- 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 testimonyPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011