We'll begin with a seemingly unrelated question, but one that is so telling:
So what exactly IS a boat captain?
In the U.S., the word is sometimes used a bit loosely. However it still indicates a certain degree of competency, as measured by a Standard------one passes a test of some kind. In the U.S., these tests are administered by the Coast Guard. My license is for vessels up to 100 tons, and it further qualifies me to carry passengers for hire, such as the ability to run a ferry (not that I'd want to!). I am proud of my Captain's license, though to be honest it wasn't like studying to learn brain-surgery. But it did take study and practical training, and is required to be renewed periodically. Yet I in fact NEVER refer to myself as a "boat captain"------- because I have too much respect for those who are truly fine captains, such as my first husband who spent 4 years in college to acquire real depths of knowledge about ships, and who continues to refine that knowledge.
So let's differentiate that from simply owning a boat. Owning a boat doesn't make one a "boat captain" (particularly if one needs help with simple manoeuvres , such as getting a 24-foot power boat into a fuel dock).
If you owned an airplane, would you call yourself an airline captain if you'd never taken a lesson?
There is a big problem on the lakes in Maine, because some people who are boat owners and don't know much more than how to turn the key in the ignition think they are "boat captains". Do they know the right-of-way rules? Do they know the fundamentals of sailing? Can they navigate in the fog without a GPS; using a protractor, chart, and dividers?
In the U.S., the word is sometimes used a bit loosely. However it still indicates a certain degree of competency, as measured by a Standard------one passes a test of some kind. In the U.S., these tests are administered by the Coast Guard. My license is for vessels up to 100 tons, and it further qualifies me to carry passengers for hire, such as the ability to run a ferry (not that I'd want to!). I am proud of my Captain's license, though to be honest it wasn't like studying to learn brain-surgery. But it did take study and practical training, and is required to be renewed periodically. Yet I in fact NEVER refer to myself as a "boat captain"------- because I have too much respect for those who are truly fine captains, such as my first husband who spent 4 years in college to acquire real depths of knowledge about ships, and who continues to refine that knowledge.
So let's differentiate that from simply owning a boat. Owning a boat doesn't make one a "boat captain" (particularly if one needs help with simple manoeuvres , such as getting a 24-foot power boat into a fuel dock).
If you owned an airplane, would you call yourself an airline captain if you'd never taken a lesson?
There is a big problem on the lakes in Maine, because some people who are boat owners and don't know much more than how to turn the key in the ignition think they are "boat captains". Do they know the right-of-way rules? Do they know the fundamentals of sailing? Can they navigate in the fog without a GPS; using a protractor, chart, and dividers?
I bring this up because Liz McCusker styles herself as a "former boat captain"-----at least she does so in her illegal Facebook page as "Jack Hill". This in and of itself would be simply pathetic, but it's indicative of a larger problem.
Much of the time this book has centered around the fact that the McCuskers, driven by Liz McCusker, were serial self-aggrandizers. Back when Steve and I were good friends, I once suggested to him that Liz thought of herself as----and I can remember the exact term I used------"a big-shot". Steve told me that I was totally wrong, and that Liz had just the opposite feelings about herself.
To this day I am not sure where Steve was coming from. It is another theory that Steve and only Steve----trapped as he is in a house with a person who describes herself as having a mental illness [I don't feel he is "trapped", but he has told me on several occasions that that is the way he feels]-----is the only one who knows how truly vulnerable Liz is.
A second theory has been proposed by their son. He has told me on several occasions that BOTH of the elder McCuskers think of themselves as "big shots". This actually fits in with things that others in our college dorm group have mentioned about Liz and Steve over the years------not knowing Liz myself, I'd always chalked this up to our dorm-mates intense dislike of Liz (most of these men have stated that they dislike her-----one of them even said so several times under oath!). The son said, "My mother could get a job but she won't because she thinks she's too good for it. She just sits like a bump on a log all day". [source: Text message No. 458 shown in Table 3 of the Appendix].
I cannot say that I ever really saw that "big shot" thing in Steve when we had conversations one-on-one over the years. But I later did see it during the bankruptcy proceeding. I feel that Steve is, in a lot of ways, very malleable by whomever he happens to be physically closest to at any given time (which of course is usually his wife; though I saw it happen with the mistress too. To this day poor Liz has less influence on Steve than Steve's mistress did). I definitely believe that in all things, he takes the path of least resistance when it comes keeping peace in his life.
And for the record, although Liz shows him parts of this web site, I can guarantee she won't show him this one! I think she'd be too nervous that he might get to thinking about whether what I've said is right on-the-money about his marriage, and realize that she may be manipulating him.
To this day I am not sure where Steve was coming from. It is another theory that Steve and only Steve----trapped as he is in a house with a person who describes herself as having a mental illness [I don't feel he is "trapped", but he has told me on several occasions that that is the way he feels]-----is the only one who knows how truly vulnerable Liz is.
A second theory has been proposed by their son. He has told me on several occasions that BOTH of the elder McCuskers think of themselves as "big shots". This actually fits in with things that others in our college dorm group have mentioned about Liz and Steve over the years------not knowing Liz myself, I'd always chalked this up to our dorm-mates intense dislike of Liz (most of these men have stated that they dislike her-----one of them even said so several times under oath!). The son said, "My mother could get a job but she won't because she thinks she's too good for it. She just sits like a bump on a log all day". [source: Text message No. 458 shown in Table 3 of the Appendix].
I cannot say that I ever really saw that "big shot" thing in Steve when we had conversations one-on-one over the years. But I later did see it during the bankruptcy proceeding. I feel that Steve is, in a lot of ways, very malleable by whomever he happens to be physically closest to at any given time (which of course is usually his wife; though I saw it happen with the mistress too. To this day poor Liz has less influence on Steve than Steve's mistress did). I definitely believe that in all things, he takes the path of least resistance when it comes keeping peace in his life.
And for the record, although Liz shows him parts of this web site, I can guarantee she won't show him this one! I think she'd be too nervous that he might get to thinking about whether what I've said is right on-the-money about his marriage, and realize that she may be manipulating him.
One of the first things that is scheduled after one files for bankruptcy is the Creditors' Meeting
Oddly enough, most creditors don't show up-----because there really isn't any need to do so unless the creditor objects to something in the bankruptcy filing. This is an "administrative" type of hearing; it's before the Bankruptcy Trustee, not before a judge. Well, there were quite a few things in Steve's bankruptcy filing that I could see were false; most specifically that his list of assets was incomplete, and his statements regarding how much he was currently making versus how much he was currently spending made absolutely no sense. [I discuss this in detail in Chapter 10 of my book, some of which has been excepted here]. The best minds at the law firm of Perkins Thompson, as well as I who hold a graduate degree in finance and have spent my life looking at financial statements, could not make sense of what Steve was claiming. It's been suggested to me by everyone from Steve's friends to my own attorneys that the reason Steve ultimately settled with me----and was willing to to admit to Fraud under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code----was because he knew his entire bankruptcy (and thus protection from his other creditors) would be thrown out because of the problems with his mandatory disclosures.
The Creditors' Meeting took place in November. To say that Steve "swaggered in" is an understatement. I had never before seen such an attitude on his part, and was shocked.
And let's be clear here.....his statements at the Creditors' Meeting indicated he planned on keeping his boat! Yes indeed-----he wanted his creditors, from American Express to Central Maine Power------to just blow off the QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS he and Liz had burned through.
The McCuskers hadn't paid their mortgage. The McCuskers hadn't paid their phone bill. The McCuskers hadn't paid their electric bill. But the McCuskers had a pleasure-boat, and intended to keep it.
At that point I realized that the self-aggrandizement had metamorphosed into a true sense of entitlement. I recall feeling like I'd been hit in the face. Basically he was saying, "I don't need to pay back ANY of the quarter-million dollars I borrowed (including from an old friend). I'm just going to blow off all you creditors, and go on with my lifestyle in the 6000 square foot house, and boating every weekend".
In the end it didn't quite work out that way for him.
The irony is that it COULD have! But as usual, he took his legal advice from the ever-wise Liz.
The Creditors' Meeting took place in November. To say that Steve "swaggered in" is an understatement. I had never before seen such an attitude on his part, and was shocked.
And let's be clear here.....his statements at the Creditors' Meeting indicated he planned on keeping his boat! Yes indeed-----he wanted his creditors, from American Express to Central Maine Power------to just blow off the QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS he and Liz had burned through.
The McCuskers hadn't paid their mortgage. The McCuskers hadn't paid their phone bill. The McCuskers hadn't paid their electric bill. But the McCuskers had a pleasure-boat, and intended to keep it.
At that point I realized that the self-aggrandizement had metamorphosed into a true sense of entitlement. I recall feeling like I'd been hit in the face. Basically he was saying, "I don't need to pay back ANY of the quarter-million dollars I borrowed (including from an old friend). I'm just going to blow off all you creditors, and go on with my lifestyle in the 6000 square foot house, and boating every weekend".
In the end it didn't quite work out that way for him.
The irony is that it COULD have! But as usual, he took his legal advice from the ever-wise Liz.
It's important to understand that Steve wasn't on his own----he was represented by his counsel, an attorney named David Brandt, and I filed my own papers with the Court pro se. [I did later hire counsel because I felt not sufficiently competent in some of the nuances of federal bankruptcy law. See Chapter 9].
Although at that point I was no longer subject to Steve's specious and ill-conceived Protection from Harassment order, I was nonetheless extremely cautious because I had suffered the consequences of his willingness to use whatever means necessary to avoid dealing with financial issues.
To this day, I believe that ----at that time----he disliked dealing with me because I was always trying to get him to face the truths of what he had done. That may still be true today.
According to his web site, David Brandt has a law practice with some specialization in bankruptcy. I am sure he is competent in doing so, as I think most of his clients are simple bankruptcies with no assets. With all due respect to Mr. Brandt, these kinds of bankruptcy issues can pretty much be cranked out-----in fact as I recall he agreed to handle Steve's for something considerably less than $2000 (and I think it was more like $1200).
So I think Mr. Brandt was surprised to even see anyone (me) at the Creditors' Meeting. His attitude was clearly that of someone who was irritated.......possibly towards me for having the audacity to show up at a meeting that it was my right to attend; but possibly at his client for not disclosing that I might object.
Again regarding Brandt and my impression that he does not handle a lot of complex bankruptcies; when I encountered him at a later hearing on my Motion to conduct what is called a "2004 Exam", he told the judge that in all his years of practicing bankruptcy law he had only been involved in one other 2004 Exam. Further, his objection to my Motion was "because it isn't necessary", which was an incredibly weak argument. Even I (who practices very little federal law) know that creditors are absolutely entitled to conduct these exams. Maybe Brandt's heart just wasn't in it. [A recording of the hearing on my Motion is available on PACER].
I am accustomed to dealing in a collegial fashion with people, even with adversaries. But every time I encountered David Brandt, I got the impression of a scared rabbit. I recall one time being in the elevator with him, and in spite of my "Good morning, David" he could not make eye contact. Another time after a hearing I asked him if we could speak for a moment-----I wanted to open a door to negotiation of a settlement-----and instead he muttered something and ducked into a nearby conference room. The man sure can move fast when motivated!
And I'm not some scary lawyer-----I'm a middle-aged, overweight, suburban matron. One wonders how I wield so much power (not only with Brandt, but particularly with the McCuskers). Maybe it has something to do with pointing out the truth.
To this day, I believe that ----at that time----he disliked dealing with me because I was always trying to get him to face the truths of what he had done. That may still be true today.
According to his web site, David Brandt has a law practice with some specialization in bankruptcy. I am sure he is competent in doing so, as I think most of his clients are simple bankruptcies with no assets. With all due respect to Mr. Brandt, these kinds of bankruptcy issues can pretty much be cranked out-----in fact as I recall he agreed to handle Steve's for something considerably less than $2000 (and I think it was more like $1200).
So I think Mr. Brandt was surprised to even see anyone (me) at the Creditors' Meeting. His attitude was clearly that of someone who was irritated.......possibly towards me for having the audacity to show up at a meeting that it was my right to attend; but possibly at his client for not disclosing that I might object.
Again regarding Brandt and my impression that he does not handle a lot of complex bankruptcies; when I encountered him at a later hearing on my Motion to conduct what is called a "2004 Exam", he told the judge that in all his years of practicing bankruptcy law he had only been involved in one other 2004 Exam. Further, his objection to my Motion was "because it isn't necessary", which was an incredibly weak argument. Even I (who practices very little federal law) know that creditors are absolutely entitled to conduct these exams. Maybe Brandt's heart just wasn't in it. [A recording of the hearing on my Motion is available on PACER].
I am accustomed to dealing in a collegial fashion with people, even with adversaries. But every time I encountered David Brandt, I got the impression of a scared rabbit. I recall one time being in the elevator with him, and in spite of my "Good morning, David" he could not make eye contact. Another time after a hearing I asked him if we could speak for a moment-----I wanted to open a door to negotiation of a settlement-----and instead he muttered something and ducked into a nearby conference room. The man sure can move fast when motivated!
And I'm not some scary lawyer-----I'm a middle-aged, overweight, suburban matron. One wonders how I wield so much power (not only with Brandt, but particularly with the McCuskers). Maybe it has something to do with pointing out the truth.
So....boat captains. Maybe lying about something you are not, as Liz McCusker did about being a boat captain, led her to believe she was a whole lot of other things. And that of course leads to that feeling one is better than everyone else and entitled to things one hasn't earned.
Most of us, even those of us who grew up fortunate, understand that we must make our way in the world and that nothing is a given, Or at least most of us do. We work. If we don't need to work, we work for the greater good of the world. Because to those that much has been given, much is expected---------as sources from the Bible itself to JFK have said. (Liz McCusker styles herself as a religious person, but doesn't seem to know the Gospel of Luke 12:48....interesting that I do and live by it, in spite of the fact that I am not a Christian. She seems to talk the talk, but not walk the walk).
And some people just feel entitled to try to screw the system, and let the rest of us pay for the lifestyle to which they feel entitled.
A quarter million dollars (that's ON TOP OF Steve's good salary) is what the McCuskers pulled out of their credit lines, their house, and worst of all------old friends. A quarter million dollars to subsidize their big house, the pool, their boat, the limousines, the trips to Florida, the skiing, and lest Liz has forgotten....... the jewelry for Steve's mistress.
Every person in society gets to pay for this. If you've ever bought a home. rented a home, or applied for a credit card, you are paying for the McCuskers too.
And some people just feel entitled to try to screw the system, and let the rest of us pay for the lifestyle to which they feel entitled.
A quarter million dollars (that's ON TOP OF Steve's good salary) is what the McCuskers pulled out of their credit lines, their house, and worst of all------old friends. A quarter million dollars to subsidize their big house, the pool, their boat, the limousines, the trips to Florida, the skiing, and lest Liz has forgotten....... the jewelry for Steve's mistress.
Every person in society gets to pay for this. If you've ever bought a home. rented a home, or applied for a credit card, you are paying for the McCuskers too.