I’ve attended the last two hearings in the Nikki Araguz case. I noticed that you weren’t there. I also couldn’t help but notice the editorial you wrote in the Houston Chronicle. Of course I’m miffed at your yellow journalist skills, but not to worry… You’re in good company!

A few days after your myopic opines, the Washington Times said, “At the time of Capt. Araguz’s death, however, the couple had been separated for months, and Nikki Araguz was interested in obtaining a divorce.”

They echo they very story you spun only days before:

Lisa, you’ve apparently made the big time. You’ve managed to influence a paper owned by cult leader Sun Myung Moon (of the Moonies). Next thing you know you’ll be hosting Fox and Friends!

I find the journalistic company you keep interesting. What I find more interesting is the following:

What’s this you might ask? It’s a legal contract signed by both Nikki and Thomas Araguz in which Thomas identifies himself as Nikki’s husband (note Thomas’ initials at the bottom of the page). In fact, it’s a lease contract… that began just one month prior to his death.

I find that this seems problematic to the story you’re hocking. If Nikki and Thomas were on the outs, why would they be getting a new apartment together? Also, I suppose the sister-in-law failed to mention to you that both Thomas and Nikki were over at her place together just days before his death?

After the above misguided attack, you then make the case for Nikki-the-bad-guy:

“Nikki has expressed her love and concern for the children, even speaking directly to them in TV interviews. And she claimed to me Wednesday that she’s battling Thomas’ family for his death benefits partly for the children’s sake, saying she promised Thomas she’d help take care of “our children” if anything happened to him.

But the fact is that if Nikki prevails in her legal battle, she gets the money in dispute. If Thomas’ family prevails, the children get the money.”

Next time I encourage you to employ your critical thinking skills Lisa. When Heather Delgado started out with this suit, she was getting 300K. If she wins, she will still receive only about 300K after legal fees. For that, she’s outed her children in small-town Wharton. When the kids you claim such concern for go back to school, instead of being the kids of a fallen hero, they’ll be known as the kids of the guy who married a pre-op transsexual. Worse, everyone will know that the pre-op transsexual in question was, in fact, their step-mom – the very step-mom they lived with 4 days out of the week for most of the last 4 years. Heather’s doomed her kids to a life of schoolyard hell… and for what?!?

While you were urging people to Think About the Children™ why didn’t these two significant facts cross your mind? I’m guessing that it didn’t because you went into this story having made up your mind that the ethically challenged attorney Frank Mann was telling you the truth and that the tranny was obviously a faker.

You then build upon your rather dubious reporting with:

“It’s getting harder and harder to believe, though, that Nikki’s motives are really about the children’s well-being, or the marriage rights for transgender Texans, no matter how much transgender activists need her case to help their worthy cause. It seems increasingly probable she’s just out for the money.”

Are you suggesting that after caring for two children for almost FOUR YEARS that Nikki doesn’t care about the children? Are you really suggesting that Nikki – a person who was with the children more than their biological mother was and who paid the child support out of her own pocket – isn’t motivated to ensure the well-being of the children? Do you check your critical thinking skills at the door when you go to work?

No, Lisa. You’re just wrong.

If Nikki was in it for the money, why has she been working with Frank Mann – someone who’s under investigation for violating her rites and defaming her character – to ensure that the children receive their benefits ASAP? If Nikki was in it for the money, why has she said repeatedly that this is about civil rights? How is it that you can’t wrap your head around the obvious fact that the outcome of this case will decide her civil rights as well as her legal standing?

On a personal note as a transwoman, I’ve gotta say that when you flippantly wrote “… no matter how much transgender activists need her case to help their worthy cause” you pissed me off. I didn’t “need” nor did I want this case. The fact is this case WILL impact MY civil rights and define MY legal standing. Your dismissive tone seems to say to me that I shouldn’t be really concerned for what happens to my rights. Walk a mile in my sensible shoes before being so flippant about my rights as an American citizen!

After dismissing my rights, you then move forward with more mythical musings:

“Nikki brought on some of the credibility problems herself. She’s admitted to lying in a sworn deposition earlier this year in a custody case. She’s got a lengthy criminal record including theft and drug charges.”

Yes, she admitted that BOTH she and Capt Araguz foolishly lied in an attempt to ensure that Heather Delgado would not succeed in her bid to remove the children from Nikki and Thomas. How is it that you did not notice that this fact does not square with the Nikki-the-devil picture you’re pushing? If she doesn’t care about the kids, why would she be willing to risk so much to keep them around? While you were reporting on the many alleged crimes you alluded Nikki was found guilty of, why is it that you failed to mention that Nikki was never convicted said crimes?  I also wonder why you failed to note that practically every allegation that came out of Frank Mann’s mouth has been proven false?  In case you’re oblivious, here’s just a few of the Frank Mann gems that turned out to be false:

• PROVEN FALSE: Nikki Araguz lied to Thomas Araguz; Thomas Araguz didn’t know about Nikki’s history. After witnesses, emails and texts turned up making it clear that Thomas knew, the Mann’s now claiming that the case is about Texas law.
• PROVEN FALSE: “The law is clear” He consistently repeated the absolutist idea that Texas does not recognize sex changes when it comes to marriage. Unfortunately for Mann, he wound up with egg on his face since he apparently didn’t know that Texas law now recognizes “sex change” and that recognition is in the middle of Texas marriage law. Oops!
• PROVEN FALSE: Nikki Araguz is a felon. Nope… proven simply untrue.
• PROVEN FALSE: Nikki and Thomas were getting a divorce. See above.

Lisa… common now. Put that thinking cap on and let’s look at the track record shall we? How many lies did Nikki tell about her situation? What’s that? None? Well, isn’t that just inconvenient for the story you’re telling?

“And although earlier this week she presented an e-mail exchange with her late husband as proof that he was aware of her sex-change operation, Thomas’ mother told me he believed his wife was having a hysterectomy. Nikki said she never claimed this.”

Why not mention that Carolyn Bosma went on the record attesting that she, Thomas and Nikki discussed Nikki’s upcoming genital reconstructive surgery at the Transgender Clinic? Didn’t you think that was important?

Now you drop the bomb:

On Wednesday, Longoria’s pro-bono attorney, Chad Ellis, produced an affidavit that seems to support her contention. The document is signed by Cynthia Garcia, a Wharton County deputy district clerk, who says that on June 24 Nikki “came into our offices to make a payment for her court costs related to her criminal matter.” Garcia maintains that Nikki “asked me how much it cost to file for divorce. She informed me that (she) wanted to get a divorce from Thomas Araguz, III. She said she was ‘done with him.’ ”

Asked about all this, Nikki told me that no divorce papers were ever filed, and “Thomas and I were not talking about divorce at the time of his death.” Asked whether she told Garcia she wanted a divorce, she said “I don’t recall ever saying that.

Gee, after everything you’ve said about Nikki, this seems to take the cake! You’ve already painted Nikki as being a liar who had dumped Thomas.  Nikki, in an apparent snit, said that she was “done” with Thomas and wanted to know how much a divorce cost. Zing! Pow! Right in the kisser!

I bet you could hear the masses raising their collective voices to the heavens to exclaim, “Oh, no she di’int!”

At this point I feel as if we need to talk a bit about the birds and the bees, Lisa. You see, the heterosexual population suffers a really high divorce rate. While it seems obvious to everyone I’ve talked with, let me let you in on a secrete: Most married couples consider divorce from time to time.  Most people who are married will inevitably talk to a friend or (god forbid) vent and even say words in anger (gasp!). When this piece of nothing you produced is viewed in context of the fact that they were renting an apartment together, emailing each other love notes and hanging out with each other… you know what I hear when I read your big revelation? I hear:

Yes, that’s right. I hear a lot of hot air.

You then hit home just how despicable you’ve decided Nikki is with the following:

Just as troubling, though, is Longoria’s description of Nikki’s behavior after Thomas’ death. Far from behaving like the grieving widow, Longoria said Nikki showed up at her house, and that of Thomas’ grandmother, the day after the funeral, demanding Thomas’ gun and truck. Longoria said Thomas’ father handed over the 9 mm Glock, but the family wasn’t in possession of the white Dodge pickup.

Nikki acknowledged to me having sought the items, saying that as Thomas’ wife, she was entitled to his property.

That may be. But demanding those things from a mother who’d buried her only son the day before shows us where Nikki’s priorities were that day.

This is well-deserving of a full-on facepalm.

Nikki was paying for the truck. Her in-laws stole the truck out of her driveway. Yes, god forbid that she dare attempt to get her truck back. Let me turn that last statement around: “Stealing a truck from a widow who’d buried her husband the day before shows us where the in-law’s priorities were that day.”

Why didn’t you know this? It came out in the first hearing.

Lisa: You are a yellow journalist and for that, you suck. May you be forever remembered for the hatchet job you chose to pull on a transgender widow.

View Lisa Falkenberg’s opines here:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/7139728.html

PS:

With BS reporting like this, is it any wonder that your readers post such inane and vacuous replies?

UPDATE: On 3/25/11, the Judge ordered that the in-laws RETURN Nikki’s truck to her. Why you might ask? BECAUSE IT WAS HERS and the in-laws unlawfully took if from Nikki right after her husband died.