2010.11.18 EB & Bigamy

[Clue Hopper]

Originally Posted by Mountain_Kat

One of the daughters actually said "affair"? Do you have a link , because I completely missed that info. TIA

I stand corrected it said "relationship".


In a Catawba County courtroom Wednesday, Amber Fairchild, 25, described her mother, Elisa Baker, as a potentially violent and unstable woman who has severed ties with her N.C. family and begun an online relationship with a man in London.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...#ixzz15eL0NRd5

[Patty G]

IMO, until further charges are filed with regards to Zahra, the thought of Elisa being charged with "bigamy" is a good way of keeping her in jail, along with the other charges related or unrelated to Zahra.

Same goes with Adam as his charges are "unrelated" to Zahra, and IF Adam violated the terms under the laws of immigration, he could be arrested and sit in jail until LE pulls everything together regarding what happen to Zahra and who did what to Zahra. JMO

[78gidget78]

In addition to the possible bigamy threatening AB's immigration status, I also posted a link in the AB immigration status thread last night to an article saying something about his visa possibly not being valid anymore.

it's post #40 here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=119352&page=2

[wenwe4]

I believe the marriages play a significant role in this case.
1) If she was legally married to AY @ the time she married AB - the marriage to AB would not be recognized legally. (We have now seen evidence of the divorce filed some 13 months after she married AB in Aussie).
2) AB would not be able to stay in the US on his Visa over a specific period of time (to my knowledge) - how was he staying here on a work visa? Through being "married" to EB?
3) Their income level (that has been reported) would have probably qualified them for SSI payments for Zahra and a medical coupon due to her disabilities- however there are many legal factors that would come into play due to their non-citizen status.
4) To my knowlege - they did not have medical insurance on Zahra - even through the State may have been able to provide coverage for her regardless of her citizen status - had the state been made aware.
5) Zahra would have had to show immunization records to enroll in school (at least I think). Here's where I think the school tried to help Zahra obtain the hearing aids. I know that most insurances will not cover hearing aids - however for a child I think that would be a significant factor for growth and development - IMO a hearing aid for a child could be seen as medically necessary as the prosthesis.
6) Since AB had been working in the US - did he obtain a SS card? Would he then qualify for SSI payments for his daughter?
7) All of the above would be directly related to verifying the marriage was legal.

[Pondering Mind]

I have to ask..If Adam didn't know that EB was still married (hence the brother thing with AY) then could he even be charged with bigamy..or would that not give him grounds for an annulment?

I have no idea..

[SherlockHomey]

Bigamy in NC = Felony? If so, this would be a great trump card for the DA to play just in case.

2005 North Carolina Code - General Statutes � 14-183. Bigamy.

� 14‑183.� Bigamy.

If any person, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, every such offender, and every person counseling, aiding or abetting such offender, shall be punished as a Class I felon.

� Any such offense may be dealt with, tried, determined and punished in the county where the offender shall be apprehended, or be in custody, as if the offense had been actually committed in that county.� If any person, being married, shall contract a marriage with any other person outside of this State, which marriage would be punishable as bigamous if contracted within this State, and shall thereafter cohabit with such person in this State, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished as in cases of bigamy.� Nothing contained in this section shall extend to any person marrying a second time, whose husband or wife shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years then last past, and shall not have been known by such person to have been living within that time; nor to any person who at the time of such second marriage shall have been lawfully divorced from the bond of the first marriage; nor to any person whose former marriage shall have been declared void by the sentence of any court of competent jurisdiction.

"Bigamy is a Class 1 felony punishable by up to 10 months in prison, according to North Carolina state law."

[NancyA]

Originally Posted by 78gidget78

In addition to the possible bigamy threatening AB's immigration status, I also posted a link in the AB immigration status thread last night to an article saying something about his visa possibly not being valid anymore.

it's post #40 here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...=119352&page=2

BBM. Thanks gidget. Just want to let everyone know that there has been some in depth discussion about AB's immigration status in the thread linked in gidget's post, there's also some info there about immigration law in general.

Just want to clarify one thing here, AB (and by extension Zahra) may have been issued with a SS# during the application for Green Card process (IF they applied) however they would NOT have been eligible for SS benefits for up to 5 years because EB (or she might have been able to persuade someone else to do it) would have been required to sign an Affidavit of Support as their sponsor ensuring they would not become burdens on the State. In special circumstances (cases of extreme hardship) SS payments maybe be made but all such payments would have to be repaid by the sponsor sooner or later.

Oh and AB's immigration status, if he were issued a GC based on his marriage to EB, it would definitely be invalidated if the marriage turned out to be illegal.

[agathawannabe]

Originally Posted by SherlockHomey

Bigamy in NC = Felony? If so, this would be a great trump card for the DA to play just in case.

2005 North Carolina Code - General Statutes � 14-183. Bigamy.

� 14‑183.� Bigamy.

If any person, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, every such offender, and every person counseling, aiding or abetting such offender, shall be punished as a Class I felon.

� Any such offense may be dealt with, tried, determined and punished in the county where the offender shall be apprehended, or be in custody, as if the offense had been actually committed in that county.� If any person, being married, shall contract a marriage with any other person outside of this State, which marriage would be punishable as bigamous if contracted within this State, and shall thereafter cohabit with such person in this State, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished as in cases of bigamy.� Nothing contained in this section shall extend to any person marrying a second time, whose husband or wife shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years then last past, and shall not have been known by such person to have been living within that time; nor to any person who at the time of such second marriage shall have been lawfully divorced from the bond of the first marriage; nor to any person whose former marriage shall have been declared void by the sentence of any court of competent jurisdiction.

"Bigamy is a Class 1 felony punishable by up to 10 months in prison, according to North Carolina state law."

Wow.. I wonder if pretending to be someone's brother (rather than husband) -- knowingly deceiving another (current) known husband -- constitutes aiding and/or abetting a bigamy offender.

[ynotdivein]

Originally Posted by agathawannabe

Wow.. I wonder if pretending to be someone's brother (rather than husband) -- knowingly deceiving another (current) known husband -- constitutes aiding and/or abetting a bigamy offender.

If it doesn't, I really can't imagine what would... Doubtless, LE has screen shots of all AY's online comments about pretending to be EB's brother, and the IP addresses to go with them.

[WhyaDuck?]

Please remember there is a thread for AB's immigration stuff, and we don't want too much of that discussion split. If there is no need for a separate thread on the bigamy issue, we can combine them there. If there is a need for this thread, stick to that. While the immigration issue is clearly related to the bigamy question, don't let it take over the thread.

Also, the personal lives of people not suspected in this case, including (especially) EB's kids is NOT a relevant issue. Keep innocent bystanders out of it, please.

[luvmylabs]

Originally Posted by believe09

You know, I have to say it. What bearing does this have on Zahra's case at all? Not to be too blunt, but who cares? Did Zahra find the marriage certificates and challenge her stepmother with them?

I am confused at the media's need to head in this direction. I think there is substantial evidence that EB is not a truthful person.

Moving On... JMVHO.

There could be major federal charges filed against EB and AB for fraudelent immigration documents. If AB is here because he is"married" to EB there could be major federal immigation violations.
This would be another way to hold and charge them with stuff while continuing the investigation of Zahra's death. Just another way to hold them in jail while gathering more evidence.

[Mountain_Kat]

Originally Posted by WhyaDuck?

Please remember there is a thread for AB's immigration stuff, and we don't want too much of that discussion split. If there is no need for a separate thread on the bigamy issue, we can combine them there. If there is a need for this thread, stick to that. While the immigration issue is clearly related to the bigamy question, don't let it take over the thread.

Also, the personal lives of people not suspected in this case, including (especially) EB's kids is NOT a relevant issue. Keep innocent bystanders out of it, please.

I think the only discussion here pertaining to EB's children, is what they said during EB's bond hearing. I assumed, since that was from MSM sources, discussions about that were okay. Am I mistaken?

[luvmylabs]

Originally Posted by Pondering Mind

I have to ask..If Adam didn't know that EB was still married (hence the brother thing with AY) then could he even be charged with bigamy..or would that not give him grounds for an annulment?

I have no idea..

He can't be charged because he is not the one married to more than one person.

[ynotdivein]

Wow, the immigration implications hadn't fully dawned on me (and that is all I'mma say 'bout that on this thread, because I have a healthy respect for our Duck!)

I was particularly intrigued that AY has finally outed himself, to the media no less. The article doesn't indicate that he went through a spokesperson, which is interesting. Wonder if he is under the advice of a lawyer yet?

[SherlockHomey]

Does anyone know if EB and AB being married in Australia (by their statutes) would be null and void in the US if she was a citizen when she married him there?

[WhyaDuck?]

Originally Posted by Mountain_Kat

I think the only discussion here pertaining to EB's children, is what they said during EB's bond hearing. I assumed, since that was from MSM sources, discussions about that were okay. Am I mistaken?

I got alerts that there was some undue interest about some aspects of EB's kids' private lives, so that note reflected that. Any posts left standing are fine. Discussing quotes from bystanders' interviews in MSM are fine - discussions of their private lives are not. I just wanted to make sure that was clear; any discussion left on the boards is usually okay.

HTH.

[april_showers]

Originally Posted by Mountain_Kat

Just to have this info here:

EB married to JA 1998
EB married to AY 1999(?)

If NC law states that you have to file for legal separation, and be legally separated for 1 year prior to obtaining a legal divorce, then EB would have still been married to JA in 1999.

I don't know how long EB and JA were married, but I'm assuming they didn't marry one day and file for legal separation the next, so you do the math.

This thread is important to me, not because allegations of bigamy (I think it has this darker connotation of having multiple "active" spouses at once, but in this case it really just means EB didn't have the motivation or wherewithall to follow through with her unions and breakups legally), but because it presents a larger picture of EB's patterns, IMO.

Whether they were legal or not... this pattern of marriage -> break-up -> marriage -> break-up that were happening so quickly she didn't even have time to end the former before the latter began, speaks VOLUMES about EB's character, IMO.

People don't suddenly change behaviors like these. If EB were continuing this pattern, it would seem like AB's time with her was just about up, wouldn't it?

[grayjay]

More proof that anything that comes out of this woman's mouth, even when related to so-called "matters of the heart", can't be trusted, and also gives extra hope she won't be out of jail any time soon.

[SherlockHomey]

A marriage in violation of this statute is absolutely void, regardless if a court ever declares it so.

This NC Statute 51-3

§ 51‑3. Want of capacity; void and voidable marriages.
All marriages between any two persons nearer of kin than first cousins, or between double first cousins, or between a male person under 16 years of age and any female, or between a female person under 16 years of age and any male, or between persons either of whom has a husband or wife living at the time of such marriage, or between persons either of whom is at the time physically impotent, or between persons either of whom is at the time incapable of contracting from want of will or understanding, shall be void. No marriage followed by cohabitation and the birth of issue shall be declared void after the death of either of the parties for any of the causes stated in this section except for bigamy. No marriage by persons either of whom may be under 16 years of age, and otherwise competent to marry, shall be declared void when the girl shall be pregnant, or when a child shall have been born to the parties unless such child at the time of the action to annul shall be dead. A marriage contracted under a representation and belief that the female partner to the marriage is pregnant, followed by the separation of the parties within 45 days of the marriage which separation has been continuous for a period of one year, shall be voidable unless a child shall have been born to the parties within 10 lunar months of the date of separation. (R.C., c. 68, ss. 7, 8, 9; 1871‑2, c. 193, s. 2; Code, s. 1810; 1887, c. 245; Rev., s. 2083; 1911, c. 215, s. 2; 1913, c. 123; 1917, c. 135; C.S., s. 2495; 1947, c. 383, s. 3; 1949, c. 1022; 1953, c. 1105; 1961, c. 367; 1977, c. 107, s. 1.)

[Lera213]

Originally Posted by april_showers

This thread is important to me, not because allegations of bigamy (I think it has this darker connotation of having multiple "active" spouses at once, but in this case it really just means EB didn't have the motivation or wherewithall to follow through with her unions and breakups legally), but because it presents a larger picture of EB's patterns, IMO.

Whether they were legal or not... this pattern of marriage -> break-up -> marriage -> break-up that were happening so quickly she didn't even have time to end the former before the latter began, speaks VOLUMES about EB's character, IMO.

People don't suddenly change behaviors like these. If EB were continuing this pattern, it would seem like AB's time with her was just about up, wouldn't it?

Good point and I have to add that my mind is trying to think of if EB had a motive to marry these men, and not divorce...paycheck's; blackmail (you have to do this or I'll turn you in because we are still legally married) I just don't know but it isn't out of the realm that she had a motive and not just because she couldn't be bothered with the filling.

[april_showers]

Originally Posted by Lera213

Good point and I have to add that my mind is trying to think of if EB had a motive to marry these men, and not divorce...paycheck's; blackmail (you have to do this or I'll turn you in because we are still legally married) I just don't know but it isn't out of the realm that she had a motive and not just because she couldn't be bothered with the filling.

Good point - I hadn't even considered that!

[free2ride]

One reason I am interested in EB's possible bigamy is the laws regarding spusal testimony.

"The spousal testimonial privilege (or spousal immunity) can be used to prevent any party in a criminal case from calling the defendant's spouse to testify against the defendant about any topic. In federal court as a matter of common law, this privilege attaches to the witness spouse, not to the defendant; that is, the defendant's spouse can refuse to testify against the defendant, but the defendant may not prevent his or her spouse from testifying against the defendant."

Now I'm not an attorney and may be totally off with this thought but here goes....

If LE tracks down evidence that EB & AB can not possibly be married legally due to the fact that EB had not obtained a legal divorce from AY then they would not longer be considered spouses...

and their testimony in court against each other could not be prevented by either person's attorneys.

At some point I believe these two will turn on each other in the war of survival and I don't want anything out there to stop them from doing a "tell all".

[tehcloser]

I could be wrong, but I think spousal immunity is not valid when the case involves a child. It's not in the Haleigh case, however I guess the laws could be different here.

[SherlockHomey]

Originally Posted by tehcloser

I could be wrong, but I think spousal immunity is not valid when the case involves a child. It's not in the Haleigh case, however I guess the laws could be different here.

Do you per chance happen to have that NC Statute handy?

[tehcloser]

Originally Posted by SherlockHomey

Do you per chance happen to have that NC Statute handy?

Nope, that's why I said I guess the laws could be different here.......lol. See post below will that work?