Alright, people. I said earlier that we should go, let's talk about that well-documented '96/'97 DV incident that Tara Reade has used as her go-to story in order to get people to give her a break. (I haven't read her stupid book yet, so I don't know what's in it.)

MEGA THREAD

This is a large post that will be divided into 3 parts, since there are 3 "sets" of legal documents from the Krassenstein's post: For our purposes, there are:

-- RO = 4 direct links
-- DIVORCE = 8 direct links
-- VISITATION = 15 direct links

https://tinyurl.com/krassenstein-post

ii/

Today, I'll only be examining the first set, the Restraining Order documents, but within those 4 links there's a lot of commentary. The focus will be on what each have written in the context of the time and of what we've been told by Reade (mainly) in her 2009 essay ...

iii/

... "Defying the Rule of Thumb: A Domestic Violence Survivor’s Story".

I don't want to hear excuses for the discrepancies. "Defying" was clearly written w/out thought to the idea that some day her original, truer statements would be made public.

iv/

https://tinyurl.com/defyingtheruleofthumb

Now before I get into walking through this first set of docs, here is some genealogy background as to who Tara Reade Moulton is (sparing the multiple tweets):

v/

https://tinyurl.com/MoultonTree 

I mention this family history because as it is known, the long, pervasive pattern of maladaptive behavior that indicates consistent dysfunction in an individual’s life roots itself in childhood. The fuel that feeds a disordered person’s fires of insecurity comes from...

vi/

...their early childhood environment, and someone who was insecure of and under their primary caretakers could surely be at risk for maturing into someone who is emotionally immature and is only capable of forming insecure and toxic attachments.

vii/

I could tweet for weeks about the neurologic response to stressors in early childhood (the "amyg-you-la"), but I'd rather just lay these out for discovery; while they've been up for many months, it doesn't seem like many bothered to read them.

viii/

Tara’s Order to Show Cause & TRO, filed February 29, 1996, 3 days after her 32nd birthday. Ted was 3 years younger/28 years old (to turn 29 in December).

4 days before her birthday there was a fight (2/21) & this is what Reade swore to the court:

1/ https://tinyurl.com/RO-22996-TRO 

Eight days passed from the fight to the date of filing; yet in her 2009 domestic violence survivor’s story on @thewip, she dramatically recounted the incident and that “the next day” her co-worker set her up w/the victim witness program & an RO.

https://tinyurl.com/defyingtheruleofthumb

1/a

When someone lies or exaggerates abt small details upon your first official encounter with them, keep your eyes open for a pattern of that behavior.

These are the earliest sworn statements that we have from Reade & out of the gate she says 4 years when it'd only been 3.

1/b

TW, DV: The account of the actual DV changed from the TRO filing to the 2009 essay as well.

What is described in the original filing is bad. Domestic violence is no joke, and I'd like to iterate now that no one is dismissing Reade's horrific experiences. But to go from...

1/c

...being punched after checking on the baby in another room to having the baby somehow witnessing her being choked out while Ted’s screaming that he killed the cat & the barely-toddler’s screaming “Daddy noooo!” while Tara passes out is a little [just a little] dramatic.

1/d

(It suggests an inclination towards the dramatic. The one page of the custody evaluation (later) that Reade provided as "evidence" of Ted's psychosis states that "her personality characteristics predispose her to dramatically respond to a variety of situations.")

1/d-i

Again, no one's dismissing her experience. No one deserves such abuse, & she was abused that night. But her rearranging embellishment of this '96 story 13 yrs on down the road shows a propensity towards behaviors calculated to elicit the max emotional response at the time.

1/e

A last thought before the next doc: Reade seems to believe** that kidnapping is a genetic trait: “...HE MAY ABDUCT MY DAUGHTER SINCE HIS FATHER ABDUCTED HIM AS A CHILD.”

**Maybe not, but she seems to be aware of parental behavior influencing a child (more later abt that).

1/f

Ted’s response to Reade's TRO, filed 3/20/96 (the same day Ted filed his divorce papers); Ted would soon be convicted of violating CA Penal Code Section 273.5, the crime of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, and receive probation.

2/ https://tinyurl.com/RO-32096-TED 

A vague recounting of the incident here doesn’t mean he wasn’t more explanatory in other docs that aren’t available at this time (files, minutes from his charge), but for the sake of this analysis we should take it as face value: evading specifics is, of course, suspect.

2/a

Though a “short” response, Ted devoted half of it to defending himself against her sworn comments about his relationship with his infant daughter. Ted insisted that what she was saying was untrue and that he loved her, a fact backed up by Tara's "Defying" essay in brief...

2b/

...before she immediately started to accuse him of child abuse in said essay (prev. photo). Up to this point of filings on 3/20, he wasn't charged with, convicted of, nor accused of direct physical child abuse. Two versions of an alleged child abuse incident will come...

2/c

Tara’s reply to Ted’s response, though dated 3/20, filed 3/22, 2 days after he filed his brief response & divorce papers. It's a 5 1/2 page statement making claims about Ted's emotional lability, violence, and "bad feelings" about her & their child.

3/ https://tinyurl.com/RO-32296-TRREPLY

Reade opens and closes the statement with her concerns about Ted possibly kidnapping the child, painting a portrait of Ted having been "abducted" by his father when he was 7 (items #2 & #15). (Also notable is the implication of psychopathy in how Ted's treated animals.)

3/a

To ground that implication, Reade describes Ted as introverted & unstable w/his passive statements (“I don’t think you should leave me alone with the puppy”) but then escalates to aggressive abuser in ‘09 (“Take the puppy away now and find it a home or I will kill it.”).

3/b

Survivors adding recalled details long after recording their abuse is normal & common. Changing their characterization of their abuser over time is also normal but less common. Mixed feelings & the subsequent behavior that arises from them isn't uncommon in DV cases.

3/b-i

Still worth registering the striking difference between the characterizations; that someone who purported to be in fear of her life would hold back on negative characterizations or abuse in statements to the court (note that her timeline of events is also different).

3/b-ii

Her statement that “In 1993, the Respondent and I were living together in North Dakota when I became aware that I was pregnant with [REDACTED] and I excitedly informed him of the fact” is especially interesting, given that the child was born in November 1994.

3c/

(Even with the latest possible date in 1993 to tell him, an 11-month gestation is highly unlikely (she was born just after the first week of November 1994).)

Remember that it is still 1993, just months after Reade left Washington D.C. She describes Ted's...

3/c-i

...panicked reaction to the news of her pregnancy as neurotic & depressive in 1996; in 2009, his reaction has evolved to completely aggressive.

Again, details can be forgotten & remembered. Even so, these descriptions are of two very different men.

3/c-ii

Two totally different men also seem to have handled 2 month-old Baby M.

One, a hesitant, guilt-ridden guy whose screaming Reade didn't hear before she came running out; the other a man who didn't scream in the baby's face but guiltlessly admitting to shaking her.

3d/

Presented without comparison, the summary of how Reade thought to further characterize Ted as a father: deadbeat, "robotic", neglectful, and aggressive. There are no other descriptions of child abuse, though.

(Ted's follow-up naturally presents a much different picture.)

3/e

The one refutation in Reade's original 1996 picture is that of mutual combat; she denies it existed/any action "has only been in self defense".

Victims admitting to their own aggression is a mitigating circumstance in California courts and is generally not encouraged...

3/f

...even though defendants & their attorneys often find ways to "blame the victim".

Such is absent from Ted's response to this primary restraining order collection of allegations in Reade's statement; while his statement is expectedly defensive, it is even-handed.

3/g

Ted’s reply to Reade’s reply, filed on 3/25/96, 3 days after her reply. It's a ~7 page statement refuting the claims she made about him/the situation, and offers a lot more insight into his and Reade’s relationship.

4/ https://tinyurl.com/RO-32596-TEDRESP

The response contains a usual amount of defense for a man accused of abuse. He starts off refuting Reade’s notion that he was kidnapped as a child (& therefore has a “propensity” towards kidnapping), & later on he surmises the roots of Reade's accusations about the puppy.

4/a

But it's Ted & Tara's background that you want to hear abt since we've already read her account in her essay.

This is probably the most relevant paragraph relating to the Biden accusations. "In the early stages" of their dating, Reade confided in him re: harassment.

4/b

"On several occasions Petitioner related a problem that she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office. Petitioner told me that she eventually struck a deal with the chief of staff of the Senator’s office and left her position."

4/b-i

When Reade asked him for help after she "confided" in him, he did; he helped her financially (and let her move in with him) while she looked for a job. Note also that this'll become a pattern in just a minute.

Moving in w/Ted in D.C. wasn't even mentioned in her essay.

4/b-ii

Two tales of North Dakota, Ted's written in '96, Reade's written in '09. Ted's account furthers that pattern I just mentioned: she was "interested" in moving to ND with him and thus confided in him (again) a sad story of misfortune.**

Much different from what she said...

4c

**She did it because the tactic worked on him before. People who drain others for resources usually start small, yet here was a 29yo woman who moved in with someone w/in the span of just a few months because he felt bad for her situation.

4/c-i

Yet, Reade's '09 account mentions specific abuse ("the first time he hit [her]") that caused "damage to [her] nose and jaw" that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the DV or divorce & visitation dispute papers. In fact there was no mention of the heinous things she described,

4/c-ii

-- and the things from '96 that she did revisit were transformed to characterize Ted much differently than she had when she was supposedly most frightened of his violence (sad, overwhelmed Ted of '96 became evil psycho who yells at babies because of the TV-Ted of '09).

4/c-iii

I might've stated somewhere that I'd be my usual impartial self, but reading this part was the hardest for me. We're supposed to find Ted guilty because he did admit to hitting her on the night in question, but the way he writes about his kid is the opposite of aggressive:

4/d

(Yes, I'm well aware that this was an accused man who admitted to abuse, but I'm inclined to believe in what he said; not just stemming from this set of documents, but from the totality of the three sets of legal documents available to us right now.)

4/d-i

"I love [M] dearly, and Petitioner’s statements w/regard to my conduct around, my treatment of, and the time I spend with [M], are deceitful, absolutely false, and appear to be designed to present and atrocious image of me as a father to the court, & hurt me deeply."

4/d-ii

Ted doesn't just say he loves [M], he takes a paragraph to describe his relationship with his then-16 month old child.

"I have been directly involved with [M's] life from the moment she was born..."

4/d-iii

"I was at [M's] birth, and I was the first person to give [M] a bath and comb her hair. I read books with her, I take her on hikes in the morning while Petitioner sleeps in, and I care for [M] for extended periods of time while Petitioner is away from the house."

4/d-iv

{ BTW, here's a video to illustrate how old M was at the time of the marital breakdown in February '96. This is typical of 15-month-olds (though Reade listed her age on the original TRO application as 14mo old). }



4/d-v

{ Also FTR, here's a video of that baby @ 2mos old, the age M was when Reade accused Ted of shaking her.

For illustrative purposes only. Often when reading someone's narrative, the detachment from the experience renders us ignorant to detail. }



4/d-vi

Ted describes Reade attempting to keep in direct contact with him *after* she's had him served with the restraining order.

Female victims sometimes get caught violating the protection orders they themselves applied for; they do it for various reasons. Some are scared.

4/e

Some are annoying. Some are Machiavellian. Some are a little bit of all of those.

Ted has physical proof that she's called him at least 4x after the RO was served on him and that even before he knew it was already filed, Reade encouraged him to visit with their daughter.

4/e-i

Ted describes that he was well aware of the terms of the RO, and that each time she called him, he acted appropriately [in rejecting her pleas for help]. If there was a viable refutation for what he's said in these statements, it never materialized; Reade had no response.

4/e-ii

Rarely does a victim get into trouble for violating the RO they've taken out on their abuser (at best there can be contempt charges), which sets up scenarios where a defined victim can abuse the power that a RO gives them. Often in cases where this victim is ...

4/e-iii

... unstable & personality disordered, they can use the ROs to deliberately make their ex's life Hell.

What did she mean when she said it was okay to talk bc she'd "been through the process"? What does it say when she didn't bother to tell him it'd been filed?

4/e-iv

What's striking about Ted's response here (there will be more responses in subsequent filings) is not how equanimous he is, but how much the gist of his pleas centers around 16mo-old Michaela and her well-being.

While he certainly isn't fighting to stay in the marriage--

4/f

--recall, he's the one who initiated the divorce proceedings--he's willing to do whatever it takes in order to be able to be a father to her. Agreeable to a psych eval, agreeable towards keeping her RO in place if it helped her achieve peace of mind, although ...

4/f-i

... given what's on display within just over a year of this filing in 1997, it's more than likely that Ted thought that he would be granted a reprieve from Reade's behavior; that perhaps after he put her violations/harassing behavior into the court record, she'd stop.

4/f-ii

One month from the date of this filing on 4/25, the judge granted Ted "reasonable visitation...to be supervised by the Respondent’s mother." This judge had no idea how determined Reade was to live up to what Ted had written in this response, but another judge would.

4/f-iii

Those pages are for another day (and they're a little boring; it's the custody/visitation dispute that shows how obstructive both Reade was towards the court's terms for Ted's unsupervised visitation). I'll probably add them onto this thread. For now, have at the primary...

...glimpses of how complicated and how twisted this one case is (plenty of DV cases aren't cut and dried). I don't expect to change minds, but I do hope to help people discern truths that some people will go to great lengths to obscure.

/fin for now

@threadreaderapp unroll