Former U.S. Attorney v. Angry Estranged Husband
(And some reflections on reputation in the internet age.)
Thomas O’Brien is the former U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. He recently joined Paul Hastings, which trumpeted his arrival in a press release. Tom O’Brien is a public figure — he used to be the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate — so he’s used to a little public scrutiny.
But O’Brien couldn’t have been prepared for what happened when his girlfriend’s estranged husband took an unauthorized stroll through her email inbox. The husband found emails between O’Brien and his wife, and they didn’t make him happy.
Instead of handling the situation like a rational adult, the husband — we’ll call him “Ken” — decided to bombard the professional networks of both O’Brien and his wife (also an attorney) with the “pillow talk” emails he discovered. Ken attempted to cast the relationship between O’Brien and his (Ken’s) wife as an affair.
This is not the first time such a thing has happened. Back in 2008, the New York Times reported on a husband’s similar vendetta against a successful Wall Street banker, carried out online. Earlier this year, as Above the Law readers may recall, a cuckolded husband emailed sexting messages between his wife and a White & Case attorney to all of the lawyers at White & Case in Miami.
Ken took this aggressive strategy one insane step further, apparently emailing every lawyer he could think of. You may have already received Ken’s emails, especially if you’re in California, from Ken himself or via email forward.
Is spamming an entire professional network the new revenge of the spurned lover? Are lawyers, as members of a profession that is surprisingly small and highly reputation-conscious, especially vulnerable to this tactic? Does this approach actually work?
After the jump, let’s look at the offense and the (over)reaction.
Sources report that Ken has been estranged from his wife for some time. We understand that the couple is in the process of getting divorced (though we don’t know how far along in the process they are).
At some point O’Brien and Ken’s wife started dating. Sources tell us there is nothing secret about the relationship.
But you wouldn’t know that from the email thread that Ken sent to the world, framing the relationship between Ken’s wife and Tom O’Brien as illicit and scandalous. Essentially the thread involves O’Brien and Ken’s wife making the final plans for a romantic getaway to Cabo San Lucas. We’d publish the thread if it were (a) interesting or (b) not precisely what Ken wanted us to do. But, aside from a couple of racy lines you don’t normally hear uttered by a former U.S. Attorney, the email itself is pretty standard.
Ken, however, was furious. After finding the emails, he forwarded them to a number of people in his wife’s and Tom O’Brien’s personal network — using her email address. O’Brien’s travel plans were sent to:
* Lawyers at the U.S. Department of Justice
* City of Los Angeles government officials
*Judges on L.A. Superior Court
* The Asian Professional Exchange
* Corporate counsel at Nordstrom’s
* Media outlets like the Daily Journal, Law Dragon, and Sister City
* And high-level partners at Paul Hastings, Seyfarth Shaw, DLA Piper, Katten, and Bird & Marella
Shouldn’t a man trying to recapture the heart of a woman be less pathetic and bitchy? In my day, such disputes were handled with a stiff drink and a sucker punch.
When we talked with Ken, he didn’t really have any answers as to why he spammed an entire community of legal professionals. In an email to Above the Law, he said simply:
Dear Ms. [sic] Mystal,I have no comment at this time regarding your inquiry other than to say these two points;
1. [My wife] has dedicated her entire professional career to public and community service and that she is a well respected leader both within the legal bar associations and the Asian American Community.
2. I can confirm that I alone sent out all of the emails (all accounts).
Clearly Ken still remembers the happier days of his marriage, which he has committed to internet posterity (through an online shrine to his wedding). Strangely, his email reads like he is trying to defend his wife’s public persona, even after airing all of her business in public. Maybe he thought her reputation was just collateral damage in his romantic rivalry with O’Brien? A Facebook friend of Ken texted us to say “he’s not in a good place.”
Whatever his desired goal was, it appears that all he has accomplished is ruining his wife and O’Brien’s vacation. Above the Law contacted the hotel in Cabo where O’Brien was supposed to be staying at last week, and a hotel employee confirmed that the couple never showed up — they canceled their trip, apparently after Ken spammed the world with their plans.
But if Ken was looking to cause professional harm to O’Brien, it appears that he has failed. Spokespersons for Paul Hastings declined to comment for this story, but sources tell us that the firm really couldn’t care less about where one of its new partners goes on vacation and with whom he travels.
One husband trying to ruin another man by accusing him online of adultery is a strange situation. A second husband doing it, by emailing all of that man’s law firm colleagues, may be a disturbing pattern. A third husband employing this tactic, by spamming an entire professional network, might be a problem.
Certain aspects of the legal profession, such as the easy availability of lawyer contact information through firm websites and public databases, may make it easier to make lawyers look bad before their colleagues. O’Brien, of course, is a public figure. But can it be argued that lawyers in general are — as officers of the court, whose professional activities are regulated by the state — somewhat more public than the average private citizen? After all, investment bankers and architects don’t have to go through a “character and fitness” review.
Does anyone want to live in a world where an estranged spouse or lover can email everyone we work with about our sex life? Probably not. But such is life in the digital age.
Paul Hastings Lands O’Brien, the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles [WSJ Law Blog]
On Wall St., Reputation Is Fragile [New York Times]
Rumor And Consequences: Lessons From A Wall Street Guy’s Ex-Marital Affair? [Dealbreaker]
Earlier: Nationwide Getting Laid Watch: White & Case
Should White & Case Have ‘Gotten In Front’ of the Miami White Situation?
(118) Comments
Comments
First!
Dang!
No if he were gay and this was an ex-wife we were talking about...scandal!
This makes me haz a sad.
Why the hell don't you post the e-mails and let your readers decide if they are interesting or not?
Clearly they must be since you decided to make an entire post on it.....
Give us those racy lines - unless you are just cao-taoing to the political elite?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y
What's wrong with being sexy?
The lesson here is don't date married men/women. Married people shouldn't date, even if they are "seperated" or "estranged." You made sacred vows in front of your friends, family, and whatever higher deity you believe in. You have to live by them until you go through with the divorce.
The lesson here is don't date married men/women. Married people shouldn't date, even if they are "seperated" or "estranged." You made sacred vows in front of your friends, family, and whatever higher deity you believe in. You have to live by them until you go through with the divorce.
If he is so estranged, how is it that he has access to his wife's email? Three lessons that this guy shouldn't have to learn: (1) don't sleep with married women, (2) don't sleep with married women who are too stupid to shield their email account from their estranged husbands, and (3) don't send these kind of emails when you are sleeping with a married woman. On the Boo Hoo Hoo scale, this one doesn't merit a Boo.
7/8 = Ken
4: the word is "kowtowing."
7/8: the word is "separated."
Lesson:
1. Dont be a skank whore - honor your marriage or get a divorce
2. Dont be so pathetic, desperate, and hard up for ass that you bag another man's wife
3. Dont be a cuckold wimp. If she's banging someone else, deal with it civily, stay or leave.
This is why I could never be happy in family law, where inexplicable behavior of this sort is commonplace.
Paul Hastings is one giant orgy, so he should fit right in.
The best part was that he thought Mystal was a girl. It's about time someone called him out for having a girl's name.
If you're going to out O'Brien, might as well out the wife and wimp. The fact that O'Brien was a public figure in the past shouldn't make a difference. Everyone knows who John Edwards and Gavin Newsom boinked, let's see the emails and the names.
wgwag!?!?!
Elie, how's your name pronounced? ee-lie or el-ee
"Dear Ms. [sic] Mystal,"
Isn't this the 2nd or 3rd time this has happened?
Funny how you don't reprint already widely disseminated emails to protect the couple, but then you call their putative vacation hotel in an attempt to harass them. Nice.
Yeah, I second the don't sleep with married women message. Of course, they need support and rescue from their incumbent jackass and an honest man like you, but consider the risk. At the very least, you must consider that very often these damsels go back to their douchebag husbands, including those that cheat and hit them and even threaten to kil them.
And as a milquetoast lawyer, your pencil-smooth officer worker forearms will fail your when you meet your pissed off bat-wielding counterpart in a your firm garage one night.
Stupid whore WGWAGs.
Actually quite tastefully and thoughtfully reported, ATL. I'm a little bit impressed by your restraint here.
What's a WGWAG?
15,
No, the best part is he thought Mystal was a girl even after they had talked.
It doesn't matter if it is "ee-lie" or "ell-ee"... We will call keep calling her [sic] ell-ee...
@7/8/12--It may be true that a man should not date another man's wife, even if the wife and husband are estanged and divorcing. I happen to think it's NOT true, because in my view the only parties who made promises to one another are the husband and wife. The second guy has (or at least should have) no duty to help the husband enforce the promise his wife made. If the wife breaks her promise, the husband has no beef with the guy; he should blame his wife for breaking her promise.
But that's neither here nor there. Because even if you're right that it's wrong to date another man's wife, I don't think that's the lesson of this story. The same thing could have happened regardless of whether the order of divorce was filed before or after the husband forwarded his wife's e-mails to the world. A lunatic ex-husband could just as easily have broken into his ex-wife's e-mail account and forwarded along her racy notes.
No, the lesson of this story is that it is incredibly easy today to give someone unwanted publicity, REGARDLESS of whether that person has done anything wrong. Even if the boyfriend were dating a divorcee rather than a wife, the ex-husband could have put him in the subject line of a thousand e-mails and landed him on ATL. Either way, he'd be embarrassed. For that, people like David Lat and Elie Mystal are at least partly to blame.
The only thing Paul Hastings should be concerned about is controlling the spread of Yellow Fever at the office.
The lesson:
1. Don't cheat, especially if married
2. Don't go crazy
26-
I don't follow. There are all sorts of claims that can be brought against someone who "doesn't have a duty." How about aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty? How about intentional interference with existing or prospective economic relations (use of "economic relations" instead of "contract" intended)?
You may not think that marriage is a contract. But surely it is an agreement of sorts. There is already liability if you screw with someone else's contractual relationship or agreement. Why should it be any different for marriage?
17 nailed it. Sorry I was late.
Anyone know the identity of the female lawyer involved here? (Or did anyone receive that email described)?
O'Brien might be a public figure in some forums. But he's no longer a public official now--and I'm not sure his wife ever was. What Ken did was way, way, way out of bounds. I think Ken may find himself facing an invasion of privacy lawsuit and deservedly so.
And, "Shouldn’t a man trying to recapture the heart of a woman be less pathetic and bitchy? In my day, such disputes were handled with a stiff drink and a sucker punch." EXACTLY.
Thomas O'Brien is treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry.
Alert, alert: if you end a relationship or are in the process of ending a relationship, change your passwords!!!
No. 4: ATL is actually exercising some restraint/discretion (you know, the kind that Ken failed to show). Why gleefully pile upon the discomfort and embarassment of two individuals who have done nothing wrong (other than that one of them married and then separated from a vengeful nutcase)? I'm just thankful none of my past relationship choices have fallen so far off the rails to pull a stunt like this, and you should be too.
Tom O'Brien is majorly cute.
Aren't separated people allowed to date others?
@29 -- Well, that's why I said "or should have." I know there are doctrines out there that make it unlawful to interfere with the performance of one person's duty toward another. The closest analogue I can think of is tortious interference with contract. But even assuming that one of these doctrines applies to marrige (and I'm certainly no family lawyer, but I'm not aware of any such doctrine in the marriage context), I don't think it should. This isn't a legal argument; it's a normative one. I don't see why the rest of the world should have any obligation to help A enforce B's obligations to him. It just doesn't make sense to me.
--26
O'Brien should have used the services of an expensive prostitute, like I did. Worked out well for me.
If they were separated and in the process of divorcing, it's not cheating. I seem to recall that, under CA law, the point where you express your plan to separate is when community property ends, so there's some state law support for the separation = end of marriage distinction, too (even if divorce not finalized).
Accord, 22.
Ken's actions are harassing, controlling, vindictive, and abusive. Neither the wife or O'Brien deserved this, but good on ATL for not making it worse by publishing her name or the email. (After all, her mistake was to fall for the wrong guy--a mistake which she's now trying to rectify and recover from.)
Only four reasons why you should not bang a married chick:
1) Her husband is serving in Iraq.
2) You are married.
3) She is your mother, sister, grandmother, etc.
4) She is married to a friend of yours.
Besides that life is short, so go for it. If you are reading this blog, I am assuming that you are not Justin Timberlake, so she is probably going to cheat anyways. Go ahead and lend her your ding dong.
Now, the keys for being succesful at banging married chicks are as follows:
1) "bang" does not mean "date"
2) Never exchange emails or phone numbers
3) Do not take photos (remember that facebook is a true "playa's" worst enemy)
4) Lie
5) GET UP AND GO AFTERWARDS
You are welcome.
ELIE: You claim that the ex-husband "accomplished ruining his wife and O’Brien’s vacation." But you didn't know that until YOU "contacted the hotel in Cabo."
In other words, you were planning on ruining the vacation if the ex-husband hadn't already done so.
I'd fuck you up. Then I'd deal with the ex later.
@26
General rule: If you have sex with a person who is married to someone else, then (1) you are a piece of shit and will be judged by others as such; and (2) as noted by No. 42, the spouse may/should fuck you up.
41 -
So "banging" the wife of a soldier in Afghanistan is cool in your book?
@39 -- that's essentially right under California law. Upon legal separation, all community property rights end.
If this woman was still married to "Ken," then anybody having relations with her committed adultery and sinned. I don't blame the estranged husband for what he did. Anybody who commits adultery has broken the Ten Commandments and will have to answer to Jesus.
I can see why she left this guy, and now so can half of the U.S. legal community. "He's in a bad place right now" is an understatement. Crazy and pathetic. You're obviously separated for good reason, move on.
Though I don't know why she didn't change her email passwords. DUH.
the media has been able to destroy peoples' reputations for a long time
when the average person gets the power, suddenly the media's monopoly power is diluted
Dude--you guys put all kinds of unauthtorized e-mails in here to ruin people's reputations--like the one from a secretary a few months ago that got her fired, and the one from that dude who got fired at Quinn Emanuel. You were never supposed to have gotten those, and that was a major invasion of privacy and ruined people's lives.
So now why are you taking the high road and not printing the e-mails? Because it's a big shot former US Atty or something.
Shame on you for your double standard.
Interesting how no one is questioning whether OBRIEN is married, or separated, or whatever.
Interesting how no one is questioning whether OBRIEN is married, or separated, or whatever.
Classless move by the soon-to-be-ex (I hope to heaven that those two didn't procreate).
But, when you fool around as a married person with another (technically still) married person, you're taking your chances.
Thank God PE stepped in at the end; the absence of he and JaKe almost made my day of labor unbearable.
I met him once at a party in LA. I remember introducing myself and the rest of the blokes in the band thusly:
We are Spinal Tap of the UK! You must be the US Attornaaayy!
Another category of gals you shouldn't be carelessly banging:
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/bbxjlcblyj--Shoplift-the-pootieTom-Cruise-Jerry-Maguire-Rod-Tidwell-Cuba-Gooding-Jr-
I'm surprised so many people are accusing the soon-to-be-ex-wife of some sort of moral turpitude, for dating someone else while separated, but not yet officially married.
Do you realize how long a spouse (especially one of Ken's apparent desperateness / douchebaggery) can string along a "marriage"? It can take years. For all that time you expect them to remain faithfully devoted, until finally he writes his name in cursive and voila! The fidelity is instantly over?
Now we know no details, but the "estranged" title makes it pretty clear that their marriage, by any standard but the slips of paper in filing cabinets at the county courthouse, was over. It was a marriage in law only--and both parties are morally clear to start living as such. Love, believe it or not, transcends paperwork.
*but not yet officially divorced.
-56
Well in the first place the woman's married already. The husband, though, also committed a crime for he browsed through her e-mail unauthorized. But this is a personal matter and should be handled so.
@56 -- quite right. And if they are separated, even the state would consider them single in all relevant legal matters. It sometimes takes a long time to get the final judgment (and, in fact, California imposes a minimum period during which no divorce judgment can be final). After what was probably a long period of misery, neither the state nor the moralists posting here should stand in the way of someone's new attempt at happiness. Life is short. Happiness is rare. When happiness presents itself as an opportunity, there are rare instances when it should not be pursued. This in not one of those rare instances.
@ 50.
OBrien IS married with small children. Classy.
Marriage is a big deal. Its why we grant so many legal protections and preferences over a married couple. Its why gay people are fighting for the right to marry.
While it may be no longer cool or hip to say this, adultery is adultery no matter how you slice it. Calling yourself separated, estranged, or whatever doesn't change that. Until you get that divorce, those marital vows are still valid, and you are a lying cheating scumbag (or scumbaggete for the ladies) if you break those vows. Yes, divorce can take time, even years, but thats the point. Marriage is a big deal, and it should be a big deal to end it. I have no pity for those who decide to foresake their marital vows for some lustful grasp at happiness.
Change. Your. Passwords.
Dumbass.
Fooling around with a married person and you get outed, embarrassed, and generally fucked. What a shocker.
Keeping an electronic record of things you wouldn't want the world to know about, then they of course find out, and you get outed embarrassed, and generally fucked. What a shocker.
61 = Catholic priest into altar boys.
@61 --do you realize that you have assumed every single one of your conclusions? Well done!
"Lustful grasp at happiness." I enjoyed the poetry of that phrase. But you are utterly clueless to the reality of human relationships. I'm not here to knock marriage. But marriage is an artificial, societal construct that makes sense on many levels. At the same time, it is unrealistic and highly flawed if it is rigorously imposed. I hope you never have to learn the latter lesson. If you did, however, I suggest that you would be more open in your views.
Thomas O'Brien was a man who had it all. Professional success, a lucrative new job, and a beautiful new woman in his life. Until one day, he found out his woman's ex-husband had been sending everyone he knew some spam - and not the edible kind....
Elie, this was a very good post until the not-so-subtle stroking of the collective ego of all lawyers in the 2nd to last paragraph. Bankers and architects make more money, take larger risks, do more interesting things and land hotter women than lawyers. Face it. Stop trying to act like lawyers voluntarily gave these things up for made-up tokens of prestige like being "officers of the court".
61 - I'll take a less extreme view than 65. Not really sure why 65 has a problem with marriage being "rigorously imposed," whatever that means. But I will simply say that it is foolish to call someone a lying, cheating scumbag simply because they found someone else while waiting for the long divorce process to work itself out. There's nothing dishonest about that. You say "adultery is adultery" . . but technicalities are technicalities. Nothing more.
If you want a scumbag, look at these asshole soon-to-be-ex husbands who are ruining careers simply out of jealous rage. They ruin their marriage first, then ruin their wife's career, then ruin her new man's career too. All because they're losers and can't deal with it.
First of all, Elie is a girl's name. The fact that he was offended shows that he is actually a girl inside. He also writes this with a slant like a little girl. Seriously, go see a gyno loser. You write for a legal blog. Get a real job like the jobs we lawyers have. You drive a Hyundai don't you. Anyhow, I know these people. What's wrong with being angry? What's wrong with the way he reacted? Some YellowFever rice paddy daddy tried to get at his woman and he reacted. What's the problem? Get a life Elie. By the way, people, do your research on what constitutes privacy between legally married couples you idiots. Hasta.
It is interesting how it seems to be assumed that the "some point OBrien and Ken's wife started dating" post-dated the separation of Ken and his wife. Could it be possible that OBrien and Ken's wife started dating DURING the marriage which might explain (although not excuse) Ken's jealous rage and irrational behavior? Just a thought.
70 - that's a good question. Of course, we'd all have an easier time knowing the answer if Elie would get off his high horse and post the emails.
41 is the only honest and sensible person on this thread
-not 41
41 exhibits many of the textbook traits of a sociopath.
61 expresses sentiments that may not be "cool", but are shockingly admirable and thus rare in the amoral morass of ATL comments generally.
65 is trying to justify his/her affair(s).
73 exhibits many of the textbook traits of a crazy person.
So let me get this straight: say a woman has a physically abusive husband who also cheats on her repeatedly. She files for divorce. A few months after filing, she meets a great guy. The divorce still has a long way to go. She's not supposed to date him? That's cheating? Wow.
Actually, let me ask you a better question, one that I really want the answer to: what's the deal with people like you and #61 . . is it that you feel such a need to live by a consistent set of principles that you form your opinions based on this need for consistency, rather than based on common sense?
I once met a guy at an abortion debate. He was pro-life, and I asked him if he believed in a rape exception. He looked at me like I was nuts for even asking, and then simply said "how can I?". You remind me of him. Why use your brain when you already have a set of principles to turn to?
First !
Re: Elie's query whether it can be argued that lawyers in general are "somewhat more public than the average private citizen?"
"A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice." ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Preamble And Scope.
Not that we should be fair game for this sort of bullshit, but we do give up a bit of anonymity by joining the bar.
Anyone ever get an email from Bert Agrela, the guy whose wife was raped and beaten by FBI agents?
@74, right on, though I like to think that 73's problem is laziness rather than consistency. If your parents, your first-grade teacher and the Pope all tell you it's wrong in every case, full stop, end of story, then why bother thinking about it? It's so much easier just to assume it's wrong and that everyone who does it, regardless of the circumstances, must be a wicked sinner.
@46 - Doesn't having to answer to Jesus kind of beg the question of what question he will be asking? What would your answer be if, hypothetically speaking, the question is "Was it fun?"
Here's another hint - when seperating from your spouse, go ahead and change all of your personal passwords.
@41 - you made my morning. And, yes, I'm a chick.
@41 - you made my morning. And, yes, I'm a chick.
No. No. NO. We should all be focusing on the real situation here. And that is that O'Brien is bisexual and Ken's wife left those messages for Ken to "discover" to lure him into a three way. Sure, she could have been more upfront about it (Ken, I want to get you in keister with a strap-on while you get the former US Attorney in the keister....), but you can't blame her for thinking was a valid way to get her kink on. So, I lay blame with Ken for being prudish, short-sighted, sexually repressed, and constrained to missionary, vaginal intercourse. Perhaps this is why the marriage was failing? Kudos to O'Brien and the wife for thinking outside of the...errr..box. And maybe O'Brien can still get his kink on.
Estranged or not, if he is her husband then she is committing adultery. The "rational" way to deal with the situation is not to commit adultery in the first place. The husband doesn't have to accept it with a good-natured grin.
Ken, you are definitely NOT in a good place if you are all over this message board.
The problem with adultery is the deception. If she's told you it's over, there's no deception. The rest is just paperwork.
Now go out and find someone else to love.
alice wong is hot!
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/alice-wong/8/a53/259
61 here. Some things are black and white, and the sacredness of marriage is one of them. I have yet to find any reason to abandon my principles, but if I see facts that show I'm wrong I will be the first to admit my fault and change them.
To me its common sense that if you make an oath, you keep it, especially one as important as marriage. Thats the reason why you have your friends, your family, and either an officer of the court or a clergy member preside over it. Its why we have thousands of special privileges for a wife or husband. Its why marriage inequality for gays is such a huge deal.
We have measures such as divorce to end marriages that have utterly failed, and many religions will grant an anullment, get, etc. a lot faster than the state. The woman stuck in the abusive relationship can use that method to get out of it ASAP.
As for the pro-life guy against the rape exception, his view makes perfect sense. While I am pro-choice, I understand that if you are going to believe that a fetus is a human life and abortion equals murder, then the rape of the mother is irrelevant. We don't even execute convicted rapists, so why would one "execute" a child conceived from rape to help the mental anguish of the mother? Again, I am pro-choice and I don't think a fetus is a living creature until after the birth, but a pro-lifer who believes in a rape exception really isn't making much sense at all and hasn't put much thought in his or her beliefs.
79:
Stating that someone has to answer to Jesus is a reference to the fact that Jesus, not us, decides where we go after we leave this world. We all have to answer to Jesus. Those of us who have committed mortal sins, however, probably will be sent somewhere they do not like.
I actually take offense to your mocking of religion. What kind of American are you? Are you some sort of unChristian Communist? If so, this is a nation founded on Christian values, and you have no place here.
You're weird, 74. First of all, there's nothing wrong with having principles; in fact, one might argue that having principles is a good thing indeed.
And you don't need to use your "brain" to cheat. Not unless your brain lies between your legs.
It is ironic that many people are up in arms about "defending" marriage from gays, but offer no legal remedy to adultery.
Someone should introduce a bill criminalizing adultery into Congress merely so we can laugh when all the "family values" idiots vote against it.
@88: 79 Here...
I knew what the reference was, and who decides "where we go after we leave this world" depends entirely on what you believe. For example, I would prefer to go skiing than snowboarding, and if Jesus exists, and sentences me to snowboarding, well, I'll have to deal with it. If you can't pick up facetious comments, boy are you in the wrong place...
Re: What kind of an American am I? Not one
Re: "some sort of unChristian [sic] Communist?" : Your question presupposes that anyone who is not Christian is a communist. That is fallacious in so many ways I can't even count them. That said, I'm Agnostic.
Re: "a nation founded on Christian values" : mmkay...have you actually read the US Constitution?
-79
91
Do you think that every founding principle of this country was expressed in the Constitution?
90
Actually, many who are opposed to homosexual marriage are also for greater legal impediments to adultery. Some states have passed stricter laws. In most states, such proposals are still being debated and probably do not have a majority yet. (By the way, criminalization is not the only option, nor is it a good one.)
Even some proponents of homosexual marriage recognize that "no-fault divorce" is not good policy.
@92 - No, but if memory serves, the first amendment doesn't specify *which* religion or religions one is free to practice, and certainly doesn't prescribe a particular religion.
On a rather tangential point, to which 'Christian Values' was 88 referring?
These: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113377170 ?
Or these: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/gunman-sought-after-shooting-six-people-in-rosemead.html
94
So you agree that the Constitution does not embody every founding principle of America. In that case, the First Amendment may not be the first and last word on the subject of WHETHER the American Founders expected religion in general or perhaps Christianity in particular to be essential to the preservation of the republic, and HOW the American Founders expected religion or Christianity to help perserve it.
Your hostility to Christianity notwithstanding, I would suggest either studying the Founding further or at least refraining from expressing a definitive opinion on the place held by Christianity in the Founding.
- 92 (not a Christian)
(Correction: I meant "definite opinion," not "definitive opinion.")
@95/96
Aside from the rather simple pun that your statement implies (the first amendment is, in fact, the first word, on religion)...
My hostility (your words, not mine; as I mentioned, I'm Agnostic, and have a Hitchens-like distrust of organized religion as a whole - it's not limited to skepticism of Christianity) indeed notwithstanding, I have actually done quite a bit of reading on the founding, and the founding fathers.
To wit, I would suggest that you take a peek at the following: "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." Sounds reasonably straightforward to me...
Or, perhaps, John Adams: " Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" (let us not forget that the Treaty of Peace and Frienship was ratified by the Senate during Adams' tenure, and it read, in part :"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
Or, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
There are certainly opinions to the contrary, yours clearly included; however, unless and until that pesky 1st amendment is re-worded to state "you are entitled to your opinion as long as you agree with me", I think I'll reserve my right to the opinion that the founding fathers didn't want the constitution to touch religion, organized or otherwise, of whatever stripe, with a ten-foot pole.
Can't we all just get along!
There are no Christians, Jews or Muslims. Everyone is governed by Odin and will go to Valhalla if they live the life of a warrior. Some to Folkwanger. Otherwise, you end up selling hotdogs in Oklahoma City. Heathens, all of you!
Why doesn't this article mention whether or not Tom is married? I could have sworn he was. Cheating on a wife you're clearly married to is worse than cheating on your estranged husband, IMHO.
ATL, can you confirm whether or not O'Brien is married? That seems like his martial status should be disclosed.
By the way, I know all of the persons involved in this triangle, and speaking completely objectively, this article is way off base. The statements from sources, like most articles with unnamed sources, are wrong.
Mystal states:
"Sources report that Ken has been estranged from his wife for some time. We understand that the couple is in the process of getting divorced (though we don’t know how far along in the process they are)."
First of all, this a couple that has been dating for 10 years and married for 6. Yes, they lived separately for some time, but less than two months prior to this last weekend. Also, check your legal definition of separation posters, no legal filings had taken place yet. Just living separately. They were still appearing in public together and had only disclosed the separate living situation to certain friends. This is hardly what real, intelligent people call "estranged"
Second, at the time of these emails, they were NOT in the process of getting a divorce. No papers had been filed. So, wrong there. All of you who speculated and pilloried Ken that he was this nasty person who was holding up their divorce and making her live in misery for a long time while she waited for his signature should stick your uninformed and uneducated opinions the same place where your brains are obviously located. You know nothing about this guy. He may have overreacted, but imagine how you would feel. Those of you who tell him to "move on." Please, how would you react, in reality. It's like telling a homeless man to "get a job." Easy for you to say.
***
Mystal continues:
"At some point O’Brien and Ken’s wife started dating. Sources tell us there is nothing secret about the relationship."
Really? What sources? All we know from our sources, in the legal field here, is that he, who is married, apparently likes the Asian ladies, and thinks he's hot stuff. Again, many of us know both "Ken" and his wife and can assure you this side relationship was on the DL.
In any event, with that timing in mind, you can imagine "Ken's" surprise. No one knows when they began dating, but it certainly did not happen overnight.
Mystal also seems to take offense that "Ken" was not willing to dish dirt on his wife when Mystal asked for the scoop. So what? What he did over the weekend in frustration and anger is different than talking about his personal life to someone he does not know days later after thinking about the issue. Especially someone who just wants to exploit the situation to write an article on a blog.
Get lives people. Think about how your own lives are probably lacking and try to improve yourselves before you judge others. Otherwise, it might be you cleaning up the mess when your spouse steps out on you.
101 about sums it up. And yeah, O'Brien is married, has small children, and has a rep for extramarital affairs with Asian women. Funny how none of that was mentioned... O'Brien comes across as an innocent victim in this article, which is just not true.
So does this mean O'Brien's wife is available, because she is way hotter than the asian woman he was caught with.
O'Brien had been to almost every asian american events in town when he was a USA.
wow...mystal really screwed this one up. how could he blast ken and omit the relevant facts that o'brien is married with small children? seriously, that's a HUGE point that needs to be raised in this so-called "reporting". this is amateur blogging at its worst. after reading post 101 we learn that the wife and obrien were fooling around long before "ken" and the wife separated. obrien = nasty yellow fever douche and the wife...yuck. this one sided reporting makes me wonder if mystal is trying to get in o'brien's good graces. poor, poor job mystal.
@41 If I caught you banging my wife and wrecking my family, I wouldn't forward your emails. I'd put the lead right between your eyes, after I get you acquainted with the Louisville Slugger. Deal with it.
Perhaps if the author had the balls to post the emails, the public would see that they were not just racy it in fact racist. There is no other interpretation of his request for room salon girls except that mr. O'brien has a sick asian fetish.
This article is inaccurate and misleading. The article is so one-sided that it might as well be on Fox News. Where is the mention that Mr. O'brien is married with small children? How come the "estranged" wife is mentioned as O'brien's girlfriend and not as his mistress? Did Mystal bother to research whether a separation or divorce filing was ever initiated by either "Ken" or "estranged" wife? What about Mr. O'briens' apparent reputation for infidelity? I could go on and on about how sloppy this article is.
A similar thing happened to me. I thought the affair was over, but Google desktop and a few precious keyword filters of the wife's email proved otherwise. She received a very nice note from the head of human resources from a very large bank saying that **** had recommended her for a position. I decided to respond. The note went to the guy, my wife, the head of human resources for BAC, and to the fellow's wife simply stating that since they were continuing with sexual relationship, it would be ill-advised to consider my wife for a position in his office.
Felt great to send it, because I never got the chance to beat the shit out of him.
97,
First, you said you agreed that the Constitution does not embody every founding principle of the country. Now you are arguing as if you believe that it does. Which is it?
It is not news that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine - two of the most anti-religious men among the Founders - were opposed to religion generally. Quotations from them, however, do not settle the question of whether the Founders generally intended religion (Christianity in particular) to play an essential role in preserving our republic, even though they agreed generally that the national government should not support a particular denomination.
Second, I'm not sure where you read the John Adams quotation, but it is taken so far out of context that it represents the opposite of what he was trying to say. Note the two sentences directly following the line you quoted:
"Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, 'This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!' But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell..."
Take a look at: http://www.eadshome.com/FoundersQuotesoutofContext.htm
By the way, I myself have not come to a settled opinion on whether the Founders intended a particular role for Christianity in our republic. But I know it is not an easy question to answer by mere reference to the text of the First Amendment.
Yours,
95
So is O'Brien married with small kids or not? Is there really a story here? Are you investigating it, ATL?
I work in "Ken's" office, which is both O'Brien's and his wife's ex-office. I can't believe how Mystal chose to portray "Ken," then failed to report that O'Brien is married with small children, has a history of extramarital affairs, and is rumored to be running for D.A. of L.A. County in 2012! Do ya think maybe that's why "Ken" wanted to out himto the public?
Hey you left out that Tomas O'Brian is married with kids. Talk about inappropriate!
101 and 112: I think it is sad that you are here commenting on the private lives of people you know and work with. I hope these folks don't think for a second that you are their friends because whatever trust and friendship they think they had with you has been breached with you further violating their privacy.
101: I find it comical that you claim you know the triangle here, but you clearly have gotten many facts wrong. Furthermore, before you start pointing fingers, stop and ask why the couple is in the process of getting a divorce. While you erroneously think the act of violating one's privacy by sending out private emails in an attempt to destroy personal and professional lives is a bit outrageous, and somehow justified here, imagine that this act of humiliating another person is just the tip of the iceberg. It is outrageous and abusive, but imagine living with it for so many years. Clearly your story is one sided as well.
101 and 112: I think it is sad that you are here commenting on the private lives of people you know and work with. I hope these folks don't think for a second that you are their friends because whatever trust and friendship they think they had with you has been breached with you further violating their privacy.
101: I find it comical that you claim you know the triangle here, but you clearly have gotten many facts wrong. Furthermore, before you start pointing fingers, stop and ask why the couple is in the process of getting a divorce. While you erroneously think the act of violating one's privacy by sending out private emails in an attempt to destroy personal and professional lives is a bit outrageous, and somehow justified here, imagine that this act of humiliating another person is just the tip of the iceberg. It is outrageous and abusive, but imagine living with it for so many years. Clearly your story is one sided as well.
101 and 112: I think it is sad that you are here commenting on the private lives of people you know and work with. I hope these folks don't think for a second that you are their friends because whatever trust and friendship they think they had with you has been breached with you further violating their privacy.
101: I find it comical that you claim you know the triangle here, but you clearly have gotten many facts wrong. Furthermore, before you start pointing fingers, stop and ask why the couple is in the process of getting a divorce. While you erroneously think the act of violating one's privacy by sending out private emails in an attempt to destroy personal and professional lives is a bit outrageous, and somehow justified here, imagine that this act of humiliating another person is just the tip of the iceberg. It is outrageous and abusive, but imagine living with it for so many years. Clearly your story is one sided as well.
How about poor Tom O'brien's wife????? No one tells her what is going on? Why didn't Ken tell her? That would have been appropriate.
114: You sound a lot like the "estranged wife".
Whoever "Mystal" is, he does not qualify as a reporter, investigative journalist, or anything else but an elitist suck up. If O'Brien is married then I think portraying the relationship between O'Brien and "Ken's" wife as just a harmless one, assuming, "based on a source," that the couple (Ken and the wife) was estranged, without actually checking to see if O'Brien himself is married, qualifies as a POS reporting job. It does not even qualify as sound reporting for an elementary school paper. Time to look for new work, or pass on the blog to a more objective individual who actually investigates. Unless, of course, Mystal is trying to get a job if "someone" become the LA DA, then his article makes perfect sense.