NASA Astronaut's Estranged Wife Charged With Lying About Space Crime Allegation (usatoday.com) 114
Last August, Slashdot reader bobstreo tipped us off to an interesting story where an astronaut accessed the bank account of her estranged spouse from the International Space Station, in what may have been the first allegation of a crime committed in space. We have now learned that the spouse has been indicted on charges of lying to federal authorities. USA Today reports: Summer Worden, 44, made false statements to NASA's Office of the Inspector General and the Federal Trade Commission, according a statement from U.S. Attorney Ryan Patrick. A federal jury in Houston returned the two-count indictment in late February, but it was unsealed Monday. Worden married Anne McClain, a decorated astronaut who was once set to be part of NASA's first all-female spacewalk, in 2014 and filed for divorce in 2018. In 2019, Worden filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission claiming McClain had stolen her identity while on a six-month mission aboard the International Space Station, although she saw no signs anyone had moved or used funds in the account, The New York Times reported. Worden's parents brought a separate complaint to NASA's Office of the Inspector General that described a "highly calculated and manipulative campaign" designed to win custody of the couple's child.
Through her lawyer, Rusty Hardin, McClain told The Times she had accessed the account but said she did so to ensure that the family's finances were in order and that there was enough money in the account to care for their child, who was born a year before they met. She said she was never told to stop using the account and continued to use the same password she had throughout the relationship. The indictment says Worden maintained multiple accounts at USAA Federal Savings Bank and she shared access to those accounts "with a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army on detail to NASA's Johnson Space Center." She lied about when she opened the account that had allegedly been improperly accessed and when she reset her login credentials in a complaint filed with the FTC in March 19, 2019, according to the indictment. Worden also allegedly made another false statement in an interview with NASA's Office of the Inspector General in July. If Worden is convicted, she could face up to five years in prison on each count and a maximum fine of $250,000. She is expected to make an initial court appearance April 13.
Through her lawyer, Rusty Hardin, McClain told The Times she had accessed the account but said she did so to ensure that the family's finances were in order and that there was enough money in the account to care for their child, who was born a year before they met. She said she was never told to stop using the account and continued to use the same password she had throughout the relationship. The indictment says Worden maintained multiple accounts at USAA Federal Savings Bank and she shared access to those accounts "with a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army on detail to NASA's Johnson Space Center." She lied about when she opened the account that had allegedly been improperly accessed and when she reset her login credentials in a complaint filed with the FTC in March 19, 2019, according to the indictment. Worden also allegedly made another false statement in an interview with NASA's Office of the Inspector General in July. If Worden is convicted, she could face up to five years in prison on each count and a maximum fine of $250,000. She is expected to make an initial court appearance April 13.
Never Fear (Score:2)
This sounds like a case for Space Command! I'm sure they are on the case. :P
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds like a case for Space Command! I'm sure they are on the case. :P
SPACE FORCE!
It's not "space command", that's the old name. We have a Space Force now.
I remember pondering once what exactly Star Fleet was supposed to be in the Star Trek universe. They had ranks like captain, ensign, and commander and so therefore had military style ranks. But so do non-military organizations like police forces, firefighting departments, US Health and Human Services, and NOAA. In this fictional universe they established that the ships were armed, but so were trading vessels, if only in
Re: (Score:2)
The closest analogy would be to rewind a few centuries and think about how seafaring used to be combined with how they would have benefited with advanced technology.
Trading vessels were frequently armed, because they could not expect aid or defense. So in a deep space scenario where help was logistically infeasible, defense seems to be more do-it-yourself, at least for some period of time.
Extended periods of time. Even for the flagship, they commonly quoted several days at maximum warp to get to places wh
Re: (Score:2)
The closest analogy would be to rewind a few centuries and think about how seafaring used to be combined with how they would have benefited with advanced technology.
That's precisely how I came to my conclusion. The precursor agencies to the USCG was the US Revenue Marine, the US Life-Saving Service, and the US Lighthouse Service. The Revenue Marine enforced import law, as well as related tasks of preventing smuggling (which would be bypassing the tariffs), and piracy (which would also cut into tariffs they could collect). The Life-Saving service and Lighthouse service are rather self explanatory, the first performed search and rescue of ships and crew lost at sea, a
The "crime" of lying (Score:1)
Ah, sure.
Now we just need the "crime of not responding", and all the bases are covered to end-run the Fifth Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
It has always been a crime to lie under oath.
Re: (Score:2)
Was she under oath? This was not in the context of a trial.
Re:The "crime" of lying (Score:4, Informative)
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, thanks for the information. Stalinist as it may be.
Re: (Score:3)
Stalinist? Where do you live? I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where it's NOT a crime to lie under oath. Perjury is well-established as a legal principle. It goes back a long way, it's a common law thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, the question is whether it was under oath.
If a Senator walks by and asks you "Do you know where the liquor store is?", and you don't have time to give him directions, and say "no", you are comfortable with going to prison for 5 years for that?
I don't know the particular circumstances, but if she was under oath, I'm astonished she didn't plead the Fifth knowing she's guilty. That is, if she was allowed to. And assuming she was informed of her rights.
I am not unaware of this recent (in terms of commo
Re: (Score:2)
Making a false criminal allegation, even not under oath, is a whole different thing to lying to police.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I'd ask for greater specificity. "Filing a false police report", for example, being a chargeable offense, seems reasonable. That would be essentially what is at hand in this case, and I see no reason not to construct the law verbiage to specifically address that type of circumstance.
Simply "lying", to anyone, being a criminal offense punishable by 5 years, does not seem reasonable. And it does seem to me to encroach on the 5'th Amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then I'd ask for greater specificity. "Filing a false police report", for example, being a chargeable offense, seems reasonable.
Crime reported by citizens are made under oath.
Re: (Score:2)
Lying to anyone is not a crime. Lying to the ruling class, it’s agents, or large corporations (especially banks and insurance) is a crime. You can lie to the poor and middle-class all you’d like. Most anyone can lie to you and be perfectly within the bounds of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am referencing -the law- as usefully quoted previously in this thread:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or docum
Re: (Score:2)
Face it, this is about making false accusations against other people. That is something you can be held liable for. Of course you still deserve your time in a court where they have to prove that you made those false accusations purposefully.
And here it's important to understand that principle of false accusations being problematic is not Stalinist. It's part of the freaking Ten Commandments.
Now whether you believe the
Re: (Score:2)
"(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;"
So, simply being asked "What happened?" and the interrogated not bringing up and confessing to the act themselves, is in itself a crime punishable by 5 years, on the face of it.
This is even worse than I thought. This is in no way compatible with the Fifth Amendment, no matter what legal authority claims otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I opened it with "the crime of lying", and that's exactly what the law makes punishable by 5 years. I quoted and italicized the exact parts saying that.
Yes, making a false accusation can be a crime in its own right, without broadening it to "any kind of lying", and that's exactly what I'm objecting to.
You are misdirecting. I have no issue with false accusations being punishable, I have an issue with lying per se being automatically in itself being a 5 year punishable crime.
And to be precise, the Comm
Re: (Score:2)
Now you focus on the law text misdirecting more by taking that text someone who was dumb enough to fall for the straw man out of context.
But let's discuss that text.
That is a crucial part there. It requires the element of the 'liar' being a
Re: (Score:2)
No, I misdirected on nothing. I criticized the supposed "crime of lying", that's exactly what the law specifies in a crime in itself. And I was right at the outset, and still am, in every respect.
Provability is irrelevant, and convenience in prosecution is not an excuse for an unjust law.
And as many have noted, making the legal system so byzantine that everyone is breaking the law, and some are empowered to arbitrarily decide when to prosecute the cases, is a great problem with the legal system in itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no. The Fifth pretty much makes it legal to NOT ANSWER a question that would incriminate you. It does NOT protect you if you choose to answer or otherwise make a statement.
And yes, accusing someone of a crime that you KNOW they didn't commit is, in and of itself, a crime....
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you've recounted the Fifth accurately, and exactly as I did.
The issue is that this law makes it -a separate crime- to "conceal" anything. So, well, exactly the scenario I said. Ask "What happened?", if the interrogated doesn't -bring up the crime themselves- and thereby -confess to it-, that is a -separate 5 year sentence-.
But, people misrepresenting my statements and arguing with themselves is getting tedious. Enjoy. Hopefully at some point you'll be more concerned about people's rights than argui
Re: (Score:3)
And to be precise, the Commandment is "You must not testify falsely against your neighbor", and I have made no objections to that being correct. The Commandment does not say "You must never lie".
So I guess cheating is ok so long as it's not your neighbor's wife?
That Commandment isn't meant to be taken literally, it's meant to be taken specifically as "Do not lie".
Re: (Score:2)
Please do study law at some point.
The operative verbiage is: "in any matter within the jurisdiction"
The senator asking for the liquor store is not within his jurisdiction. If someone is investigating a crime however, and it is within their jurisdiction to ask questions, you have two options: you tell them the truth (or ask for a lawyer) or you plead the fifth (which is what a lawyer will tell you should do, even if you know nothing).
In this case, the person made a false statement to a judge in order to gain
Re: (Score:2)
I already did above, but just to be clear, you're misinterpreting the law either out of ignorance or wilfully, but the operative part is 'within the jurisdiction'. You can lie to anyone you want, if it doesn't harm anyone, that's part of free speech. When you're in a court of law or otherwise interacting with the government, and those people have the jurisdiction to know the truth, you have the obligation to speak truthfully or plead the fifth. In general, pleading the fifth is the correct thing to do even
Re: (Score:2)
You can invoke the 5th amendment without lying. Lying is not protected speech. Instead, you can say something to the tune of "I am unable to answer that question," or "I do not wish to answer that question," or the more famous "I wish to plead the 5th."
The key to that phrase though is "material fact." A Material fact is something that will change the course of an investigation, change the outcome or substantially change a dependent fact. So, not pointing out where a liquor store is, probably won't chan
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are wrong. It says what it actually says.
Again again again again, if the circumstance is that lying would save lives, it would be the proper course of action. Including biblically.
That you are unaware that this can be a quite literal choice, in many interrogations around the world, including, likely the U.S. soon if this nonsense persists, is concerning.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, you can say something to the tune of "I am unable to answer that question," or "I do not wish to answer that question," or the more famous "I wish to plead the 5th."
All of which are "concealing", specifically punishable by 5 years in prison per this absurd law.
It won't be enforced in all cases. It will be enforced in specific selective cases, which is even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
"(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;"
So, simply being asked "What happened?" and the interrogated not bringing up and confessing to the act themselves, is in itself a crime punishable by 5 years, on the face of it.
This is even worse than I thought. This is in no way compatible with the Fifth Amendment, no matter what legal authority claims otherwise.
Refusing to answer is not the same as concealing. Answering with a lie while under oath will open you up to prosecution for perjury.
It's always been this way - lie as much as you want to, but when under oath say nothing, not even the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, you can say something to the tune of "I am unable to answer that question," or "I do not wish to answer that question," or the more famous "I wish to plead the 5th."
All of which are "concealing",
None of them are considered "concealing", except by you.
Re: (Score:2)
...and anyone who knows the definition of the word.
I'm sure there will be plenty of lawyers around to interpret and game the meaning, though.
I like my laws to mean what they directly say. Maybe it's just me.
Re: (Score:2)
Many famous people have been charged under this law, including Najibullah Zazi (whose lying charge was later dropped after more serious charges were preferred against him),[15] Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, and Martha Stewart. There was also talk of prosecuting Tareq Salahi and Michaele Schon under this statute. In the wake of such cases, many observers have concluded that it is best for anyone with the slightest degree of criminal exposure to refrain from submitting to an interview by government agents.
Yes, c [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Technically if the investigators ask if you did it, and answer "no" (and let's say they have you on video committing the crime), they can charge you with lying to investigators.
But you do have the right to remain silent, so the best advise is not to answer the question and tell them to speak with your lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Many famous people have been charged under this law, including Najibullah Zazi (whose lying charge was later dropped after more serious charges were preferred against him),[15] Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, and Martha Stewart. There was also talk of prosecuting Tareq Salahi and Michaele Schon under this statute. In the wake of such cases, many observers have concluded that it is best for anyone with the slightest degree of criminal exposure to refrain from submitting to an interview by government agents.
Yes, clearly. [wikipedia.org]
Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate affirmative false statements. In the 1998 case Brogan v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the "exculpatory no" doctrine that had previously been followed by seven of the courts of appeal, which had held that "the mere denial of wrongdoing" did not fall within the scope of 1001.
Apparently I'm Old School. "Old" as in around 1998.
From your link:
Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions—lying is not one of them.[14]
When you are making a statement, as the person in this story did, in support of a crime you are reporting, that statement is made under oath and penalty of perjury. Have you seriously never filed a crime report? Did you ever look at that affidavit they asked you to sign?
Re: (Score:3)
...and anyone who knows the definition of the word.
I'm sure there will be plenty of lawyers around to interpret and game the meaning, though.
I like my laws to mean what they directly say. Maybe it's just me.
Very few other people have the trouble you do understanding the difference between pleading the fifth and lying under oath. I'm afraid it might just be you.
Re: (Score:2)
When you are making a statement, as the person in this story did, in support of a crime you are reporting, that statement is made under oath and penalty of perjury. Have you seriously never filed a crime report? Did you ever look at that affidavit they asked you to sign?
Nope. Never have. Never have needed to.
I think my question is too broad. If I ever sense myself getting into a "matter" with any government agency, with or without an oath being involved, I'll find out the specifics of my legal context th
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, "jurisdiction".
Across all the branches of government, I still have no idea what that means in terms of specific situations. I'll consult with a lawyer should I sense myself becoming involved in a "matter".
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is saying anyone who is part of any of those 3 branches of government as an acting member can't lie. Which is pretty funny. Take every police officer and politician immediately to jail please.
Re: (Score:2)
Crime reported by citizens are made under oath.
Exactly. Oath, that universally-enforced concept that keeps people honest.
Just as you’ve never seen a cop or a politician violate their oaths, at least not without heavy penalties, you should be under no assumptions that they will not enforce the hell out of it should you lie to them “under oath”.
I mean, they’ve set the bar so high for us, and we want to keep it there.
Re: (Score:2)
Law = rules that the ruling class makes for the non-ruling-class to follow. Those holy words that we’re taught from childhood to revere and obey.
And we know they serve the people because Democracy. See, the American public, whose average IQ is 98, holds their elected officials accountable.
And even the politician completely sells them out, they still vote for him/her since they don’t want to ‘throw their votes away”.
So, yeah, laws, by the “people” for the “people
Re: (Score:2)
Really, THIS is what wipes it’s ass with the 4th and 5th amendment?
Not the mandatory filing of 1040 forms?
Not civil forfeiture?
Not gag orders preventing you from even revealing the government’s request of information from you?
Sir, where have you been?
There is no 4th or 5th Ammendment anymore. They’ve been de-facto repealed for a long time.
Sure, there is still the individual case upheld here or there, but do you know what the penalty is for passing a blatantly unconstitutional law?
There is
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm being interrogated by an oppressive regime, and telling the truth could get people killed, I'm lying, no question. Even if that means 5 years in the gulag... prison.
Unless they exempt you from prosecution in which case you’d sing lie a canary like the rest of us.
Don’t get me wrong, I admire your position, and I agree with it, we just have too much information about the realities of human nature to be able to support the self-delusion, no matter how well meaning.
Life Rule #1: people do wha
Re: The "crime" of lying (Score:2)
"You must never lie". If I'm being interrogated by an oppressive regime, and telling the truth could get people killed, I'm lying, no question. Even if that means 5 years in the gulag... prison."
I'd like to introduce you to
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
I completely agree with your noble sentiment.....
Except that it is a monumentaly stupid position in view of survival and procreation. Which is why when push comes to shove most of us will submit and sing or do whatever....
As a side note, JBP was asked the
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it is a monumentaly stupid position in view of survival and procreation.
Depends on when you think the scope of these ends...
Let's meet up in 200 years and compare notes. If you can make it.
Re:The "crime" of lying (Score:4, Informative)
"and say "no""
Perfectly acceptable. Better yet is "I don't know" followed by "am I free to go, am I being detained or am I under arrest".
If the answer is the later of the two, STFU. In this country one doesn't have to answer questions, and must be informed of their rights upon arrest.
Better yet, be respectful and assert the rights provided by the constitution. See, we can do that in the US.
Answering the simple question "where are you going" in a traffic stop with any response other than "forward" allows you to become a participant in an officer's investigation of you!
Provide identification, vehicle documentation and follow commands, but don't fucking talk. People are generally so stupid.
Law enforcement isn't necessarily intelligent, but they know the populus 99% of the time buries themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
If a Senator walks by and asks you "Do you know where the liquor store is?", and you don't have time to give him directions, and say "no", you are comfortable with going to prison for 5 years for that?
The law I cited above applies, as clearly written, "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States". I seriously doubt a Senator asking for the liquor store is a relevant matter for the law above to apply.
Re: (Score:2)
If a Senator walks by and asks you "Do you know where the liquor store is?", and you don't have time to give him directions, and say "no", you are comfortable with going to prison for 5 years for that?
The law I cited above applies, as clearly written, "in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States". I seriously doubt a Senator asking for the liquor store is a relevant matter for the law above to apply.
And let's be honest, is there a Senator out there that doesn't already know where the closest liquor store is?
Re: (Score:2)
In the context of this story, yes, the Astronaut's ex-wife was under oath. This is illegal in every nation on the planet. Possibly an extraterrestrial newly arrived might not know this but it's strange that an adult of average intelligence would not know this.
Lying to congress is not a crime, lying to congress while under oath is. Lying to a member of the FBI is not a crime (how would they ever manage to maintain a marriage otherwise), but lying to the FBI while under oath or while giving a deposition un
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, I know the distinction of "under oath", because I said so several times already. This particular case is of as little applicability to the question of "lying to X" in general, and as of little general interest in itself as everyone already knows it is.
The linked 18 U.S. Code 1001 says nothing about "under oath". It says in any "matter" whatsoever under their "jurisdiction", that lying is a crime punishable by 5 years in prison.
I'd like to know what these "matters" are, as I'd prefer not to commit
Re: (Score:2)
It’s like that whole ‘lying to the police’ being illegal thing.
Turns out it’s a little more nuanced.
If he asked you who you think the best rapper of all time is, you don’t have to answer “CoolDiscoRex” ... you’re free to lie and say Tupac or Biggie or whomever.
The lie has to be materially relevant and result in some kind damage to the pursuit of justice or some shit like that.
Of course, it’s a one-way street. The police and the government are free to lie
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing in that statute about being "under oath". Sit down at a table with an interrogator, no swearing in, and make a false statement. You're done.
Note that there is essentially no way for you to prove that a false statement was not deliberate. Sure, memory is fallible, but why should the prosecutor give you the benefit of the doubt? Surely you were deliberately lying.
If you are sworn in under oath, you have (a) an explicit warning that you'd better pay attention and (b) you almost certainly have a
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for this response. Yes, this is parallel to what my more cynical side was expecting to be the case.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against (Score:2)
"It goes back a long way, it's a common law thing."
Quite. In the written record is goes back to at least thr 9th commandment, "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour".
Going off Egyptian records of the plagues, the ten commandments would date to around 1850 BC. Other sources put them around 1500 BC. Either way, "it goes back a long way".
Re: (Score:2)
It's called committing fraud. Lying is sometimes illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
If such an act is not treated as a crime itself and punished as one, justice becomes an impossible dream. If left completely unrestrained, communication itself becomes impossible. These are pillars without which civilization cannot stand.
Re: (Score:1)
No, society can exist without making every lie, however dictated by circumstance, a 5 year prison sentence.
That will simply be used for Stalinist purposes. "Find me the man, I'll find you the crime."
The level of historical and logical ignorance on this is astounding.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Was she under oath? This was not in the context of a trial.
Any formal allegation made to a court is under oath. You cannot miss it when you sign the affidavit - it's written right there.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so for clarity...
Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States
link [cornell.edu]
All these "matters" are considered equivalent as "to a court"? A formal allegation to a court is one thing, but the broad scope of a charge of "lying to X" seems wider.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so for clarity...
Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States
link [cornell.edu]
All these "matters" are considered equivalent as "to a court"? A formal allegation to a court is one thing, but the broad scope of a charge of "lying to X" seems wider.
In this story, the person in question lied under oath. You can lie to a judge as long as you're not under oath at the time. Any report you make of a crime (as in this case) is under oath. Your statement is under oath.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being forced to incriminate themselves. Incriminating oneself is defined as exposing oneself (or another person) to "an accusation or charge of crime," or as involving oneself (or another person) "in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof."
Protection against compelled self-incrimination is implicit in the Miranda rights statement, which protects the "right to remain silent."
Maybe the Miranda warning was written on the back of the form. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Unless offered immunity by a grand jury, I don't know of any other position that one could be forced to testify. It appears the witch hunt was only able to find a crime due to the ignorance of a suspect that testified to an officer (open mouth/insert foot).
It's pretty fucking easy not to lie.... and impossible when you don't fucking talk to an officer.
How fucking hard is that? If you're innocent the officer can't testify on your behalf, if you error (or lie) to an officer conducting an investigation, you'r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are YouTube channels devoted to video records of people being harassed for carrying firearms or taking photos of public places. There are also far too many false confessions, compelled by isolation and harassment for hours and the promise of a safer, reduced sentence.
Opposite of click-bait? (Score:2)
What do you call it when they leave the juiciest word or fact out of the headline?
Let's face it, without that it is barely news, just another domestic spat.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call it when they leave the juiciest word or fact out of the headline?
She was trying to get at her ex-wife’s Bitcoin wallet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we dare not mention it, because of course if we did we would be exhibiting hostility and fear of the LBGT community.
Welcome to 2020 (Score:3)
I assumed it was newsworthy (if it's newsworthy at all, which is debatable) because of the astronaut/ISS angle. The nature of the relationship does not change this and is irrelevant to the allegations at hand.
...laura
once you started calling them "wives" (Score:1)
The door is opened to other circus entertainment.
Obviously a real hands on caring mother... (Score:1)
... if she's quite happy to spend 6 months away from her child on the ISS. Someone who's career comes so far ahead of their child in personal priority that the latter is virtually out of sight should lose all custody AND visiting rights.
Too many people treat having kids as simply another checkbox on a bucket list to tick off rather than because they actually want them and she sounds like one of them.
separation happens (Score:4, Informative)
When I was born, my father was serving on a US Navy cruiser during the Korean War. When he was ordered to Germany, we had to stay in the US until family quarters became available (although we did find an apartment for a few months before that). He spent 13 months in SE Asia in 1968, while, obviously, we did not go.
Granted, those were military separations, but, if you're going to marry someone who either is, or intends to be, an astronaut, you have to expect some time apart.
Even in purely civilian life, if an employer closes an office but offers relocation, it may be several months before all of the details in the town being left are cleaned up (including the remaining spouse dealing with his/her own employment) before the family is reunited.
Re:Obviously a real hands on caring mother... (Score:5, Interesting)
... if she's quite happy to spend 6 months away from her child on the ISS.
That's OK for fathers though, I assume?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
feminazis? Wow, are you from the 1970's? How's life back there? Getting enough mental exercise a problem?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No point responding to him. You've commited wrongthink as ordained by the great woken ones. The discussion is over. Further communication will only result in more and more vitriol being sent your way.
I mean seriously, what were you thinking? Criticising feminists. Don't you know it's [current year]?!
No, it isn't. (Score:2)
Don't ever have kids, we have enough delinquents as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
woosh!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obviously a real hands on caring mother... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get it, is it sarcasm? Or are you suggesting sailors for example who would be away from their kids for months should lose all visiting rights? Or is it somehow only if they are women? How was this modded up?
I'd love it if my mom was an astronaut personally. I mean if MY mom was an astronaut we would all probably weep for the space program, but still...
Worth noting that the astronaut's MIL has absurd complaints about the 7pm facetime requests:
It seems like Anne (McClain) controls our life. We have to be home at 7 o'clock, three nights a week, so she can FaceTime with him (Briggs). Well that's the time that we're eating dinner, just getting home from soccer practice.
We are saying grace here, tell the space station to call back another time... :facepalm:
Re: (Score:2)
Worth noting that the astronaut's MIL has absurd complaints about the 7pm facetime requests:
It seems like Anne (McClain) controls our life. We have to be home at 7 o'clock, three nights a week, so she can FaceTime with him (Briggs). Well that's the time that we're eating dinner, just getting home from soccer practice.
I'm guessing you don't live under a joint custody agreement. It definitely rules your life.
Not "false statements" again... (Score:1)
These charges should not exist. There should be nothing - absolutely nothing - illegal in making false statements. A "false statement" can arise from confusion, from stress, or simply from notoriously fallible human memory.
Do you know exactly when you opened your bank account? You're being leaned on by the interrogator, quick, name a date. Bzzzt, wrong, false statement.
How about the last time you changed your pass
Re:Not "false statements" again... (Score:4, Insightful)
False statements should not be a crime. Heck, deliberate lying should not be a crime, unless you are under oath. These are just convenient "gotchas" for lazy prosecutors.
When you make a statement to police to press charges, isn't part of that attesting that what you allege (at least in your own opinion) is true? I can't just walk into a police station and say bradley13 stole my car and expect no repercussions.
Re: (Score:2)
Bradley13 apparently thinks you should be able to do that. Sounds like fun actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence why you don't talk to the police unless absolutely necessary and have a lawyer present during interrogations.
Re: (Score:2)
"Thou shalt not bear false witness" is one of humanity's oldest rules for a reason. Society can't function without it. You will find it in every culture.
Their child was born one year BEFORE they met?? (Score:2, Troll)
It is unfortunate that the child's actual mother is now facing jail time, but the astronaut has no custodial rights. I don't understand why the mother put everything at risk by lying when it seems so profoundly unlikely that the custody dispute would not go her way. Even if she were f
Re:Their child was born one year BEFORE they met?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why the hell is there a question at all about who would get custody? The one who gave birth gets custody, the other only has custodial rights through the marriage. Even if there had been an adoption, which there was not.
It is unfortunate that the child's actual mother is now facing jail time, but the astronaut has no custodial rights. I don't understand why the mother put everything at risk by lying when it seems so profoundly unlikely that the custody dispute would not go her way. Even if she were found unfit, the astronaut didn't have a leg to stand on so the child would go to the father or the mother's parents.
Which may be for the best, as it seems one party is a liar facing jail time and the other is a vicious scumbag who would try to take a child from his mother after spending, at most, 2.5 years with him (4 y/o, born 1 year before they met, -6 months in space).
Welcome to the reality of child custody battles. Family courts are usually stacked in the mother's favor. Having two moms throws the bias towards the mom out the window. In this case it sounds like the non-mom was already getting rights to the child, and may have ultimately had joint custody. The mom was probably panicked at the idea of having to share.
https://abc13.com/nasa-astrona... [abc13.com]
Space Crime? (Score:2)
Is that like Space Phrasing?
lies like this can kill military careers (Score:2, Informative)
A friend's brother was in the Air Force back in the late 80s or early 90s.
He was in line to go into some elite training.
His estranged wife made a false claim. I think it was assault. It was a long time ago.
When it was finally settled, his career had been set back so much that he missed the chance to do the job he really wanted to do.
I don't remember if he left the Air Force over it or not.
Nasty business (Score:2)
My dad practices law for over 60 years. Some of it was divorces.
The nastiest shit goes down in divorce cases. It has to be handled by professionals.
Dude is a STUD (Score:2)
to ensure that the family's finances were in order and that there was enough money in the account to care for their child, who was born a year before they met
Holy shit, homeslice is so damn potent that what he puts the mack-down smack-down on that fly hoo-haa, the kid pops out a freaking year before he even taps it.
Props.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit, homeslice is so damn potent that what he puts the mack-down smack-down on that fly hoo-haa, the kid pops out a freaking year before he even taps it.
The "dude" in question is even more potent than you know. The astronaut is a woman. So "potent" in your weird little world she managed to synthesize a Y chromosome out of thin air—the child is a boy. But, you know, 'A' for effort.
Dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
divorce really does seem to bring out the worst in people
Re: (Score:3)
A friend of mine is a family law attorney (mostly divorce and child custody stuff). Although she is rather conservative, when gay marriages became a thing she said, "Oh goody! Lots of new clients."