Wisdom of MY Words

Random Musings & Book Reviews

Archive for the 'Biggest Douche in the Universe' Category

06 August

Brown & Greene Floral

I have brain mets from breast cancer and yesterday my husband and I were walking around the Sidewalk Sale in Linden Hills. I’ve had an infection on the back of my head for months, and I’m blind in one eye since neurosurgery. When they operate on your brain you have to recover and you do not come out the same. I picked up some stuff, bowls and a measured ceramic pitcher, and then went inside.
There were glass domes over the candles. Diptyque, in Paris, does the same thing. So does the mall tea store. I am 52, and I have money for nice things. I’m terminally ill, I only want to shop at pleasant nice stores that do not cause me grief. That is NOT Brown & Green Floral.
Because of neurosurgery and the changes to my brain if I smell using the dome I will ONLY smell the first candle, I will sneeze, and I won’t be able to get the smell out of my nose for hours.
To avoid that problem I smelled the candles. Lisa decided to come over and criticize the way I was doing things. She decided to tell me her tip. You could feel the air get sucked into her wide body, crackling with energy. Lisa’s unattended anger shoved out into the air and I was frightened. The air was so oogey my husband of 23 years shifted and started to come over. He felt the energy and was concerned for me. He said later that he thought I was holding my own, so he did not interject.
Lisa stood with her arms across her prodigious girth and said, Oh, tell me how your sense of smell changed? I tensed up, and she became more aggressive, clearly thinking I’m a liar. She was behaving like she wanted to fight me because her way was the right way and there was no way brain surgery, if I had even really HAD brain surgery, changed the way I smell.
I was clearly trying to be difficult Lisa’s puffy Iowa farm girl face said.
Because she stood staring at me, gawp-eyed, I started to babble a bit, saying that neurosurgery changes everything, hot flashes, bowel movements.
Oh does int, she said, leaning in and sneering. Tell me more, she said and stared and stared and stared me down. I was uncomfortable and embarrassed and the last thing I wanted to do was talk about my terminal cancer with an angry stranger. Or my Bfs. Or my menopause. (SMH)
But I hesitated being a Mean Girl because I am thin and pretty and Lisa is not. So I chose to take the high road, leaving the store while my husband checked out because I was shaking and close to tears. We purchased an over priced $40 candle because I was tense and stressed by Lisa’s aggressive attitude. I felt ASHAMED that I am sick. I don’t need shame. I’m busy dealing with sorrow.
We will not be back.
I will be writing up an even bigger and longer blog post about it because I am sick of being treated like garbage. By a sales clerk! Oy! Insecure much? My husband told me that she was rude to me because I am beautiful. Oh whatever, she was aggressive, shaming, and nasty because she has a whole lot of seething anger underneath her skin. The shop down the way from Brown & Greene was super friendly, handing out over sweet Prosecco and totally chill. Quite unlike the experience I just had.
I dislike that I have to air my personal business to give this retail experience a thorough and fair review. It’s wrong.
As an author and small business owner I love small businesses and I have never shopped at Wal-Mart and very rarely at Target, not since my 30s. I practice what I preach. I do not go back to restaurants or stores that treat me badly. Life is, honestly, too short to be treated poorly when you are spending money. My husband said to me in the car, if I hadn’t been there I wouldn’t have believed you. The way Lisa treated you was absolutely awful.
Brown & Greene?
Why you gotta make life so hard?
–Michele Davis, PhD

25 July

White House Couture

Everyone seems to cut a wide berth between Jackie Onassis and Michelle Obama regarding the fashion of the White House. No one discusses the fashion choices of the women between the two Os. There is little talk in the American press of Melanie Trump and her fashion choices. The Trump’s have money, so her expensive fashion shouldn’t be a source for ranker, since he’s not raking up the federal deficit buying D&G. Fashion designers came out against this svelte waif who would knock the socks off a whole hella fashion, but there is a list of designers who won’t dress the First Lady. The “not in my clothes, she won’t” group includes  Tom Ford, Marc Jacobs, Zac Posen, Christian Siriano and Sophie Theallet.

The view of Trump from here is a scary gelatinous mass of blonde hair in a cyclone formation atop an angry reddened skull with a widespread system of solar lentigines across the dome. Think for yourself, they say, don’t listen to Democrats or Republicans. A democracy takes work. But when you’re just looking at Trump, in the vacuum of his presidency, it looks like there is an awful lot of cash opening doors, paving paths and the like. Since no media has had the cajones to get Trump to release this taxes we have no idea of his fiscal astuteness. Melanie Trump’s wardrobe in all it’s ridiculous cost, is reminiscent of another Republican First Lady, Nancy Reagan. Everyone’s realm of knowledge seems to stop at their curb. In the two+ years we’ve been avidly watching Trump, as entertainment not as a President, I’ve seen nothing that establishes Trump as an Anglo-Saxon bred for higher office. Juan Carlo, the Aryan-looking Swede, grew up poor in St. Paul and he has better manners than Trump. If we can’t expect greatness from our elected leaders, especially ones running a global power like America, we can’t expect the woman in Big Sur to not be a racist, Asian-hating bitch. An Airbnb Hostess thought it was fine to agree to an Asian woman, her fiancé and another couple, to rent her Big Sur home. When the Asian was within miles of the house, the Californian wrote that she wasn’t renting her property to any Asian. The President of the free world, as Shonda Rhimes labels the American president, (although since she’s black, she’ll probably say Trump isn’t her president), calls the POTUS the leader of the free world in her show Scandal. Rhimes’ president is no doubt Obama. Barack Obama and his wife Michelle were the classiest of people in the White House. Michelle Obama immediately gained the fashion community’s approval for her all-American style. At 5’11” she is tall and elegant, with the posture of a dancer. She could look regal in a sack, but she chooses her outfits with care. She made it clear that she was to be seen as  more than a well-dressed, beautiful  woman though.

Much fuss is made about Melania Trump’s wardrobe. One can see by her svelte frame ensconced in her $7500 Dolce & Gabbana dress with embellished red roses distended like an ill kept garden, that she starves herself. But Melania was a model. Now she’s a kept woman. Unlike Michelle she intrinsically understands  her value to be in her looks. Contrasting Michelle and Melania is easy because the similarities are numerous. But when you go back farther are we marginalizing an entire group of First Ladies because of their fashion choices? Not since Jackie Kennedy have we had a woman with grace, poise, and thoughtfulness in the White House. While I really don’t want the conversation to focus on Hillary’s fashion choices we have to, nonetheless, interpret them and what her style meant in terms of economics. Since I self-define as part of Generation X, because I’m not putting myself in my mother’s generation, I don’t have the same sympathies as Baby Boomers have towards American Greatness, or fear of Russia. My mother was born in 1945, and is a post-war, Cold War narcissist just like Trump.

I’m a Kennedy baby. Of course, if you consider the assassination I was really born on Johnson’s watch. But we were a Kennedy house. Nana Davis had taken care of Rose for a year or two. Rose Kennedy dominated the conversation and a discussion of her mother’s horrors. “The Kennedys,” she’d say, “They’ve been through a lot. This country hates Catholics. They don’t even think we’re Christians because we have the market on spirituality. Having to hold that baby in and it getting sick because the stupid, untrained nurse couldn’t do her job”.   While the sun rose and set with my Nana, I of course didn’t understand anything. Then at 29 my nurse told me to not push and wait for the doctor when I was delivering my daughter. I ignored the no pushing edicts because I remembered Rose. Poor poor Rose.

I grew up thinking Jimmy Carter and Mister Rogers were the same person. I was only allowed to watch PBS, the news at 5 and 11, and Johnny Carson. The reason I thought they were the same person? The cardigan.

Carter showed up on our black and white box sitting languidly. All he needed was a pipe. For posterity sake I will give him one now. His first Fireside Chat had him looking like the father of the country. His cardigan seemed to convey a sense of security. He was the paternalistic president that would tree-hug up the White House with his energy conservation. Unlike today’s era of uber-stylized image consultancy, and Hollywood Presidents, in which fashion is a cudgel of class, Carter, ever the pragmatist, wore for the taping what he had worn to dinner. The story goes that he asked his television adviser what he thought, and they told him to look like himself. He was comfortable with himself and his fashion choices. “He was folks, and folks is in,” a Republican insider told TIME. “I hate to say it, but from a purely analytical point of view, I loved it.”

Rosalynn Carter also tried to hide behind boring colors and unflattering cuts of polyester, wearing skirts defined as Gypsy.

At the time she seemed ancient. My pretty mother in 1977 was only was only 42 and she looked young, vibrant, and pretty, except when she went through her curly perm phase. That phase doesn’t work on any women. She was frumpy. Rosalynn’s wardrobe wouldn’t offend anyone, but you’d not offer a compliment either. Her clothes looked homemade. Rosalynn Carter was clearly raised poor. Her clothes were farmer’s Sunday best. They were functional, clean, comfortable, boring, and very conservative. The only redeeming quality of FLOTUS Carter’s wardrobe was that it was American made. She’d never tell anyone but I’m positive poverty affected her in a way that has lasted her entire life. You know Jackie went to a dancing school like I did. Two years of Mayhew’s and manners. High tail it over to Wikipedia and Roslynn was 13 when her father died and her seamstress mother enlisted her eldest daughter’s help with the business. A little larger Google search coughs up this information, from a Washington Post article published 30 January 1977. “There is little doubt, though, that President and Mrs. Carter will save their jean-wearing for Camp David and Plains, just as Kennedy had his Hyannisport attire and the Johnsons had theirs for the Pedernales.”

“Mrs. Carter’s reluctance to spend a lot of money on clothes does not mean that she doesn’t like to look right. In fact, she often comments on the attractive appearance of those around her, according to one of her aides. But Mrs. Carter comes from a poor family, has worked most of her life, and finds it difficult to part with, say, $170 for a dress when there are equally respectable dresses at $70.” Carter was a fluke presidency just like Trump. However, the Carter’s fiscally minded austerity as leaders of America during an overarching energy crisis needs to be commended. The fact that Carter installed solar panels before they were popular speaks volumes. It was unfortunate that Reagan threw out our tax payer money with the removal of the panels mere years later, not nearly the amount of time needed to recoup the costs in energy savings.

All I hear from the older people is how great Reagan was, but I don’t see anything great, and I didn’t experience anything great as a Young Republican in the 1980s. Nancy and Ron came into office with their strange spirituality. Nancy was an attention starved woman who liked to be center stage with her flashy gowns. She’d been an actress to match Ronnie’s success, and she, like the First Ladies before her was thin. Nancy wanted to bring back the Kennedy’s elegance to the White House, after she felt there were years of laxity. Nancy was the opposite of Roslynn. She was born in a Mother’s Home, eventually adopted by a wealthy neurosurgeon stepfather. Nancy dressed like she’d been poor, had achieved success, and was NEVER going back to wearing charity clothes. Her interest in high-end fashion garnered much attention as well as criticism. She championed recreational drug prevention causes by founding the Just Say No drug awareness campaign.

Betty Ford on the other hand, could have been a swinger with her hip and fashionable bell bottoms, her avid use of polyester, and the Aqua Net wings of her hair, a helmet reminiscent of the habit wings worn by The Flying Nun. The country was reeling after Nixon left office is a swirl of a scandal that most Americans couldn’t even puzzle through. Why would you tape yourself, the adults around me where asking. In the heartland we puzzled over taping yourself talking to another person. It just didn’t make sense. Wasn’t that kind of thing for blackmailers? In Nixon’s Checker’s Speech he mentioned his wife and her lack of the finer things in life, saying, “I should say this, that Pat doesn’t have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat, and I always tell her she would look good in anything.” Now the fashion media are comparing Melania to Jackie O. “Not since Jacqueline Kennedy has there been a first lady who needs less help,” Richard Johnson says on <B>Page Six</B>. He continues with, “She doesn’t need couture. She can buy off the rack, and it looks beautiful,” Bloch said. “She knows her size, and she knows what works on her. She luxuriates in minimal.” And that’s great, but some women actually want to see this information in the mainstream press.

Tricky Dick wasn’t in


Back in the 80s

01 February

Daily Bottle of Wine

October 1, 2002

To whom it may concern,

I have been married to Michele Davis for three years as well as Simon and Miriam’s step-father. During this time I have had numerous interactions with the Respondent. The Respondent does not make eye contact with me but instead looks down at the ground when we talk in person.

The Respondent seems very angry and agitated when I talk with him. He sweats, shakes, and stutters. Respondent has called me creepy and weird to my face, asking me why he has to talk to me, and trying to argue with me in front of our home. Respondent has told my wife that I make him uncomfortable, yet when Michele and I were engaged, after their divorce, I helped the Respondent install a master brake cylinder in his car. He also asked me to hook up the dishwasher in his house that we gave him. I said, “No,” because he treated me badly after I helped him with his car. I’ve been civil and outgoing towards the Respondent and the thanks I get is being called names.

When I speak with the Respondent he often insists that he speak with Michele instead. It is a simple fact that as Petitioner’s spouse I sometimes need to communicate information with the Respondent. In addition, sometimes Michele and David have had a particularly grueling conflict, and I then deal with him because Michele doesn’t want to. Her father has advised her to stay as far away from his as possible because he is volatile.

I have witnessed the Respondent treat everyone poorly and sometimes hostilely. On one occasion Respondent did not come up to my car or say goodbye to the Simon and Miriam because he was too busy tending the lawn. On another occasion Brad, his step-son, picked up the kids and the Respondent did not introduce Brad. When asked about why Brad wasn’t introduced, the Respondent said it is because they are “all scared” of Michele and that “nobody likes her at their house, what do you expect with your attitude?” Clearly, there exists hostility toward us at the Respondent’s house which certainly doesn’t help us to communicate and cooperate. Nor do I understand where this comes from, unless the Respondent and his wife are divulging personal information to Jeanna’s children. Jeanna’s children, as far as I’m concerned should not be allowed to know the conflict that exists between Respondent and Michele.

I try to communicate with David to reduce the level of conflict between him and Michele, because David doesn’t know how to upset me, or as one of our friends said, “He doesn’t know which buttons to push with you, and that’s why he doesn’t like talking to you.” I also do not have a complicated history with the Respondent as Michele does, having been with him from 1989 to 1999. However, the Respondent resists speaking with me and does his best to make this more difficult. He has been on the phone with me, attempting to engage me in a fight, and I just won’t let him. I tell him I won’t argue, and when he continues to do so, I tell him I’m hanging up.

On one occasion Respondent became so angry that he pushed my solar plexus repeatedly with his two fingers, which left a bruise. On another occasion the Respondent refused to speak with me and I had to communicate with his wife. She is pleasant, but has her own agenda and the conversation did not go smoothly, with her continually interrupting me and treating me disrespectfully.

In the Respondent’s Affidavit he makes a claim that he believes the current parenting schedule is “…harmful to the children. In part, this is due to Petitioner’s financial situation as well as physical problems she has experienced.” Currently, I have a stable job at a national company and make a sufficient income to provide for Michele, myself and Zack. I also have consistently provided for Simon and Miriam because the Respondent’s child support was insufficient and not the State mandated minimum. Michele has requested reimbursement for uncovered medical costs and the Respondent has refused to respond to her letter. Yes, indeed Michele’s income has gone down from what it was when we got married, but she has had employment from December 2000 to April 2001, erratic book editing during the summer of 2001, she answered phones at an office while the kids were at Summer School at St. Paul Academy. Then she was unemployed from September to December 2001, worked steadily at a contract and co-authored a book up until May 2002. She started advertising her Web design services and computer expertise and has been working part time all summer, and still is. I don’t see the relevancy of “our” financial situation, does Michele working part time because the economy is slow make her a bad or unfit mother? On the contrary, this gives her more time to play with Simon and Miriam. Just the other afternoon she played Scrabble with both of them. Neither child goes without. We buy organic meat, feed them well, buy them the clothes they want, get their hair professionally cut, and buy things like a computer for Simon and Miriam’s use, a skateboard for Simon and expensive bikes for both kids. Frankly, our whole family does not go without.

As far as I can tell the only difference in the Respondent’s home and ours is: cable television, an X-Box and a trampoline. We live in a nice house, each child has their own room, and we do not have cable television because we believe in limited television access.

In addition, Michele being home for the children every day after school was wonderful when we belonged to Calhoun Beach Club, which closed in March for renovation, every Tuesday and Thursday she took Simon and Miriam swimming in the indoor pool.

After 11 years of nonsmoking, I’ve watched my wife, because of the stress of this Motion for Custody on the Respondent’s part take up smoking. I do not allow Michele to smoke in the house. I understand her need for an outlet since she doesn’t drink much, and exercises just enough to not re-injure her leg. But it is distressing as her ex-husband is vindictive and nasty, to see her smoking after an 11 year hiatus. I also want to add that Simon and Miriam have told us that BOTH the Respondent and his wife smoke cigars quite frequently, and that the Respondent polishes off a bottle of wine every night.

Michele and I have an established network of friends that we often do things with, this always includes the children. We rarely go out alone without the children. We enjoy the children, they are our precious treasures. I, personally, volunteer my computer skills to both Hale and Field, Miriam and Simon’s respective schools, and have volunteered at the Barnes & Noble book fair that Hale/Field sponsor, for two years in a row. I believe that it would literally destroy the children to be uprooted from their primary home, school, Church, friends, biological brother, as well as Michele and I. In addition, I believe that David cannot do fifth or sixth grade Math, or at the very least doesn’t pay attention and adequately check over Simon’s problems. Simon and I have to re-do Math homework after he has been at his father’s because the answers are consistently wrong.

In conclusion, I find it ironic that six weeks after David and Michele agreed to a new child support motion that he is now suing Michele for custody of their minor children. This appears to me as a play for him to get money out of Michele, and hurt her deeply by taking away the pleasure she derives in seeing her children every day. In addition, it would hurt Zack and myself because we have put an enormous amount of time and energy in to Simon and Miriam. Everything I’ve read states that most parents spend no more than 30 minutes per day with their children, yet we exceed that because we spend the great majority of our time with them.


Jon Phillips

01 February

Chanhassen Pickup Fuss

RE: Michele Davis and David Meyer
Court File No. 246637

Dear Nancy:

This letter is to inform you of issues that have been detailed in the Modification we created in March 2001 which my client is getting harassed by Mr. Meyer to change.

In the parties 2002 calendar Ms. Davis let Mr. Meyer have a weekly custodial day and alternating weekends during summer break. She did this to avoid continuous argument over the 2002 calendar. Yet, on page 3 of the Modification it states that Mr. Meyer gets a custodial weekday and every other weekend during the school year only, not during the summer. Mr. Meyer has sent Ms. Davis a proposed 2003 schedule where he gets 5 consecutive weekends in a row 2 times during the summer. Ms. Davis is strictly following the Modification in which Mr. Meyer does not get weekends and a custodial week day during the summer, but does get his Sunday to Sunday custodial week and other time as detailed under Other Holidays on page 3 and 4.

As you may recall we established a weekly custodial night of Tuesday or Wednesday from 5:00-7:30PM. This was what we called, “dinner with dad.” It was a check in time for Mr. Meyer to visit briefly with the children. Mr. Meyer sent an email to Ms. Davis that states: “Dinner with Dad was when I was living in Minneapolis. The drive to Chanhassen makes it physically impossible to have dinner with dad and Simon’s & Miriam’s new family.” When we created the Modification, Mr. Meyer knew he would be moving to Chanhassen since he stated he was moving in February 2001 court paperwork because of his summer 2000 engagement to Jeanna Paradise. Mr. Meyer did not add in the Modification that “dinner with dad” would only last while he lived in Minneapolis. A lack of planning on Mr. Meyer’s part does not justify changing the custodial calendar. Ms. Davis is maintaining the Modification regarding Mr. Meyer’s custodial night pick up, which is 5PM.

The last issue Mr. Meyer is arguing with Ms. Davis about is who picks up the children in Chanhassen. The Modification clearly states that “…when they shall be returned to Petitioner’s home.” This statement can be found in the Modification on page 3, under the titles School Year and Summer. This indicates that Mr. Meyer is required to return the children to Ms. Davis at her home.

To reiterate, Ms. Davis plans on following the Modification in reference to: 1) the summer custodial time, 2) weekly custodial day pickup time of 5PM, and 3) dropping off the children at Ms. Davis’ home after Mr. Meyer’s custodial time. Ms. Davis is willing to work with Mr. Meyer to eliminate any ambiguities in the current Modification, such as pick up times on Mr. Meyer’s additional custodial days, i.e., Halloween every other year. However, Ms. Davis will not continue to discuss issues that are clear in the Modification. At present, Ms. Davis is being harassed via email by Mr. Meyer to change the aforementioned issues. She also gets non-stop weekly phone calls where Mr. Meyer asks to pick up the children earlier. As an example, Mr. Meyer states in an email to Ms. Davis dated December 19, 2002: “I made the biggest compromise possible by letting the kids live with you. I don’t see where I can compromise with the amount of time I deserve with the kids.” And: “The kids do want to spend more time with me. In the past year, Simon has asked repeatedly to LIVE with me. I feel Miriam is afraid to tell you that she would like to spend a reasonable amount of time on Tuesday nights because of your past reactions she has witnessed.”

We all know the history of this case, and Mr. Meyer wants to paint a picture of this being an unhealthy arrangement, yet Mr. Meyer agreed to this Modification in September 2001. Mr. Meyer is also presenting issues in an attempt to hurt Ms. Davis. Simon’s requests to live with Mr. Meyer occurred in summer 2002 and were addressed in his October 2002 Affidavit accompanying his Motion which was denied by Referee Moehn. Ms. Davis does not need to be harassed with this information. In addition, when Ms. Davis asks Mr. Meyer to compromise he continues to state that “Just a reminder, we initially agreed to $600 in child support. And now you get $160 more per month because of your “life change”. So please remember, that I have been flexible to your changes in your life.” Additional child support wasn’t a compromise, as Mr. Meyer now pays the state mandated minimum. He acts as if additional child support were a favor he was granting Ms. Davis, but it is the complete opposite, as it is ensuring that the minor children are entitled to the same life style they had prior to the divorce.
The incessant nagging my client is receiving from Mr. Meyer, of which I have included a small sampling of, is becoming intolerable and it hinders progress between the two parties. Please reiterate to your client that the Modification is clear and final on the issues discussed above.

Please contact me at (612) 370-0376 if you have any questions or concerns.



01 February

Simon Custody & School

Reading through these documents makes me picture my dark haired exHusband as a crying whiney fussy baby.

The Honorable Brian P. Moehn
Courts Tower, Room C-550
Hennepin County Government Center
300 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55487

RE: Michele Davis and David Meyer
Court File No. 246637

Dear Referee Moehn:

This letter is in response to your letter regarding the appointment of an expediter in the above-referenced matter. In your letter, you said that if the parties did not come agree to an expediter, you would appoint Ellen Mount. Neither my client nor I have any experience with Ms. Mount and as such have no objection to her. We do, however, have a concern, not necessarily with her but with whomever is appointed. The concern is the cost.

The parties were in Court before you not that long ago regarding issues of custody and school attendance among other things. In your Order from that action, you denied everyone’s various motions but appointed a Guardian ad Litem/joint custody expediter. We all thought that was a good idea at the time but unfortunately Mary Cincotta, the person that was appointed, seemed confused about her role. We believe that Mr. Davis was also confused about Ms. Cincotta’s role because he immediately began pressuring Ms. Cincotta to meet and make decisions regarding where the children would be going to school, even though that question had just been answered in Court with your Order. Ms. Cincotta was under the impression that she was to meet the children and then file a report giving her opinion where the children should go to school and live. As I said, those issues had recently already been decided by you. Mr. Davis’ numerous calls to Ms. Cincotta resulted in numerous calls to my client, all regarding issues that we believe were not even to be discussed and were beyond the scope of what Ms. Cincotta was supposed to be doing in her role as GAL/joint custody expediter. I would add that it appeared that Ms. Cincotta’s bill for the parties was between $900.00 and $1,000 for one month. My client simply cannot afford to pay those kinds of costs. My client cannot afford to pay for every time she is contacted by the GAL or expediter because Mr. Davis calls regarding some issue that is not to be dealt with by the GAL or expediter at this time. Mr. Davis calls excessively without first trying to talk to my client and is insisting on talking about changing the children’s schools and permanent changes to the parenting time, issues you decided, in my client’s favor, in your Order. Mr. Meyer seems to think he now gets another bite at the apple with the GAL/joint custody expediter. As I said, he calls the GAL often and my client is concerned that his efforts will cause her costs to increase as well to the point that she simply can’t afford to pay them. She believes she is being penalized for Mr. Davis’ abuse of the system and would like some controls or guidance on what the GAL or expediter can do and what issues they are able to hear now. I believe there is still confusion by everyone involved as to what the GAL’s role is and what power she has and also just what power the new appointee would have. Ms. Cincotta apparently believes that she does not have the power to make any decisions in this matter; she believes she can only mediate. That may be the case and what your Honor intended but the parties don’t know that and would ask for some clarification from the Court.

Neither my client nor I know what Ms. Mount charges per hour for her services. As I said above, my client is concerned that Mr. Davis will cause the bill to increase exponentially because of his excessive calls. We would like there to be some control placed on the use of the GAL and expediter. We had also talked with Angie Banga about providing expediter services. She charges only $60.00 per hour. She is an attorney but is currently inactive to focus on her Guardian ad Litem and expediter services. Mr. Davis has not agreed to use her yet but I would ask the Court to look to her as a possible choice. My client is currently unemployed, taking odd jobs where she can get them. My client and I thought the idea behind appointing a GAL/joint custody expediter was to help there people make decisions at as low a cost to them as possible. Now we’re adding yet another person to the mix. It would appear that the costs are increasing rather than decreasing.

Again, we would ask that you at least consider appointing Angie Banga. She has said that she is willing to meet with both parties at any time. She is a reasonable alternative and she is not cost-prohibitive. We would also ask that you put some limits on what the parties can call the GAL and/or expediter about and give some guidance to the appointees regarding their roles and what power they have to make decisions. It is our understanding that the question of whether or not the children should change their residence from my client’s home to Mr. Davis’ home was already decided by you and is not up for discussion now. Like wise the question about where the children should go to school. You have already decided that issue and it is not an appropriate topic for the GAL or expediter at this time. I would ask that you let me know if I and my client are mistaken.

Please contact me at (612)630-2244 if you have any questions or concerns.



Kurtis L. Berg, Esq.
cc: Nancy E. Murphy, Esq.

01 February

Always Arguing Dave

From – Thu Aug 15 22:40:48 2002
From: “David Meyer”
Subject: RE: Miriam
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 22:41:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <3D592828.4020205@krautgrrl.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-102.0 required=6.5 tests=IN_REP_TO,A_FROM_IN_AUTO_WLIST version=2.01


i’m confused that you told me on sunday pm, ‘don’t believe what the kids
say.’ but yet you bring up what they told you about drinking. no, i do not drink a
bottle of wine nightly.


—–Original Message—–
From: Michele Davis [mailto:michele@krautgrrl.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:39 AM
To: dmeyer@bitstream.net
Cc: Jon Phillips
Subject: Miriam


After your veiled threat that Miriam could be abducted, I did a search
on Minnesota abductions. The last one was 4 years ago of a 22 year old,
and before that Jacob Wetterling. I see no reason to panic, and not let
Miriam go to Pearl, which is 3 blocks away, alone on her bike, or scooter.

Since you’re so keen on constantly criticizing “my” parenting, perhaps
you should consider what the kids say about YOU: “Dad drinks at least an
entire bottle of wine a night. He doesn’t drink scotch now, only wine,
all the time, every night.” Perhaps the level of alcohol in your
bloodstream is impairing your ability to think rationally and send me
civil emails that actually address “real” issues, not bahooey like you
not liking Miriam’s hair cut, especially after you had the audacity to
call my beautiful daughter “ugly when she has long hair.”

As Schuchman said, “Just don’t argue,” but you try to start an argument
with your accusatory and inflammatory emails. I have many “gems” of
yours in email and voice mail format, for ~4 years now. I will no longer
put up with your harassment, if you have nothing critical to convey,
please do not email or call me.


31 January

Miriam’s Mullet Cut

From – Mon Jul 15 19:12:55 2002
X-UIDL: 39858a6200005b3f
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000

From: David M Meyer
To: “‘michele@krautgrrl.com'”
Subject: Mimi’s hair
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2002 19:05:11 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI –
Encoding: 35 TEXT
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-100.0 required=6.5 tests=A_FROM_IN_AUTO_WLIST version=2.01
Status: O


Miriam’s hair looks terrible, she is a beautiful little girl, but she looks ugly with long hair. She looks better with short hair. I think the current du doesn’t reflect her best features. Considering the child support increase, this extra $$’s should cover Miriam schedule for a reasonable beauty saloon/stylist on a monthly
basis so she would look her best.

Would you be willing to get a cut that would balance her out rather than a mullet cut?


31 January

Difficult Time for Simon

25 September 2002

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing this letter in defense of Michele Davis and her competency as a parent. I have known Michele Davis and her family for four years. We were first introduced and became friends when our daughters were playmates in nursery school and today they are still very close friends (as are we).

In the fours years that I have known Michele I have watched her family grow. I have watched her tireless and caring efforts to ease her children through the painful and recent transitions of divorce, new marriages and the arrival of a new sibling.

Our two families have become very close during our friendship. We have spent many birthdays, holidays, family celebrations and weekend time together. I know Michele to be a committed mother, a caring person, and a loyal friend. All three of her children are well adjusted, well behaved, a pleasure be with and to know and love. It is my opinion, that this is due to her diligent and careful parenting and the nurturing home and family-life she has struggled to build.

Michele is consistent and generous in her parenting. Ever since I have known her she has arranged her schedule to be home after school for the children (which is especially noteworthy as their school day has sometimes ended at 2:15). I have often heard her say that her children come first in her life, and I know this first-hand to be true.

I know Simon, in particular has had difficulty adjusting to the changes in his life. The past four years have not been easy for Simon. I have personally watched him push boundaries one minute and then cling the next. He is a smart, loving boy struggling to find solid ground. Michele has consistently provided Simon with an amazing amount of patience, respect, tenderness, and guidance, while giving him the necessary space an 11-year old boy needs to enter adolescence with confidence and grace. I think more, now then ever, Simon needs the safety and comfort of the parent who has taken this hard journey with him and that parent is Michele.


Anne Heike Date

31 January

Contempt Of Court Petition




Court File No. DC 246637

In Re the Marriage of:

M Davis,
D Meyer,

Based upon the attached Notice of Motion and Motion, Petitioner’s Supporting Affidavit, attached Exhibits, all the files and records available herein:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that D. Meyer personally appear at the Hennepin Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, MN., on the 29th day of August, 2006 at 2:30 a.m. or p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, and show cause to this Court, if any you may have, why an Order should not be made granting the Petitioner any and all relief prayed for in her attached Motion.

1. That the Respondent show why he should not be found in “Contempt of Court” pursuant to Rule 309, and why the Petitioner should not be granted the Respondent’s fifty percent (50%) of the minor child, Miriam’s, 2004-2005 school tuition fee, tithing fee and registration fee in the amount of $1,425.00, and the Respondent’s fifty percent (50%) of the minor child, Miriam’s, 2005-2006 tithing fee in the amount of $200.00 requested in the Petitioner’s Notice of Motion and Motion brought before the Court for violating the Stipulation and Order to Amend Judgment and Decree dated September 12, 2001, and signed by the Honorable Stephen C. Aldrich, on page 5., paragraph A., which states:

“A. Schools – Including Private Schools. The parties shall try to reach an agreement on the school each child shall attend taking into account the child’s special needs and talents. The cost of private school attendance shall be shared equally between the parties, if private school attendance is agreed upon.”

2. That the Respondent show why he should not be found in “Contempt of Court” pursuant to Rule 309, and why the Petitioner should not be granted the Respondent’s fifty percent (50%) of the minor child, Simon’s, orthodontia work (braces) in the amount of $2,280.00 and half of a dental bill on behalf of the minor children, Simon and Miriam, in the amount of $292.00 requested in the Petitioner’s Notice of Motion and Motion brought before the Court for violating the Stipulation and Order to Amend Judgment and Decree dated September 12, 2001, and signed by the Honorable Stephen C. Aldrich, on page 5., paragraph A., which states:

“2. Conclusions of Law No. 6 and 7 of the parties’ Judgment and Decree of May 4, 1999 shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted in lieu thereof.
Medical Insurance Coverage. Respondent shall continue to provide such medical and dental insurances as available to him through his employment for the benefit of the minor children. If Respondent’s employment or the cost of his insurance coverage substantially changes, the issue of medical and dental insurance coverage shall be renegotiated between the parties. Major costs such as orthodontia or glasses or contacts shall be divided equally between the parties. For elective procedures, both parties will discuss the necessity of such procedure, and if approved, shall share the cost equally. If not agreed upon, this issue may be submitted to a mediator or arbitrator for determination.”
3. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent bring to court his last
pay stub for 2005, his paystubs for June 2006, and his 2004 and 2005 income taxes and W2s to verify his income.

4. IT IS HEREBY ALSO ORDERED that this Order to Show Cause be personally served upon the Respondent by showing to him the signature of the undersigned Judge of District Court on the original of this Order to Show Cause.
Dated: ____________________, 2006 BY THE COURT:
Judge of Hennepin County District Court

31 January

Simon at 17

03 January 2007

Simon Meyer
5416 Columbus Avenue S.
Minneapolis, MN 55417

To Whom It May Concern:

I, Simon Meyer, birth date March 1991 have been living with my mother, Michele Davis and stepfather, Jon Phillips, fulltime since August 29, 2006. I have spent one evening from 12AM-5AM at my father’s home since then, and I have not spent any custodial time with him, nor has he contributed to the cost of my care while I have been living with my mother besides the previously agreed-upon child support.

As far as extra curricular activities are concerned, I was unable to participate in soccer this past fall, but am avidly snowboarding almost every day, and do participate in summer soccer camps for my age group. My interests now lie in moving towards some of my goals, such as music sampling for a career as a Sound Engineer. This would include purchasing a soundboard and mixing software, I would consider this an extra-curricular activity, which my mother cannot afford given her current financial restrictions and her limited child support.

I have no intention of going to my father, David Meyer’s home. I plan to remain living with my mother and stepfather.


S. Meyer