- 13 -
regard to the funds embezzled by Christine from the City of
Molalla unless respondent satisfies his burden of establishing by
a preponderance of the evidence that Michael had actual knowledge
of Christine’s embezzlement income.
Michael contends (in his testimony and on brief) as follows:
(1) That Christine’s embezzlement activity was so clever that it
was hidden for 5 years not only from Molalla city officials but
also from himself, (2) that the family expenditures (expenditures
mostly financed) were well within the resources of petitioners
based alone on their combined wage income and would not, and did
not, alert him to the embezzlement income, (3) that in fact he
had no clue of the embezzlement income, (4) that he did not abuse
Christine or in any way force her into the embezzlement activity
or knowingly benefit therefrom, (5) that through the embezzled
funds Christine secretly sought to “buy” her family’s love,
(6) that he has been forced into bankruptcy to pay for
Christine’s legal fees, etc., and (7) that he and the children,
rather than benefiting, have suffered greatly, financially, and
mentally, as a result of Christine’s embezzlement.
Michael’s claims of innocence and of lack of knowledge
regarding Christine’s embezzlement activities and the income
relating thereto are corroborated by Christine’s testimony that
she carried out the embezzlement activity without Michael’s
participation or knowledge. We find Christine’s testimony
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011