Welcome to the LSIS Investigative Journal

Welcome to the LSIS Investigative Journal

Friday, February 22, 2013

The Curious Case of Staff Sergeant Parsons

The Curious Case of Staff Sergeant Parsons

February 22, 2013

Business Insider

By Jack Mandaville

     “Stuff like this is the reason people say fact is stranger than fiction.  Fiction has to make sense.  Reality doesn’t have to do shit.”

-Tucker Max, Hilarity Ensues

 


 Sometimes it takes genuine injustice to put things in perspective. I was recently reminded of this during my clash with a prominent floral service that failed to deliver a chocolates order on Valentine’s Day… and the next day… and the next day… and as I write this opening paragraph. Nobody likes having their money held hostage. But, again, perspective has humbled my rage about the incident.

 

So begins the story of Marine Staff Sergeant Brandon Parsons and his role in one of the most baffling legal debacles in the history paternity cases.

 

A Superior Court of California judge has recently ruled that SSgt Parsons, a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, must continue to pay child support another twelve years for a child that ISN’T his—a payment that, counting the $50,000 he’s already remunerated his ex-wife, Crystal Parson, will put him on pace to pay over $250,000 before his legal obligation ends (twelve years from now), according to his lawyer. This payment, broken down, takes up approximately one-third of his current salary.

 

The judge, having made the decision because of a loophole in the events leading up to the ruling, didn’t hold back in his disdain for Parsons’ ex-wife’s actions. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the court’s ruling says it all:

 

While the court concludes that father was, in fact, despicably duped and victimized by Petitioner Crystal Parsons’s (hereinafter “Mother”) fraudulent concealment regarding biological paternity, a deception which has placed a significant, continuing financial burden upon Father, existing law, as applied to the facts of this case, precludes the court from setting aside the prior paternity determination or ordering genetic blood testing.

 

So how did this apparent calamity of justice happen? Here’s the gist:

 

After completing his first combat deployment in the Spring of 2005—of which he spent the majority of time fighting in Ramadi, Iraq—SSgt Parsons, then a twenty-year old corporal, returned to Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and immediately began a sexual relationship with his then-fiancĂ©, Crystal Domenech. Their first sexual encounter was, according to court documents, on April 5, 2005.

 

Seventeen days later, Crystal announced to Brandon that she was pregnant. Brandon, without questioning any aspects of her statement or the legitimacy of his biological paternity, decided to bump up their scheduled nuptials and spent the majority of his money (an estimated $20,000)—of which most came from his recent deployment—on her dream wedding.

 

What both Brandon and the court now know is that Crystal Domenech Parsons had been engaged in numerous sexual affairs while he was on deployment and, consequently, the child that Brandon raised—under the assumption he was legitimately the father—was indeed that of another man. (Crystal Parsons refuses to name the true identity of the biological father to this day.) Moreover, it was both alleged by Parsons and believed by the court that Crystal chose to sleep with then-Corporal Parsons purely to cover up her previous sexual encounters and pin the pregnancy on him, therefore having access to his military benefits.

 

It was after the end of Parsons’ second deployment to Iraq that Crystal Parsons, who continued to engage in extramarital affairs during his absence, made it clear she wanted a divorce—only after emptying his bank account and paying her personal bills in his name.

 

SSgt Parsons’ first inkling that he was not the biological father, brought to his attention by a former friend of Crystal, occurred in April of 2010, less than a year after their divorce. Within the month, Parsons had confirmed through an over-the-counter test by Identigene that the child he had been raising for four and a half years was not his.

 

“The worst part of being a paternity fraud victim is that nobody can help you,” SSgt Parsons told me in a recent phone interview. “When a guy is dealing with a break up, his buddy can say, ‘Dude, I’ve been there.’ Nobody knows what to say in that kind of situation. I broke down and the Marines around me just stood there.”

 

SSgt Parsons confronted his ex-wife soon after that. This is the exchange, according to Brandon Parsons, in his official court declaration:

 

After she had read the result I asked her to tell me the truth. She then began telling me that while I was in Iraq she had been raped. I told her that I did not believe her and to start telling me the truth for [Child’s name – Redacted] sake. I asked her how many men she had slept with while I was on deployment. When she did not answer at first I asked her if it had been more than 2 men and she nodded her head indicating “yes.” I asked her if it was more than 5 and again she nodded her head indicating “yes.” I asked if it was more than 7 men she had slept with. This time she screamed at me that she did not know how many. After she calmed down she told me that in March 2005 [a month before his return] she discovered she was pregnant and told her mother. She said that her mother told her that military spouse benefits were excellent and she should remember that she did not have insurance coverage for the hospital bills.

 

(It should be noted that, by all accounts, while Parsons lost the aforementioned legal case, the court never denied the plausibility of Parsons’ report of the events. In fact, the judge made it more than clear that Brandon Parsons’ side of the story was the most credible and that Crystal Parsons had acted “despicably” leading up to the ruling.)

 

After this exchange, Parsons convinced his ex to meet him for another DNA test, along with the child.

 

He continues in his statement:

 

When they came into the waiting room [Child’s name—Redacted] came over to me and was talking to me when Crystal’s mother came and grabbed him and pulled him away telling him not to talk to me because I was a stranger now. She also began calling me names. I asked her to please stop cursing at me before the child. This made her really angry and she looked right in my eyes and told me that I should have died in Iraq like I was supposed to do.

 

Parsons was unable to obtain a DNA test that day due to the vitriolic nature of Crystal and her mother, opting to leave after the two women threatened to call the police on him.

 

So why, after the court has concluded that Parsons’ description of the events is more grounded than his ex’s and his prior over-the-counter test is admissible as legitimate proof that he is not the father, does he still have to pay child support for a child that isn’t his? The answer—in all the convoluted facets of the case—is simple: timing.

 

He did not file a complaint against Crystal Parsons until early-December of 2012—more than two and half years after he discovered he was not the father of the child.

 

The court’s explanation:

 

Even if the fraud ground of Family Code section 2122(a) applied, Father’s set aside motion is untimely since such a motion must be brought “within one year after the date on which the complaining party either did discover, or should have discovered, the fraud.” Father’s discovery of the fraud occurred in April of 2010, i.e., a date more than 2 ½ years ago.

 

In laymen’s terms: he was too late. This is the loophole that Crystal Domenech Parsons won the ruling by—resulting in the court ordering SSgt Brandon Parsons to pay another twelve years of child support for a child that he now has no access to.

 

This is where things get really enraging: Crystal Parsons has recently filed a motion asking the court to order SSgt Parsons to pay $8,535 (on top of his ongoing child support) for the lawyer she hired to defend the mess she created in the first place. Additionally, on a more egregious level, the child—who Brandon Parsons adamantly maintains is the “biggest loser in all of this”—suffers from chronic hereditary illnesses that neither him or Crystal Parsons have. Her refusal and/or inability to name the biological father has greatly inhibited the child from getting the proper care he deserves.

 

(Folks, in my humble opinion, Crystal Parsons is the living, breathing, real life bastard child of Snidely Whiplash and… Satan—who is possibly her mother.)

 

But Parsons, who has since been remarried, isn’t deterred. He says he’s going to fight it.

 

“If we [Marines] can take Iwo Jima, I can win this case,” he told me. “I want to win this for every Marine—for every man—who gets screwed like this.”

 

My initial impression of SSgt Parsons after our three hour conversation is that he’s an extremely optimistic individual with a cheerful demeanor—exactly what I’d expect from a Minnesotan who grew up a stone’s throw from the Canadian border.

 

Even after the disheartening outcome of his case, he continues to see the best in most people involved.

 

“The judge did a good job,” he said. “I could tell he did everything he could to get me out of this. He had his hands tied.”

 

“My attorney, Mr. Richard Lowe, was the only attorney in Southern California that even remotely had an idea as to how we should approach this problem and solve it,” he wrote me in an email after our conversation. “He’s an excellent attorney and an even better friend. He deserves praise and is helping several other paternity fraud victims as we speak.”

 

It’s hard to get angry about my twenty dollars at this point. (For the record, as I finish this story, I just received an email from the company, promising me a full refund.) Besides, there are certainly bigger travesties in America right now… as the case of SSgt Brandon Parsons has proved.

 

Editor’s Note: All information and court transcripts contained in this piece were obtained and verified through open source information available on the internet at the time of publishing. -RU Rob, Lord Commander and Regent of Ye Olde Rhino Den.

 

  

*****   Related Article   *****

 


Young Marine Must Continue To Pay Child Support for a Child That Is Not His

Brandon Parsons is a young Marine who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. On January 22, 2013, San Diego Superior Court Judge Gregory Pollack ruled that Brandon Parsons will have to continue paying child support for another twelve years for another man’s child.

 His reason is that Brandon Parsons did not file his request for an order for DNA paternity testing of the child, Ashton Parsons, and the mother, Crystal Parsons, until two years after the child’s birth. Because of this delay, Brandon will have to continue paying child support for another twelve years for another man’s child.

 Brandon is currently required to pay $1,377 per month, approximately one-third of his income, for a total of $16,524 per year. To date, he has paid over $50,000 to support Ashton and is on pace to pay over $250,000 before his obligation ends.

 The Court found Crystal Parsons’ testimony to be totally untrustworthy. It called her actions in deliberately lying to Brandon about being the father of the child “despicable.” In his written opinion, Judge Pollack states his views as follows: “The court denies the motions of Respondent Brandon Parsons to set aside Judgment and order blood testing to determine paternity. The motions are statutorily untimely under Family Code Section 2122, 7646,7541 and C.C.P. Section 473. The Paternity determination set forth within the 2009 martial dissolution judgment stipulated to by father, is res judicata and not subject to an equitable set aside.”

 

 

 

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Heavy drinking, 'incompatible' drinking tied to divorce, study says

Heavy drinking, 'incompatible' drinking tied to divorce, study says


couple making a toast


Los Angeles Times
By Eryn Brown
February 6, 2013, 5:30 a.m.

Here’s something to ponder if and when you and your spouse make your Valentine’s Day toasts this year: when it comes to drinking — as in so many other facets of marriage — compatibility may be key to keeping couples together.

Researchers reviewing data collected from 19,977 married couples in one county in Norway reported that spouses who consume about the same amount of alcohol were less likely to divorce than pairs where one partner is a heavy drinker and the other is not — especially when the wife is the one doing the drinking.

By reviewing such a large data set, the team, which reported its findings (abstract here, subscription required for full text)Tuesday in the online edition of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, were able to tease out some of the alcohol-related dynamics within couples that lead to marriage dissolution.

They found that divorce was generally more common in couples with high rates of alcohol consumption, but that the highest divorce rates were found in couples where only the woman was a heavy drinker. Among couples where the wife reported being a heavy drinker (a measure that including admission of an indication of "hazardous drinking") and the husband a light drinker, the divorce rate was 26.8%; when the positions were switched and the husband was the heavy drinker, the divorce rate was 13.1%.

In couples where both members were heavy drinkers, the divorce rate was 17.2%.

Norwegian Institute of Public Health researcher Fartein Ask Torvik, the lead author of the study, speculated that drinking in women upended marriages for a couple of reasons.  One reason, he noted in a statement, is that women seem to be affected more strongly by alcohol than men are — so their drinking could impair them, and add risk in a marriage, more than a man’s heavy drinking might.  The team also wrote that drinking “may be judged as incompatible with female roles,” and thus a particular threat to marital stability. 

It was “of major interest” that a woman’s drinking more than her husband does seemed to strongly predict divorce, said his colleague Norwegian Institute of Public Health director Ellinor F. Major, who was not listed as a study co-author.

“Couples who intend to marry should be aware of the drinking pattern of their partner, since it may become a problem in the future,” she said in the statement.

The best approach might be for husbands and wives to strive for matching amounts of light or moderate drinking, she said.

Couples in the study who both reported being light drinkers divorced just 5.8% of the time.














Tuesday, February 5, 2013

MUST SEE: Amazing Interview With Hatchet-Wielding Homeless Hitchhiker Who Took Down Man Claiming To Be Jesus

MUST SEE: Amazing Interview With Hatchet-Wielding Homeless Hitchhiker Who Took Down Man Claiming To Be Jesus





Local news is an often-wonderful, even-more-often-bizarre place. And never was the latter more evident than in a recent story that aired on KMPH FOX 26 in Fresno, Calif. About a man claiming to be Jesus and the homeless hitchhiker who saved the day with a hatchet.

For starters, here’s what happened: A man claiming to be Jesus apparently plowed his car into a PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric) worker — pinning him between the car and his truck — because he was black. Two women who were nearby ran over to help, but witnessed a crazy scene.

“The guy just went crazy and was trying to pull the guy from underneath the car and the truck, and then he gets in his car and tries to move the car… and we weren’t going to let him do it,” one of the women, Tanya Baker, told KMPH’s Jessob Reisbeck. “He just kept saying he’s Jesus Christ and he’s going to save all of us… but we have to get — he used the n-word, meaning the black people… and we need to get them off the earth.”

The worker was treated for non-life threatening injuries (two broken legs) at the hospital. But the story still wasn’t over. The driver evidently also went after one of the women (a “bear hug” turned into “beating the crap out of me”).

Enter homeless hitchhiker Kai (who was in the car with the crazy driver). “Like a guy that big can snap a woman’s neck like a pencil stick,” he told Reisbeck. “So I fucking ran up behind him with a hatchet — smash, smash, suh-mash!”

Tanya said that saved her life. The driver, described as over six feet tall and around 300 pounds, had a cut on the head after the incident.

But the story that aired on KMPH wasn’t the whole story. Reisbeck later posted the raw, unedited video of his interview with Kai. And it is nothing short of amazing.

Speaking to Reisbeck, Kai prefaced the interview by offering a message: “No matter what you’ve done, you deserve respect. Even if you make mistakes, you lovable. And it doesn’t matter your looks, skills, or age, your size or anything — you’re worthwhile. No one can ever take that away from you.”

He went on to offer a profanity-laced narrative of what happened, including some choice anecdotes from his interaction with the driver in the car (“He’s like, ‘I raped this 14-year-old,’ and starts crying and gives me a big hug.’”)

“Dude, that guy was fuckin’ kooked out, man,” he told Reisbeck. As for himself, he said his name was Kai and doesn’t have a last name (“no, bro, I don’t have anything”).

The rest of the interview is worth a watch, but I’ll leave you with this: “I’m like, ‘Bro, if you’re fuckin’ Jesus Christ, I’ll be the anti-Christ, man, like fuck that shit.”