You two get divorced.
I sent my daughter a present and she had me arrested for that.
Your ex-wife was having this romantic relationship
with this police officer.
Yes, during our marriage.
No, Your... No.
She's the one who initially told me about it.
This could be a movie.
[narrator] Today on Tribunal Justice...
This case was filed in Wadena, Minnesota.
[Byrd] Your Honor, this is case number 1065
on the calendar in the matter of Thurston versus Morthberg.
Parties have been sworn in, you may be seated.
[Judge Levy] Ms. Thurston,
according to your complaint,
you and the defendant were married in 2008,
separated in 2018,
-and divorced in 2021. -That's correct.
You were awarded the marital home as part of the divorce proceedings.
And when you attempted to refinance the mortgage,
you learned that there was an encumbrance on the title.
A $6,000 lien by attorneys
that represented the defendant in the matrimonial matter,
who filed it claiming that he had not paid them.
You negotiated with those attorneys
and had them reduce their lien
from 6,000 to 4,000, which you paid.
That is correct.
Therefore, you are suing the defendant, now your ex-husband,
-for that $4,000. -Correct, Judge Adam.
All right. Good. Mr. Morthberg,
according to your answer,
you paid your attorneys a retainer of $5,000.
You didn't owe them any more money.
The plaintiff should never have paid them.
And you don't owe her a dime.
-More or less, yes. -[Judge Levy] Good.
We're gonna move to your counterclaim,
in which you requested either the return of personal items
that were left in the marital home
-when you left... -Yeah.
-...or their value... -Yes.
...which you state was $6,845.
Yes.
You admit that the plaintiff was awarded the marital home in the divorce
and that prior to you going to collect those items,
she had you arrested for sending your daughter a gift
-with a note. -Yes.
According to your counterclaim, the police officer who arrested you
had a reason, a motivation, in seeing you suffer,
because that police officer was romantically involved with your wife,
now your ex-wife.
Yes.
[Judge Levy] Therefore, you did not feel safe going to the home.
-That's why you didn't collect the things. -Yes.
That's why you're suing her for $6,845.
You understand that's a pretty serious allegation, right?
Yeah, I don't make allegations lightly.
[Judge Levy] So let's start with the counterclaim.
You attach, as part of your counterclaim, an exhibit,
in which you list 35 items.
-[Eugene] Yes. -Have you seen that as well?
-Yes. -[Judge Levy] Okay.
My question is, was this list ever incorporated into the divorce decree?
Not in the divorce decree, no.
Other than in the sections I referenced,
the judge implied
that Ms. Thurston had some things in the garage in boxes
that, you know, I could retrieve. And if I want anything else,
that I would have to file a separate claim for those items.
Okay. Did the judge indicate in that divorce decree
the manner or mechanism in which you were to receive those?
I was supposed to go to the house
accompanied by local law enforcement.
[Judge Levy] I can understand you not wanting to go,
especially after your claim
that your ex-wife was having this romantic relationship
with this police officer,
but you could've gone to any police officer.
-Why didn't you do that? -[Eugene] It's a very small town.
And throughout this process,
I've had a few interactions with more than one officer.
None of those interactions
were what I would consider totally professional.
[Judge Levy] However, the order, as far as you know,
that was signed by the matrimonial judge,
did not specify either local PD, Sheriff, or State Police.
It was any law enforcement officer.
True, and if I would've had an attorney at the time
to help me understand the legal wording of that,
maybe that would've helped.
But when I contacted her then-attorney to ask about it,
he just said, "If you want anything, you need to file a separate claim."
And he hung up the phone. At that point, I did not file.
-[Judge Levy] You didn't do that? Okay. -No.
In your answer, you make mention of having paid the $5,000 retainer
-for your lawyer. -Yes.
And there were two matters, were there not?
There were two matters. One was the matrimonial matter
and the other was the criminal matter.
Show me the cancelled check showing that you paid $5,000
for both the criminal and the matrimonial matter.
There would've been two checks.
And I did not write the checks. My sister did.
-[Judge Levy] Show me the cheque... -I do not have them with me.
The matrimonial case was first, and I paid that first.
-Well-- -I don't have any evidence that I paid it.
You knew you were coming to court today, right?
-Yes. -You knew your payment of those fees
was really the crux of her entire case, right?
Yes. I... I... brought everything I have in the matter.
[Judge Levy] Okay.
You know, I'm very particular about complainants filing police reports
and domestic violence charges when there is insufficient evidence,
when it's being used as a sword and not a shield,
when there are exaggerations made.
I'm very particular. I don't like when people do that.
And in your answer, you suggested that's exactly what the plaintiff did.
-[Eugene] Yes. -[Judge Levy] Tell me about that.
Um, she did it a few times.
The most egregious one would be when I sent my daughter a present.
You can fill out the little card, you know, and put some words in it.
And I basically just said I love and I miss you.
And I hope to see you soon.
-[Judge Levy] And she had you arrested? -Yeah.
[Judge Levy] By sending that note,
it almost sounds as though he wants to see them,
but they're being prevented by someone else from seeing him.
I think that was the message he was trying to relate to them.
Yes. And I, in no way, prevent it.
I would be happy to bring them to a supervised center.
[Eugene] Um, there was one time where I tried to call my daughter,
or both my kids, actually,
she had me arrested for that.
Even though I had a signed agreement that was notarized by her,
allowing me to do that, filed with the courts.
Were there any that were founded, that were indicated...
There was none that was founded.
All of my charges have always been dismissed.
I just get arrested, they drag me through the court system...
[Judge Levy] All right. So let me do this, then.
You didn't provide me, or any of us, in your evidence packet
with the divorce decree before you came in today, right?
-No. -[Judge Levy] Is there a reason why?
I had assumed that she did with her evidence.
-[Judge Levy] You have a copy, right? -Yeah.
[Judge Levy] But you chose not to present it to us?
I honestly had thought, up until this moment, that she had
because of her claim that, you know...
Okay. I'm gonna read through some of the terms and conditions
of the judgement of divorce that was issued.
On September 26th, respondent, who is our plaintiff here,
filed an order or protection.
Following the hearing, the court issued an order
that found the petitioner, you, committed domestic abuse
by frightening respondent and the children with threatening behavior and language.
That's what the divorce decree says, right?
Yes.
Petitioner was directed to obtain a mental health evaluation.
There is no evidence
that petitioner complied with this requirement.
On June 17th, 2019, respondent, that's our petitioner,
filed another order of protection
and there was a hearing. Another trial happened.
Following the hearing, the court issued an order
that found you had committed domestic abuse
by sending her threatening and intimidating texts
over an extended period.
The court found your behavior, sir, to constitute stalking.
The order granted respondent, that's our plaintiff,
sole legal and physical custody of the children
and restricted your supervised parenting time. Right?
[Eugene] Mm-hmm.
[Judge Levy] Marital property.
Our plaintiff indicated that she had boxes of property
that she believed belonged to you in the garage.
Given that neither party made requests for specific property to be given,
if you, after gaining access to those boxes of property in the garage,
find that some item was unexpectedly missing,
you, sir, were to inform the court
and request relief from the matrimonial judge.
-Right? -Yes.
-[Judge Levy] And you never did that. -Yes.
Okay. Petitioner's testimony.
This is when you actually testified under oath before the judge.
Your testimony consisted primarily of accusations and aspersions
of respondent, that's your ex-wife's, character.
Virtually all of these accusations and aspersions
lacked any evidentiary support.
Petitioner, that was you, without any evidence,
accused the respondent, that's your ex-wife,
of having a sexual relationship with the police officer
who arrested you for violating the order of protection.
The court does not find this testimony credible.
That's what the judge said.
Is there a reason why you did not include that that allegation that you made
regarding the police officer that you put in our papers,
was already adjudicated by a judge in which he rejected your claims?
-Why didn't you tell us that? -If I may...
Tell me.
First, one of the reasons why I've had such difficulties
is even the Minnesota State Judicial Board of Standards
found that he committed misconduct in the case.
And even after they found he committed misconduct in the case,
he still refused to recuse himself.
[Judge Levy] You have no doubt in your mind there was
a finding against him for substantial misconduct?
-Yes. -[Judge Levy] Thank you.
-I have nothing else. Judge Acker. -[Judge Acker] Thank you, Judge.
Really, Mr. Morthberg, this case is very simple.
You had a debt, the debt between you and your lawyer.
-The house is hers. -Yeah.
In the course of refinancing, the bank pulled the prop
and they're like, oh, somebody's got a lien out on this property.
We're not gonna refinance
and you're not gonna get your better interest rate.
-Correct. -So the what do you do?
[Dana] I, then, was talking to my banker, who made me aware of this.
Um, she proposed that we call the attorney
and request a settlement and see what he could settle for.
Because I was unable to refinance my loan until this is paid off.
Of course.
Now I understand your defense,
which is that you didn't really owe the lawyer that much money.
Yeah.
[Judge Acker] But it's your problem,
between you and that former lawyer.
And that's what's confusing for me as well, Your Honor,
is, one, I don't really understand why Ms. Thurston didn't just reach out to me
and say, hey, there's this lien, can you take care of it?
And the other thing I'm really confused about
is that my lawyer, who's supposed to represent me,
is now negotiating with my ex-wife over these matters.
And, I mean...
At this point, your lawyer is in a dispute with her.
And they settled their case, essentially.
But I am interested in why it is you didn't call him?
Because in the divorce decree, it also asks that Eugene file
what's called a summary of real estate judgement
to remove his name from the deed of the home,
which is different than the mortgage.
So they wanted him to file a piece of paper,
it was ordered in the divorce, to remove his name from the deed
and he refused to do that.
-Which he refuses... -Is that true, sir?
-...everything I've asked. -Um, her lawyer did contact me
-about doing that. -[Judge Acker] Did you do it?
No. The next thing, through her lawyer, um,
there is a letter in the mail,
saying they went to court and did it without me.
[Judge Acker] When did you make the domestic violence complaints?
I know that that was a part of the record in your divorce,
but when did those circumstances take place?
I filed the first order for protection September 22nd of 2018.
And then I needed to file a second in June of 2019.
That order was good for two years
and I asked for an extension.
They extended it through the day the divorce decree was issued.
And there is no order for protection in place at this time.
So is it safe to say that your reason for not reaching out to him
to challenge this debt,
was because he hadn't been cooperative
when you needed him to transact other post-judgement documents?
Absolutely correct, yes.
-[Judge Acker] You realize... -She could've sent me an email.
-Or use her lawyer to contact me. -You said she could've sent you an email,
but what she just testified to a few minutes ago and what you admitted,
is that when she tried to work out other things with you,
like simply taking your name off of the deed of a home
that the judge said you no longer owned,
you didn't do that.
-Because that's... -[Judge Acker] And she's got a pattern.
-She has a history of you... -If I may...
No, you need to understand that there have been judicial findings
about you treating her in really inappropriate ways.
The ju... The way that that all happened,
there was so much misconduct in the course of our divorce...
I'm an average citizen
and I got the Judicial Board of Standards to agree with me.
-Byrd, may I see that? -Sure.
-I got the Judicial Board... -If that is the case,
then your proper remedy is to go back to that court,
it's to file something to reopen the judgement,
but, frankly, I don't think you should do that.
Maybe it's time for you to move on and leave her alone.
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
Why would you call the police?
He sent a gift.
I think the words on the note were damaging.
[Judge DiMango] No. What did the note say
that was so troubling to you
that you needed to call the police?
[narrator] Dana Thurston is suing her ex-husband, Eugene Morthberg II,
for attorney fees.
Eugene is countersuing,
claiming Dana is wrongfully keeping his personal belongings.
You've submitted to us a letter
that purports to be on letterhead
from the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards.
This board found reasonable cause
to believe that the judge committed misconduct
and agree to enter into a deferred disposition.
The problem with that is that I don't really know
what that document refers to.
And that document is not a basis for us
to reopen the judgement of divorce.
She paid money to remove an encumbrance on a home
that she owns.
And it was your encumbrance.
Judge DiMango.
I'm not sure why the judge was brought into these proceedings.
I'm not sure what happened,
but for my purposes,
just please tell me what it was,
'cause there were three orders of protection
and you've asked that they be extended, at least 'til the end of the divorce,
which was 2021.
Was he ever physically violent with you?
-Yes, he was, Your Honor. -[Judge DiMango] And the children?
-Yes or no? -Not physical, no.
[Judge DiMango] Not physical. This judge that you sent the papers,
he was not one of the judges in these proceedings. Is that correct?
-Yes, he was in some... -In the orders of protection?
-One of them, yes. -[Judge DiMango] One of them?
Why would this judge have been involved in that way, sir?
What would he care whether or not...
It wasn't her father, right? The judge? It wasn't her cousin.
No, I mean, I have...
-[Judge DiMango] What? -I worry as much as anybody else.
And I... She has accused me of being a conspiracy theorist
because I look into conspiracies that are on the internet
as in, I read them.
[Judge DiMango] You like that stuff?
But I don't believe it. Not necessarily...
So you kinda sometimes might be so inquisitive
that you might see something. That's your point,
-he sees things that aren't there. -[Eugene] In the case of the officer,
we spoke about it. He confirmed it.
She's the one who initially told me about it.
-[Judge DiMango] Okay, so... -And I talked to the officer about it.
-There's no paranoia issue on that. -Okay.
No paranoia there. All right, I get it now.
But the court decree did not prevent you from having contact with your children.
-Yes. -And you're saying the arrest was made,
knowing that, because of the relationship.
So I could see you getting your back up.
So that's dismissed, you send a gift...
Why would you call the police? He sent a gift.
Because the children were not listed as protected persons,
uh, he was ordered to do supervised contact.
[Judge DiMango] No, no, supervised physical contact.
Not to go to the mailman, gonna go over with him?
I think that the words on the note were damaging.
Listen, I did matrimonial cases as a judge for three years.
Supervised visitation I get.
Because they don't want any harm,
they don't want the father to take the kids out of the state,
take them out of the jurisdiction.
But to say he needs a supervised mailing?
What did the note say that was so troubling to you
that you needed to call the police?
"I hope to see you soon."
And if he wanted to see her, he could schedule a visit.
So let me call the police 'cause your father wants to see you
and now you know it.
It had been two years since he'd seen her. And he could...
[Judge DiMango] It doesn't matter.
She knows he didn't see her in two years.
He sent her a note that says he wants to see her.
So she now knows he's a liar.
You had a gift. What was the gift?
-I don't remember, Your Honor. -[Judge DiMango] What did you send her?
There was, like, a light-up moon thing
-and then I think... -How old is your daughter?
Thirteen.
-She was 13 at the time this occurred? -Yes.
She's not a child. Come on.
Do you have the things that he's looking for?
He gave us a list of things that were in boxes.
I had them all boxed.
I waited for 12 months and I have dispersed the items since.
I brought the wedding rings to give him.
Could you open the box so we can see what you have?
Are both wedding bands in there?
Yes, and the engagement ring.
[Judge DiMango] Oh, that's nice.
She's giving you back the engagement ring. She doesn't have to.
So she has a corresponding list of your items
and she's marked off in yellow the things that she still has.
Do you realize, in the scheme of life,
that after a year's divorce
-you are concerned with a frying pan? -[Eugene] Like I said,
-it was an old list. -A frying pan?
If I'd made a new list, it probably wouldn't have been an issue.
-A Dutch oven? -That was actually my mother's.
I see that.
Two ginger bars?
Mats?
It was something I was given by a friend.
You're requesting this, but you don't have this, apparently.
"A handmade Father's Day gift
constructed by my son in his daycare.
It consists of a hammer glued to a piece of wood,
with the simple words,
'If Dad can't fix it, nobody can.'"
Do you have that?
I do not.
-[Judge DiMango] You threw it out? -It had broken.
[Judge DiMango] How did it break?
Um, the kids...
-tore the picture off. -You threw it out.
-You just threw it out. -All right.
-You're right. -When you say "you're right,"
it means "you caught me. You caught me in a lie."
You threw out stuff that you knew would mean something to him.
Yes, Your Honor.
You threw out your own kids' creations because you're bickering with one another.
But you know what the problem is?
You can't fix this.
We might have to fix it for you in a way you may not like.
I don't have any other questions.
I want to hear from the plaintiff.
'Cause she started to say something in response to Judge DiMango
about why you thought
the defendant sending that gift was harmful.
Why did you think it was harmful?
Because he hadn't seen our children
and I just wanted for him to schedule a visit.
They wanted to see him.
And I think it's damaging for him to send letters, "I hope to see you,"
when it's clear to me if he hopes to see them
he would schedule a visit.
[Judge Acker] Were you involved with the officer?
No, Your... No.
You called the police because of the note.
Yes, Your Honor.
That criminal charge that was filed against you was dismissed.
Thank you.
[Judge Levy] I wanna follow up something as well.
Because I wanna make this clear.
In the divorce decree, petitioner, that was you,
states that the last time you saw the parties' children
was on July 2nd, 2019.
The court notes that you, sir, had the opportunity
to have supervised visitation,
but that you had not availed yourself
due to your distrust
of the only supervised parenting center in your town.
-That's what the judgement said. -May I explain my supposed "paranoia"?
[Judge Levy] Hold on. No, no.
-Just hold on, sir. -Violating my right...
The court is deeply concerned
that you had not had any visitation with the children
for approximately three years.
And let me make it clear for everyone.
The judge spoke to your kids.
And your kids said they loved you.
So the judge says here,
"Petitioner has always," that's you, sir,
"had the option of supervised parenting time."
But you refused to exercise that parenting time
based upon your belief that the local supervised parenting center
was involved in a conspiracy with the county attorney against you.
-That's what the judge wrote. -May I explain it?
Hold on. The point is, that you said, just a moment ago, to Judge DiMango,
that the plaintiff interferes with your relationship with the kids.
But that is completely inconsistent with what the judge found,
who took sworn testimony on four separate days
and spoke to your children about it.
That's what I want to make clear. I have nothing further.
I do wanna hear what you have to say.
-I think I just want, and I want... -So, the supervised parenting center
was also the same non-profit organization
that helped her get the original OFP.
The county attorney in our county
sits on their board of directors.
My original lawyers, which are not in dispute here,
that I hired,
did not tell me that they also represented that organization.
Maybe about a year later,
after I had done some, basically, running of my mouth
and starting a petition on change.org and things like that,
trying to get them to change their ways,
that law firm sent me a letter on their behalf
threatening to sue me.
Plus, they were the ones who denied me access to their services.
Okay. So that's, thank goodness,
all of this is beyond our jurisdiction at this time. Thank you both.
[Byrd] Court is now in recess. Parties are excused.
[narrator] Coming up on Tribunal Justice...
I originally came from a small town, like you have.
And I know corruption way worse than you do.
Police, judges, bad.
And it's not something that I think could never happen
because I've personally witnessed it.
I thought it was pretty telling
once I received a copy of the divorce decree
why the defendant did not provide us a copy.
Especially when he put in the counterclaim,
he says that on page 16, paragraph 38, this is what the judge ordered.
The best evidence of that would've simply been
for him to supply us with a copy of the judgement of divorce.
And the reason he didn't,
was because he knew what that judgement of divorce contained.
He didn't want us to see it.
And but for the fact that we requested that,
and only got that judgement of divorce this morning from the plaintiff,
we would not have known any of this.
Any of it. And it was extremely important.
His entire case is, "Why didn't the plaintiff just ask me about the lien?"
"Why didn't she just call me? We could've resolved it."
Well, I'll tell you why.
Based upon the domestic violence and the abuse
that the court found he committed upon her,
the court ordered "that the parties' communication
shall solely relate to parenting time
and exchanging information about the children."
She was prohibited from communicating with him about the lien.
He knew that.
He just doesn't think that we read his divorce decree.
When he says to us that she interfered with my relationship with the kids,
again, completely disproved, by the findings of fact
he testified under oath for four days.
The court heard from both the kids and I wanna make it clear again,
the kids said very clearly they love their father.
They wanna see their father.
But the judge imposed restrictions for a good reason.
Because he has mental health issues.
It's all over that divorce decree.
He had to go for counseling and help and he never did it.
That's the reason why he hasn't seen the kids.
So when he sends a note, "I hope to see you soon,"
suggesting that it's someone else's fault that he hasn't seen them,
that, to me, is abusive.
And if you allow that behavior to continue, it will only get worse.
Putting all that aside,
I think the testimony and the evidence is clear,
he owes her the $4,000.
And he should thank her for knocking $2,000 off of that.
I agree with you.
It's clear he owes her the money.
You know, I'm really concerned about his coming to this court,
rehashing allegations that were debunked,
found not to be true in another forum.
I don't think that she necessarily jumped to any improper conclusion
by seeing that note, once I heard the context from her.
But I think that it was his debt.
If he doesn't really owe the lawyer the money,
he can file a claim against the lawyer and get the money back.
But it was never her debt
and it was encumbering her property.
So, full stop, he owes it to her.
He owes her the $4,000.
If he has any lawsuit at all, it's against his attorneys
if they have double-dipped by taking 4,000 from her and not him.
With regard to the itemized list,
-she agrees that she has certain items. -Yes.
She's willing to return those items to him.
We will have him go with a neutral person of his choice,
preferably law enforcement, to pick up the items
that were still at the house, that she still has,
and was still willing to give him and return.
I think with regard to the note,
I think that to call the police
when a note could be viewed as innocuous...
If a mother wanted their children to be happy, she'd say,
"I see that Daddy wants to see you,
I think that he's had enough time, he can come and visit you.
Nobody is stopping him."
And she could've dealt with it that way,
-rather than call the police. -Absolutely not.
I think that, you know, to rehash this here
I'm finding is very troublesome.
Bottom line is, he gives her $4,000,
she gives him back the stuff that he has. I'm done.
Listen, what you want us to do now
is to say, you know what,
forget about what the matrimonial judge said,
based upon his view of all the evidence,
which was that there has to be a pick-up of the property with a police officer.
If we say, no, we don't agree with you, we're gonna allow a neutral party.
So we are changing...
No, I meant a neutral law enforcement official.
Not a cop that he thinks she slept with, or that.
-He needs a police... -He can pick any police officer.
-We don't need neutral. -Yeah,
I don't feel like we can get that much into the weeds.
-Any police officer. -We should just say, yeah,
-an investigative... -She is willing,
she's willing to comply, comply with the order.
Let's give him two weeks or 15 days
-to return the property. -To transfer the property, 15 days.
[Judge Acker] I think that's reasonable.
If he doesn't pick it up within 15 days...
-It's done. -It, it's done.
-Yeah. -Okay.
Court is back in session.
Parties are reminded you're still under oath.
-Thank you, Byrd. -Mm-hmm.
[Judge Levy] Before we get to the verdict, let me say this,
because this was brought up by the defendant here.
I originally came from a small town, like you have.
And I know corruption way worse than you do.
Police, judges, bad.
And it's not something that I think could never happen
because I've personally witnessed it.
But for you to come in and to say that there was a finding against the judge
that you filed a complaint against,
and it was your word, "substantial misconduct,"
and the evidence that you supplied to us to support that claim
contradicted you.
Because according to the letter that you received
from the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards,
you filed a complaint against the judge and they investigated it.
And they did find reasonable cause to believe
that the judge committed misconduct.
Not necessarily what you said he did,
but based upon their own investigation
-he committed some type of misconduct. -Yes.
Did they support your claim that it was substantial misconduct?
They did not.
Because what they said
is so long as the judge goes to an education program
to understand whatever it was that he did, he shouldn't do again,
that the judge would receive a private admonition.
And a private admonition may be issued
if a judge's misconduct appears to be
of an isolated and non-serious nature.
That's what they said.
That is just the opposite of "substantial misconduct."
I'm not suggesting, sir, that what you did not accuse him of
was substantial misconduct,
but that was not their finding.
Do you agree with that?
I agree that he got a slap on the wrist.
[Judge Levy] Okay. Now to the judgement. We agreed on a lot, but not everything.
But the verdict is unanimous.
With respect to your counterclaim,
it is being dismissed for the reasons that we went over here in court.
That doesn't mean that you're not gonna get the stuff back.
You are gonna get your stuff back.
Because the plaintiff here is going to comply
with the original judge's order
that said that you are permitted to go there with a police officer
and collect your things.
You don't have to go to the same small-town police department
that you claim acted inappropriately,
but I leave that up to you.
You have 15 days to go
and make arrangements to pick up those items.
If you don't pick them up, do whatever you want with them.
As far as your claim against the defendant for $4,000 for counsel fees,
that is being granted.
That was not your responsibility, those legal fees, those were his.
With respect to the rings,
I'm gonna ask Cassandra right now to please take those rings from you
and we're turning those over right now.
And for the benefit of your children,
I truly hope that you're able to work these things through.
They love you very much, sir. I see that.
-Thank you. -[Dana] Thank you, Your Honor.
[Byrd] This case is concluded.
Parties are excused. You may step out.
During the time we were married, she told me who it was.
She showed me his picture.
That never happened. I don't know why he says that.
Later on, at a party, I met him.
He's making that up as well.
He had a big smile on his face. He says, "I really like your wife."
He struggles with mental illness.
At this point, I'm overwhelmed.
For him to get some help
and be a good father to our children, that would be great.
I'd just like to have dinner with my kids. It'd be great.
He doesn't desire that. He would see them if he did.
I never stood a chance.
Thank you, Tribunal.
[narrator] Did someone destroy your property?
Let Tribunal Justice decide your case.
Find us on social media at Tribunal Justice.