectly relevant, because it serves to illustrate just how different circumstances might be from the ones that you're assuming. If circumstances are as you assume, then maybe Jenny SHOULD be more accomodating. However, if circumstances are more like the example in my previous post, the right course of action might be quite different.

jmdrake
04-18-2013, 02:03 AM
Jenny's handling of this might cause her son to grow up and hate her...but so could Mark's. On the other hand, she could also be protecting herself (or even her son) in ways you don't perceive, because you aren't privy to the circumstances. I never meant to use a straw man argument against you, but some of the things you've said in this thread seem to be about, "Well, SHE should really be doing this..." and the implication seemed to be, "...and if she won't, what is he supposed to do?"

I've already been clear abundantly clear that Mark f-ed up. What I won't go along with is the stupid notion that since Mark f'ed up that means Jenny must be above reproach. If their son cares about the superbowl (odds are that he did) and she didn't arrange for him to watch it with anyone (seems like she didn't) then she f'ed up. All the claims about "property rights" and "privacy" and "Mark being a creepazoid" doesn't change that fact that based on what most likely happened, she f'ed up. Sure her f-up is minor in comparison to Mark's. But if Mark's f-ups are all she can think about, her son will see through that and that can cause him to grow up to hate her. But hey, maybe she wants her son to hate her. We all make our own choices.



My point is that we do not know the circumstances, so you do not know what their sons needs are, or what is best for him regarding how Jenny approaches her relationship with Mark. I don't either, but my rank speculation is perfectly relevant, because it serves to illustrate just how different circumstances might be from the ones that you're assuming.

I haven't assumed anything not in evidence. The evidence we know is that he's a teenage boy that was watching the superbowl with his dad. He most likely wanted to do that. The evidence is also that his mom didn't make any provision for him to watch the superbowl with anyone else. She should have. Until someone provides some evidence to show that their kids aren't at all into sports (and some kids aren't) I stand by my criticism of her for not being proactive regardless of whether or not Mark is manipulative. In fact Mark being manipulative gives stronger impetus for her to make sure her sons' emotional needs are being taken care of. If nothing else she could have had them go to an uncle's house to watch the superbowl.

jmdrake
04-18-2013, 02:11 AM
In one of the articles she was quoted refusing to discuss it as a private matter, and just saying the papers were real but she had thought they were under seal.

I don't know her, I don't have any reason to take her side as a general matter, I just think an adult shouldn't put a kid in the middle of this, as I think this does put the kid in the middle.


With that much I agree. Any family court judge in a situation like this would tell both sides that the mere fact that something like this ended up coming to court is a problem.



--

edit, my reaction is more searching of Sanford because I really wanted to like him. There was a time I was casting around for 'the next Ron Paul' and hoped he might be close from some things people said. But Ron is character. It is driven home to me all the time how MUCH of his attraction is from his character and being able to trust him. So it bothers me and disappoints me when Sanford acts badly. I was hoping the fiance was a one time grand passion in a dead-but[for-show marriage - bad enough, but understandable in human terms. I now just don't feel any attraction towards him as a person. I still want him to win as a Congressman, given the alternative, however.

My first exposure to Sanford was the affair, so I guess I'm in the reverse position. I've been thinking all along "this guy is a douche! Why is anyone supporting him!" Looking at his voting record I now see why. And maybe I've got it all wrong, but I'm more pissed at him about the stunt he pulled bringing his mistress (excuse me "fiance'") to victory celebration and not giving his first family a heads up! Sure he had the "property right" to do that as it was his party and his celebration. But it was not the right thing to do. And I guess that's what I find the most frustraiting thing about the whole thread. To me it illustrates the problem of property uber alles. Yes that's a good legal framework for rights, but not the best moral framework of what is right IMO.

Mini-Me
04-18-2013, 02:18 AM
Hrm...in that case, I think the difference here is that you're coming at this from the statistically valid assumption that their son wanted to watch the Super Bowl (and Jenny screwed up by not accomodating him in some way), whereas I'm coming at this from the nerd's standpoint of, "We can't know he cares about sports just because he's a boy." I'm sure you recognize that your judgment of the situation hinges on the assumption that their son wanted to watch the game in the first place, in which case our differences are probably a matter of emphasis.

jmdrake
04-18-2013, 03:03 AM
Hrm...in that case, I think the difference here is that you're coming at this from the statistically valid assumption that their son wanted to watch the Super Bowl (and Jenny screwed up by not accomodating him in some way), whereas I'm coming at this from the nerd's standpoint of, "We can't know he cares about sports just because he's a boy." I'm sure you recognize that your judgment of the situation hinges on the assumption that their son wanted to watch the game in the first place, in which case our differences are probably a matter of emphasis.

Yeah. That's it. Although in grad school some of the computer graphics nerds liked to watch the superbowl just to see how the then emerging field of CGI was being used in the commercials. :p

angelatc
04-18-2013, 04:50 AM
I'd take a loving, trustworthy, emotionally healthy "ordinary" family over extravagent material advantages any day.

As would any child.

amy31416
04-18-2013, 05:33 AM
Maybe you and I simply have a different value system. I'd rather live in a log cabin with an outhouse and no electricity and a loving family than to live in the drama that is the Sanford house. I'd much rather have this Sanford as my father.

http://tvland.mtvnimages.com/images/shows/sanford_and_son/cast/sanford_and_son_fred_sanford.jpg?width=150&height=200

Okay ya big dummy!

(FYI for others reading this who think I'm being rude, it's a line from the show he's referencing. This thread needs to lighten up.)

speciallyblend
04-18-2013, 06:44 AM
bottom line sanford brought all this on himself when he decided to ignore a judge and rulings he agreed on.

angelatc
04-18-2013, 06:53 AM
My first exposure to Sanford was the affair, so I guess I'm in the reverse position. I've been thinking all along "this guy is a douche! Why is anyone supporting him!" Looking at his voting record I now see why. And maybe I've got it all wrong, but I'm more pissed at him about the stunt he pulled bringing his mistress (excuse me "fiance'") to victory celebration and not giving his first family a heads up! Sure he had the "property right" to do that as it was his party and his celebration. But it was not the right thing to do. And I guess that's what I find the most frustraiting thing about the whole thread. To me it illustrates the problem of property uber alles. Yes that's a good legal framework for rights, but not the best moral framework of what is right IMO.

I hate that you're making me defend him, but I understood that her appearance at the victory party was a surprise for him.

As for his voting record, yes it's great. And in 2007, when we were *really* the outsiders, Sanford met with Ron Paul when Paul was in town for the debate. Really, in the context of the time, that alone was huge. It endeared him to us immediately - he was a politician who not only acknowledged we were alive, he didn't openly distance himself from us.

I don't relish the thought of losing a seat to the Democrats. It's a shame that Bostic didn't do the homework that Colbert apparently did.

cajuncocoa
04-18-2013, 07:17 AM
You mean being the son of an ex-governor you're glad you wont be leading a life of luxury, privilege and attending the best schools money can by?

Yeah, they've got it real bad those kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=venzPNvge18

angelatc
04-18-2013, 07:19 AM
How Savvy Jenny Sanford Sabotaged Ex-Husband Mark’s Political Comeback (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/jenny-sanford-sabotaged-mark-sanford-comeback.html)


Indeed, while Jenny has never come out and publicly opposed Mark’s congressional candidacy — choosing to remain officially neutral — she’s waged a brutally effective passive-aggressive campaign against it. Whether it was revealing to me that Mark had shamelessly asked her to manage his election bid; or telling the Washington Post that, until the night Mark’s fiancée showed up onstage at his victory party in April, one of her sons had never met the woman; or just generally making it known that she is furious that he’s running, Jenny has done a masterful job of keeping her ex-husband’s past (and not-so-past) transgressions in the news. She has seeded the ground with political land mines, stood back, and waited for Mark to step on one.

Gotta love the NYT.

angelatc
04-18-2013, 07:19 AM
oopsie!

juleswin
04-18-2013, 07:39 AM
How Savvy Jenny Sanford Sabotaged Ex-Husband Mark’s Political Comeback (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/jenny-sanford-sabotaged-mark-sanford-comeback.html)



Gotta love the NYT.

I cannot imagine why the NYT would saying anything to soften the blows Mark Sanford is getting, so I would take them at their word. Again just like I suspected, she i acting like a scorned woman trying to destroy him politically. This is making a bad family situation worse and shame shame shame on her if she is actually scheming to destroy Mark.

Brian4Liberty
04-18-2013, 09:34 AM
It sounds to me like a creepy case of criminal trespassing. Am I the first male on here who's calling it like it is? (I can't remember if SailingAway is male or female. ;)) A divorced parent has every right to put as much distance as possible between herself (or himself) and her (his) ex, as long as child custody and visitation rights are being respected. None of us can know for sure what kind of person Mark Sanford actually is behind closed doors, but the details seem to indicate that Jenny specifically did not want him in her house without her present...and for all we know, she might have a damn good reason to be leery of that.

In and of itself, Mark Sanford [supposedly] wanting to watch the Superbowl with his son and being unable to get ahold of Jenny does not even come CLOSE to justifying him violating the sanctity of his ex-wife's home like that, and none of us have any right to equivocate at her expense based on our suppositions about his motives and character and personal beliefs about what divorced parents should act like. Maybe he really did just want to watch the Superbowl with his son, and maybe he really did think she'd be okay with it (oops). Maybe Jenny led him into a trap and let him do this kind of thing from time to time, until suddenly springing legal action on him. Unlike the given excuse, that would actually be a truly mitigating circumstance (some form of promissory estoppel). Then again, it doesn't look like that's the case. For that matter, the Superbowl excuse might even be a bald-faced lie, and he could very well be pissing on her head and telling her it's raining.

Is this being reported now for political reasons? Probably, yes. Does it bear any relevance to Sanford's culpability here? No. Is it possible Sanford is a decent but flawed man who unfortunately fell in love with another woman, then proceeded to make some stupid mistakes based on misunderstandings? Sure. It's also possible he's a pathological narcissist (as angelatc believes) and a total monster behind closed doors, and that Jenny has reason not to trust him farther than she can spit him. She might even have reason to fear violence...because if he IS a narcissist and she's seen his true face, she would see it coming a lot earlier than any of us.

We just don't know, and without more information we don't have the context to accurately judge Sanford on a moral level for trespassing and say what kind of person that makes him. However, we DO have the context to understand property rights, and there's a reason we believe they should be strictly followed: It's because leaving room for equivocation and subjective value judgments (at least outside of the jury box) opens the door to all kinds of gross violations in the name of "good intentions" and the "greater good," or even malicious intentions masquerading as good ones. It's not our place to say it's "okay" for someone to intrude against someone else's home against their will, when we know for sure none of us would want it done to us. If we knew the full context of the situation, we might say, "It was a misunderstanding based on what Mark thought was growing trust, and Jenny is blowing it out of proportion and being vindictive," or we might say, "Mark is a volatile creep who's growing erratic and unpredictable as his life spirals out of control." We don't know, but we do know about property rights, and giving Sanford a pass on violating his ex-wife's rights is totally beneath us.

Overall a balanced look at it.

The highlighted part is where we may disagree. Some people are not absolutists. There are shades of grey. The Judge and Jury system is all about measuring these "subjective" judgements.

When I think about property rights, the first things that come to mind are government stealing your land to give to a developer, the right to do certain things on your property, neighbors trying to move property lines or damaging your property, people trying to steal or defraud you out of your property.

Children allowing a relative in the house is more of a grey area. The divorce agreement is more relevant and applicable than property rights. He's not a burglar or thief (at least that has not been alleged). Is he a trespasser? Once again, he is a relative (like it or not), and the kid was there with him.

Now the kid may or may not have known about the details (and this aspect) of the divorce agreement, therefore the kid could have innocently been an accomplice in this violation of the agreement (or is this a crime?). In other words, did the kid say "come on Dad, Mom's not home, and she wouldn't care"? Or maybe the kid would have called Mom to get permission, if he knew about the agreement? Pure speculation, but once again, grey areas that will probably be considered by a Judge.

Brian4Liberty
04-18-2013, 09:38 AM
I cannot imagine why the NYT would saying anything to soften the blows Mark Sanford is getting, so I would take them at their word. Again just like I suspected, she i acting like a scorned woman trying to destroy him politically. This is making a bad family situation worse and shame shame shame on her if she is actually scheming to destroy Mark.

Has she violated non-disclosure agreements?

erowe1
04-18-2013, 09:48 AM
Why is that woman still only his fiance? Is there a date set for the wedding?

Brian4Liberty
04-18-2013, 10:09 AM
Why is that woman still only his fiance? Is there a date set for the wedding?

Lol. At this point, he may be reconsidering marriage altogether. ;)

angelatc
04-18-2013, 10:41 AM
Overall a balanced look at it.

The highlighted part is where we may disagree. Some people are not absolutists. There are shades of grey. The Judge and Jury system is all about measuring these "subjective" judgements.

When I think about property rights, the first things that come to mind are government stealing your land to give to a developer, the right to do certain things on your property, neighbors trying to move property lines or damaging your property, people trying to steal or defraud you out of your property.

Children allowing a relative in the house is more of a grey area. The divorce agreement is more relevant and applicable than property rights. He's not a burglar or thief (at least that has not been alleged). Is he a trespasser? Once again, he is a relative (like it or not), and the kid was there with him.

Now the kid may or may not have known about the details (and this aspect) of the divorce agreement, therefore the kid could have innocently been an accomplice in this violation of the agreement (or is this a crime?). In other words, did the kid say "come on Dad, Mom's not home, and she wouldn't care"? Or maybe the kid would have called Mom to get permission, if he knew about the agreement? Pure speculation, but once again, grey areas that will probably be considered by a Judge.


The only problem is that it isn't a gray area. The divorce decree clearly states he isn't allowed in her home if she is not there. He knew that, even if the kid didn't.

And your scenario ignores the original story which implies that Sanford has a habit of this. Like I said, the fact that this clause is in the decree at all indicates he has issues with boundaries. (As does the fact that he has affairs.)

Trying to make her look like a bad person because she won't play The Good Wife like the former Mrs. McCain did is pretty repulsive. No matter how you spin it, she hasn't done anything wrong.

angelatc
04-18-2013, 10:42 AM
Lol. At this point, he may be reconsidering marriage altogether. ;)


He isn't very good at it, is he?

jmdrake
04-18-2013, 10:51 AM
I hate that you're making me defend him, but I understood that her appearance at the victory party was a surprise for him.

Hmmmmm....okay. Maybe what you said earlier about him wanting to get back with his ex might be true. I always thought the whole "I've found my soulmate" with respect to some foreign floozy he was having a fling with was flaky. It could be that he really missed spending time with his wife and his kids. Who knows. But his fiance', if what you say is true, seems a little unbalanced as well. Or maybe she's just ambitious and doesn't want to miss a chance to be seen as "the future Senora Senator Sanford."



As for his voting record, yes it's great. And in 2007, when we were *really* the outsiders, Sanford met with Ron Paul when Paul was in town for the debate. Really, in the context of the time, that alone was huge. It endeared him to us immediately - he was a politician who not only acknowledged we were alive, he didn't openly distance himself from us.

I don't relish the thought of losing a seat to the Democrats. It's a shame that Bostic didn't do the homework that Colbert apparently did.

Yeah, I can see why people here like him as a politician. Hopefully the voters will overlook this. It seem minor compared to everything else. IMO anyway.

jmdrake
04-18-2013, 10:56 AM
The only problem is that it isn't a gray area. The divorce decree clearly states he isn't allowed in her home if she is not there. He knew that, even if the kid didn't.

And your scenario ignores the original story which implies that Sanford has a habit of this. Like I said, the fact that this clause is in the decree at all indicates he has issues with boundaries. (As does the fact that he has affairs.)

Trying to make her look like a bad person because she won't play The Good Wife like the former Mrs. McCain did is pretty repulsive. No matter how you spin it, she hasn't done anything wrong.

Legally she hasn't done anything wrong. But did she actually do all the right things by her son? Well...time will tell. Based on the facts I wouldn't have handled it that way if this was my ex wife. One thing I believe everyone can agree is that there are children who are being hurt. At times when there is a divorce where one spouse is more culpable than the other, the "innocent" spouse sometimes discounts the pain of his/her kids. I've seen that happen with the best mom and dads. And yes, there wouldn't be pain if Sanford hadn't cheated. And, since we don't know the details, (and I don't want to know) we don't know what caused the marriage to drift apart before that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lx1MtmCSdM

Lucille
04-23-2013, 11:14 AM
How Savvy Jenny Sanford Sabotaged Ex-Husband Mark’s Political Comeback (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/jenny-sanford-sabotaged-mark-sanford-comeback.html)


Indeed, while Jenny has never come out and publicly opposed Mark’s congressional candidacy — choosing to remain officially neutral — she’s waged a brutally effective passive-aggressive campaign against it. Whether it was revealing to me that Mark had shamelessly asked her to manage his election bid; or telling the Washington Post that, until the night Mark’s fiancée showed up onstage at his victory party in April, one of her sons had never met the woman; or just generally making it known that she is furious that he’s running, Jenny has done a masterful job of keeping her ex-husband’s past (and not-so-past) transgressions in the news. She has seeded the ground with political land mines, stood back, and waited for Mark to step on one.

Gotta love the NYT.

I'd say that's spot on, especially the passive-aggressive part.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/04/22/poll-colbert-busch-takes-lead-over-sanford-in-s-c/


A Personal Message from Mark Sanford

It’s been a rough week, and so I wanted to write to address both Wednesday’s news and the new incoming attacks by Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Accordingly, I’d really appreciate you reading this.

This week’s news caught everyone by surprise as the mechanics of my and Jenny’s divorce had been sealed to avoid the boys having to deal with any of this. Leaving aside the unusual timing of supposedly sealed documents coming to light two weeks before an election – Jenny and I have both agreed that our efforts at raising our four boys are best considered and weighed privately, rather than over the airwaves. Though we may be public figures, we are still human figures who struggle just as so many other families and divorced couples do in getting childrearing right as best you can. It’s hard enough on its own and it’s nearly impossible when the media is sensationalizing things. I would also respectfully submit that they do a real disservice to the truth when they are grabbing for headlines.

By original accounts you would have thought I was randomly sneaking around the house at Sullivans, when, in fact, I was returning a son from a neighborhood Super Bowl party. I did, indeed, watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14-year-old son because, as a father, I didn’t think he should sit alone and watch it. Given Jenny was out of town, I tried to reach her beforehand to tell her of the situation that had arisen, and met her at the back steps and told her what had happened under the light of my cell phone when she returned. There are always two sides to every story, and time will tell as to whether I made the right call in that instance as a father. What I know in the meantime is that the media does all of us a disservice in throwing these things to the front page as this paper did, before all the facts are known. I would just ask that you be a little bit more deliberative in making your judgments.

The second issue is even more problematic if you care about limiting government’s interference in your life, in how we get Washington spending under control and how we grow jobs in the Lowcountry. I say this because it seems like Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have decided to try and buy this race. This week Pelosi’s committee, whose aim is to take back the U.S. House of Representatives put up $370,000, while the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee committed to spending another $200,000 – bringing their total “investment” in this race to almost $1 million. The question for taxpayers here is what would these Democrats “buy” with this million? Most folks I talk to say it wouldn’t be an independent voice, but rather a consistent voice for the Democratic agenda. Mrs. Colbert Busch has, in fact, rooted for the Democrats to take over the House of Representatives in 2014 and hopes to be a part of it – and among her most significant procedural votes would be her vote for Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

In the Democratic ads, they hit hard. Their ads are untrue. And it’s wrong to take a piece of something, leave out the rest and arrange it to tell something that is intended to deceive people. I have faults and they are well chronicled, but wasting taxpayer money or using it to my own purposes has never been one of them. Frustration with the way government spent money was what got me into politics, and trying to do something about it has been what’s kept me in it. As in every other area involving taxpayers’ money, I have worked hard to save it. We had the lowest travel expenses of any governor in the last thirty years and spent half of what preceding governors spent on travel. Yet, we brought in more investment to our state than during any other eight-year period in South Carolina history — $24 billion. WE also sold the jet and saved over $1 million. I was the only governor to use the single-engine Cessna to get around the state, and, in the process, saved taxpayers $60,000. We did things like discontinuing the relocation of the state plane and saved $70,000. The list goes on as we did many, many other things to save taxpayers’ money in travel and elsewhere, some numbering in the millions – others in the tens of thousands…but they were all about having government spend less.

And when the House of Representatives in Columbia (hardly a fan club) looked at all of the ethics charges, they cleared me of every single one dealing with business class tickets, every financial question and narrowed their questions to our judgment on five flights in South Carolina in the state plane over almost seven years. I think we get them right, but even if I was wrong on every one, context matters. They questioned 2 percent of the 350 flights taken and found no issue with the other 98%. I stand by our decisions that they questions, such as flying from Columbia to Myrtle Beach for the opening of the largest single tourism investment in our state. But rather than spending the last year-and-a-half of my time in office litigating these things, I just paid the ethics fine so I could focus on making the most of the time remaining. Refocusing paid dividends for the people of this state, whether with Boeing’s arrival or in $260 million in vetoes sustained in my last year in office.

The Democrats’ ads will tell you none of this, so if you have further questions, go to www.marksanford.com, call me at the campaign office at 843-764-9188, or even on my cell at 843-367-1010.

Our Republic is in real trouble, and unless we make serious changes in Washington, I believe there will be real consequences for our country and each one of us. I’d like to take all I have learned and apply it to fixing things, but I’m outgunned, outmanned, and outspend by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Nancy Pelosi’s PAC. I don’t think it’s right for these huge liberal spending interests to come in and try to decide the election for us, but the only way I can win this is for you to run your own campaign against them. I’d ask that you copy this letter and send it to ten friends or call ten friends every time you see one of their ads.

I can’t win without efforts like this. I need your help, and I need it now. The election is in two weeks on May 7th, so there is little time.

I will leave you with one last thought. In March of 1863, there was similarly little time. A South Carolinian by the name of William Travis drew a line in the sand with his sword and simply asked those who would stay and fight, to cross it. His efforts, and that of those who died with him there at the Alamo, ultimately inspired Texans to come to the aid of their brethren and defeat Santa Anna’s army though they were outnumbered at the onset by six to one. I’m outnumbered right now, but will fight to the end toward freedom and financial sanity in Washington to sustaining it. I’d ask you to cross the line and fight with me.

Sincerely,

Mark Sanford (signature)

angelatc
04-23-2013, 11:46 AM
By original accounts you would have thought I was randomly sneaking around the house at Sullivans, when, in fact, I was returning a son from a neighborhood Super Bowl party. I did, indeed, watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14-year-old son because, as a father, I didn’t think he should sit alone and watch it

He's an idiot. Her complaint clearly says that this is a pattern of behavior.

If he's too stupid to obey a court order while he's running for office, it's hardly a "land mine." I guess the good wife should have shut up and let him have his way.

angelatc
04-23-2013, 11:48 AM
I stand by our decisions that they questions,... Great.

brandon
04-23-2013, 12:05 PM
Damn... it's really getting difficult to like Sanford. At this point I don't really care if he wins or not.

devil21
04-23-2013, 02:54 PM
I just read that the Republican Party is ending any further funding of his campaign. Guess it's a grassroots campaign now. PPP also put out a poll that shows ColBERT (goddamn media keeps calling her by the imaginary last name of her tv character brother) leading by 9 points, though the sampling is questionable.

Aratus
04-23-2013, 04:04 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/16/ap-ex-wife-says-former-sc-gov-sanford-trespassed/

once again, you sorta wonder what was in his water canteen when he was in the act of industriously vigorously "hiking" on the Appalachian Trail