THE VFA PIONEER HISTORIES PROJECT

Monica Getz

“Westchester NOW were wonderful women. Every single one of them I remember with fondness. I became their poster child of the injustice in the court system that they had all experienced.”

Interviewed by Noreen Connell, February 2024

NC:  Hi, my name is Noreen Connell. I’m interviewing Monica Getz on February 18, 2024. What’s your full name?

MG:  Monica Christina Getz. My maiden name was Silfverskiöld. Sort of like Dag Hammarskjold, spelled a little differently. I was born on May 19, 1934. A very good time to be born.

NC:  And where were you born?

MG:  In Sweden.

NC:  What was your life like before you got involved in the women’s movement? And please include your ethnic background.

MG:  Okay, I hate to talk about ethnic background because I would like to think of a world where that should not matter. But I am a white woman from Sweden. Grew up at a time, I didn’t know it, because Swedes are very private and they don’t talk about their own families; it’s a very strange thing called the Jante law, if you want to google it. Where talking about family history is seen as a bragging sort of thing, opposite as in America. So, I didn’t realize until later that I had a mother who was a pioneer in the women’s movement. I had to hear that from other people.

I had now, in retrospect, the most idyllic childhood that anyone could have. We spent summers on a private island that my father was lucky enough to buy for a song during the depression. He was a very busy orthopedic surgeon and he needed absolute rest and isolation from the rest of the world. He was also a leader of the Nazi resistance in Sweden together with my mother, who came from an ultra-conservative, noble family; my father was noble as well. The two of them were just remarkable people, but it wasn’t until much later that I realized how lucky I was.

They were rebels in their own time, and truth speakers. And I think that gave me sort of a false, trusting outlook on the world. Where I really assumed that everyone was honest and wanted to make a better world, and did not understand the mechanisms of the larger, sinister problems in the world. I knew that narcissism was bad, mostly because my parents constantly listened to the news. These were the days when you actually got the news on the radio. We didn’t even have television when I grew up. So, I had that piece of my life.

When I met my husband, I was totally unprepared for anything to do with addiction. I have since learned that addiction is a genetically predisposed thing, and we didn’t have it in either my mother’s or father’s family, as far as I knew. Addiction comes with a lot of defensive misinformation. It took me another ten years being married to Stan just to survive, and to protect the children that I had chosen to raise because their mother was also heavily addicted, and had disappeared from their lives almost completely.

NC:  Now, for younger people. Who was your husband?

MG:  My husband was Stan Getz. To some musicians he’s very famous, because he was the first, and the only, jazz musician to actually penetrate the top musical charts since Benny Goodman. Benny Goodman, in 1940, had a very famous concert in Carnegie Hall, and that was the pop music of the time. And much because of my insistence, and persistence, my husband returned to the melodic kind of music that he liked the best, and that was the Brazilian music. So, by inviting Antonio Carlos Jobim and Joao Gilberto, living in this house for many, many years, Gilberto did; he produced together with myself, music that actually knocked the Beatles off the charts.

NC:  In this house that we are in now?

MG:  Yes. In this very house.

NC:  He lived here, and he and your husband and you, worked together to create this music with melody.

MG:  At the time, none of them thought it was going to be a big deal because they were purists. They really were purists. In fact, they were so extremely bizarre purists, that they didn’t want to be popular because they thought that was a form of selling out. So, they made this record musically as pure as can be. And then it was left to me to try to sell it to the public. That in itself is a very interesting, funny story.

NC:  What was the name of the record?

MG:  The single was called, The Girl from Ipanema that broke through. Well, the first one was called, Desafinado, that was with another set of people. The second one was, The Girl from Ipanema. But the name of the record that actually won best album of the year, the highest prize of the Grammys which knocked the Beatles off the chart, was called, Getz/Gilberto.

NC:  Yes, wow. Well, where and when were you active in the women’s movement? And what year was that?

MG:  I can’t say exactly what year it was, but maybe you can help me trace it, because I did become involved because of Mary Jean Tully, who reached out to me because she had had a very similar experience to mine. And then through Mary Jean, I got to know Gloria Steinem, and a great deal of other pivotal feminists.

NC:  So, that would have been the early ’70s, when Mary Jean Tully was executive director of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. And you were still married to Stan Getz?

MG:  Yes.

NC:  And you were active in Westchester NOW?

MG:  Yes.

NC:  And they sent you up to Albany?

MG:  Yes. It was a very funny experience, because the Westchester NOW was very much like me. There were wonderful women, every single one of them I remember with fondness, and they were so happy to have me, because I became their poster child of the injustice in the court system that they had all experienced. And so, they chose me to go up to Albany.

NC:  They were a lot of divorced women then?

MG:  Yes, a lot of divorced women who were married to addicts. Although they weren’t called addicts, because drinking was the fashion of the day and if you didn’t drink, you would have something wrong with you. Eventually, that attitude luckily changed. But at that time, they would never call their husbands addicts because they were functioning alcoholics. So, they would be people like Reagan’s father, for instance. There were very many presidents, Clinton, too, whose fathers were alcoholic, and that had motivated them to become politically ambitious, but they didn’t know it at the time.

So anyway, I was selected to go to Albany, and to my enormous amazement, my experience in Albany was being shunted aside, talking about families. Because at that time – and its sort of serendipitous how all of this happened – was the women’s movement. Part of that had to do with lesbianism, which is now completely accepted. But at that time, they were fighting for their rights, and they didn’t want to hear about our whining about the families. They considered that completely irrelevant. And, “Don’t take the time away from me.” And so, I was very disappointed, because, as I said to you, I was overly trusting, and I always thought they meant well. So, “I will support you, but can you please support us?” And I didn’t get any reciprocal feelings from that.

It was two opposite experiences. My experience in Westchester; welcoming, supportive. Albany, not so much. Except Lillian Kozak. I have to mention Lillian Kozak, because she was as smart as can be. She understood the power of money because she was an accountant and just brilliant. And nevertheless, she was outsmarted by her husband, who was also an accountant. She was as unprepared as I was for the legal system, being totally uneducated and ill equipped to see who is telling the truth and who is lying.

NC:  And she had one of these famous divorces that went through many, many different courts. Lawyers would talk about the Kozak divorce, and they would talk about the Getz divorce too.

MG:  Yes. Then I became the celebrated case because they couldn’t believe what was happening to me. So, Lillian just was a wonderful help, and she was my connection to the part of NOW that I just love. Which is supportive, and understanding, and nurturing without being divisive.

NC:  The Albany NOW is really the state NOW organization. We would meet in Albany, and so, it wasn’t Albany NOW per se, but all the different chapters from around the state would send representatives. Lillian Kozak was head of marriage and divorce, but it was really Domestic Relations Law Task Force was the formal name, and that’s how I met you.

MG:  And she was the one; it was interesting to me, when they changed New York state law, she sat on the floor of the legislature underneath the people that actually voted on the law, and unfortunately, she and the people in NOW were defeated. And we got something horrible in New York state called the Equitable Distribution Law. Which actually destroyed the court system from beginning to end.

It was probably clueless before, but fault, was something that could be brought up in court if a husband was totally reckless and destroyed the family by unfaithfulness and spending the money, which often goes hand in hand, because if you have a mistress, that costs money. And so, New York state was the only state until Equitable Distribution in the United States that had a system where women and children were protected with lifetime alimony and support.

NC:  And one of the issues, too, is that in many marriages, didn’t women own the house? The house was in the woman’s name, and that was a bargaining chip. And in fact, the whole process in New York was allowing women to bargain for divorce, when it could be an agreement about divorce, and also holding on to what they owned.

MG:  It gave women the power that they deserved because they had often forgone a career. In those days it wasn’t fashionable for women, and not acceptable for women. “You should stay home and be my little wife and the raiser of the children,” whether it was suited to you or not, so that the women were really disadvantaged. And that was recognized by New York state by having the fault divorce. Which is, if you were married to some outrageous husband; later on, I started to understand, what is the definition of an outrageous husband. That is an addicted husband to either sex; you have to expand the understanding of the word addiction. You can be addicted to sex. You can be addicted to power.

Trump and Putin are perfect examples of people who are addicted to power. You can be addicted to other things than what you consume. In the beginning, we were only talking about alcoholics, but now, with the medical expansion of drugs, and Valium and Librium and all of these things, many people could hide their addiction by taking other medications that were also carrying on the addiction. So, I began to look at, and understand the court system in a way that very few people were privileged to understand.

NC:  You were active in NOW, but how did the Coalition for Family Justice start? How did you start that coalition? And what year?

MG:  My divorce was in ’69, I believe. But just at the time of my divorce, it was a very big fight within the women’s movement of getting rid of no fault. Many younger women did not have any understanding for this thing of lifetime alimony, because they had now become lawyers and income making people, and they didn’t want to pay lifetime support to their husbands, which is understandable.

But without going too much into the details of the thing, I very rapidly realized that; first of all, I had a wonderful attorney. His name was Whitney North Seymour Jr. and he came from a generation of attorneys; I think I can generalize this, where attorneys were the backbone of the court system. They were seen to be honorable, and they were not so much into money, they were into justice. His father was the founder of the American Bar association, which was really an admirable organization.

My friend Helen Garland, whose husband had belonged to the same law firm as Whitney North Seymour had credibility with him, and I got credibility when I started to tell my story. And he said, “I’ve never heard of something so outrageous. I will represent you. Even though I’m not a divorce attorney, this is something that the larger court system has to understand.”

And thanks to his prestige, I think, and my determination, and Helen Garland’s determination, we got the attention of a national tv program that was a spin-off of 60 Minutes. 60 Minutes had been prevented from touching the subject because there had been a corrupt person at the mother lode of that organization who had kept the secret of the horrible stuff that’s going on in the court system from being exposed.

So, this TV program, Whitney North Seymour spoke, I spoke, and wouldn’t you know it, my little office, the phones shut down. People called from California, from Canada, from Europe, from Russia, from everywhere. It was such an eye-opener. I couldn’t believe it. We had tapped into a national nerve. That was something that I had thought that only I was going through, because I was married to a celebrity, and maybe the judge was partial. No, this is a systemic thing that we just stumbled upon serendipitously. It’s like many of the great inventions are just inadvertent, and it was an eye opener.

So, we had to kind of decide where to go from there. What we immediately did was to expand this coalition from being a local thing to a national organization. But it didn’t take us long to realize that the complication is, America is so different than Sweden. For instance, we have one law, we don’t have state laws. And each state law – we see it now, the problem with Trump and so forth – that this is so inefficient that you can win a popular election, but if you don’t win the electorate which is a very small piece of the population, you don’t win. So that part of it was an education for me. And in the beginning, there was a line out of the door. We had to have firemen and people, because they parked on my lawn.

NC:  These were people coming to your meetings?

MG:  Yes.

NC:  And tell me something about the type of women and what their situations were.

MG:  They were similar to mine. Really nice, nurturing women, who had lost custody to their overtly abusive, sometimes sexually perverted, sometimes extremely violent; and now that I’ve started to watch Dateline, lots of these women that are killed are just a result of men not wanting to go through divorce because it’s so expensive. It’s easier to kill the women. And so, I was absolutely in a state of shock.

NC:  There was one woman living under a bridge that you told me about.

MG:  Yes. We had a wonderful woman who I took in, who was completely destitute. And she wrote a book or an article, Sleeping Under a Bridge in my Ferragamo’s. She was married to a really wealthy man, and because of his money and his influence, he won everything. Custody, all the money, everything, and she became destitute. She was an outstanding person.

In this room, we had the wife of a state senator, Senator Tully. We had the wife of Damato, who was also a senator. All these people that had gotten away with incredible divorces. And it turned out that Senator Tully was part of a movement in Albany at the time, to try to get rid of no-fault divorce. So, we organized, and we went up to Albany, and to make a really long story short, because we’re limited; it was a movie in itself how we actually defeated that legislation.

 But wouldn’t you know it, they would come back and back and back. And at the end, unfortunately, NOW itself, turned on us. Because there were so many career women that didn’t want to pay alimony to their husbands, which I’m sympathetic to. However, it threw the old-fashioned married women who had sacrificed for their husbands and been good mothers and good wives where they were philandering all over the place, it threw them under the bus. And the whole system became just a morass of personal interest. And in the end, only the lawyers were making money.

So, in the end, it became three categories that would make it very simple, if we now would understand those categories. And that is, the addicted who were addicted enough to want help, they got help. Thanks to us. We got to be friendly with the chief judge and we worked side by side with the chief judge, so they started a drug court. Unfortunately, the ones who denied [they were addicted], which is the majority of people who are addicted, being addicts, are the biggest burden on the court and the litigation. That segment, is about 80%.

I would say 10% are the ones that voluntarily go to drug court and get help. Then we have the deniers of whatever addiction they have. Sexual, or gambling, or sometimes they have all the addictions at the same time. That’s about 80% of the litigated divorces. Unfortunately, the judges thought, “Pox on both your houses,” but that was usually one addicted person, and one really good non-addicted parent, and it was usually the woman who was that. The women much more easily accept that they need treatment than men. And they’re more vulnerable to especially alcohol addiction, but other addiction, medication addiction, too.

Then we have the other end of the spectrum. The 10%, [where] addiction is not involved and they realize, “I’ve got to be crazy to give all my money to the lawyers. Better to have a painful settlement than take all my savings and my children’s college education.” Because our motto became, “Either you pay for your children’s education, or you give it to the lawyers to pay for their children’s education, because you can’t do both.”

So, that category are the ones that are the lucky ones, who do not have one partner who is addicted and therefore blinded, and stubborn, and litigious – they settle. And they are the smart ones. So, at either end, the 10% people who admit that they have a drug problem, they get help, they recover. The people who don’t have addiction, and that stubborn thinking of, “I’m not addicted. It’s her fault. Everything is her fault or the other partner’s fault.”

Then you have these people in the middle, and that is the people that are not addressed. It would be so simple, because there is one myth that’s permeated the court system, and that’s the false belief that if you’re ordered into treatment against your will, it doesn’t work. That is a myth. There is nothing that’s more effective. And what a waste of time, if the judges were educated, they can mandate treatment. They don’t realize their own power. There’s a way that they could say, “If you want to be on an equal playing field for custody of your child, you have to address your addiction first.” And so, a condition for you to even get to first base when it comes to custody is, “Have you gone to treatment? Have you gotten yourself a sponsor?”

Quincy, Massachusetts, for instance, they were able to assign people to check on their AA attendance, and their acceptance, and so forth. Here in New York, we are in the middle-ages, as in many, many states, unfortunately. Equitable distribution was the first downfall. And then with the pandemic, and also the lack of insurance, people are so hesitant to say, “This disease runs in families.”

If there’s a great grandfather, or somebody, there’s usually a percentage. Not everybody. Just like diabetes, it is not shameful. You just have to accept that you are more liable to get diabetes. There are also some cancers that women voluntarily take their breast off because they know that they’re going to get this cancer. This is how limited this disease could be if we could honestly address the problem and train the judges. There should be a family court that is interested and knowledgeable about addiction to deal with this 80% of cases that are so terribly mishandled.

And one of the biggest disasters is, and I have to give the judges credit in this sense, that even the most sincere judge is afraid to make a decision, because there have been homicides as a result of the wrong decision. So, they assign something to a person called an AFC. It used to be called a Law Guardian, but now it’s misnamed, Attorney For the Children. They do not advocate for the children.

They unfortunately, are so untrained that they fall for the charm of the lying addict. And lying is just a side effect of addiction and it is predictable. Because they are deluded. And most often, sincerely deluded. They really believe that it’s everybody else’s fault and that they really should have custody of the children. They are so convincing, that when the opposite party comes in, which is most often the women, they’re scared.

They’re scared to say what horrible things go on. A) because they’re ashamed that they allow these things to go on, because it’s a gradual progressive process. But they’re also afraid that if they tell the truth in the court, they’ll be killed when they get home. So, it’s a problem that could so easily be solved if the judges were trained enough to understand, “You have the power. If you impose these simple conditions on these families, you have the power to help the majority of these cases.”

NC:  This is the second half of the interview. And so, my next question is, what were your most memorable and important experiences? And you’re going to describe also how you organized the coalition, what you do, what your operation is?

MG:  The most exciting part of this was when we actually defeated the no-fault, because no one, no one, gave us even the longest shot at this. But with the help of Lillian, and other people, and these wives of senators that everybody knew, were just women with heart. Good women, really honest, straightforward, well qualified, articulate women. We were a group of about eight or twelve that traveled up to Albany. We shared expenses in a hotel. We made really good signs, and we concentrated on the Senate.

At one time, I remember some senators stole our signs, and a nice man came and told us that, “If you want to go into the men’s room, the signs are all hidden in the men’s room.” They were so frustrated with us and they didn’t know what to do with us. They kept changing the name of the legislation so that we wouldn’t know when to demonstrate and when not to. But Lillian Kozak was brilliant at this and had inside information. So, she said, “Oh, they changed it now to this number bill, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. We got to be there.” Sometimes it was in the middle of the night, and I remember bringing a sleeping bag and sleeping in the waiting room, and having our signs and all of that. We got to be friends with the man who had the power to throw us out. Some kind of man that was working for the state.

NC:  The sergeant-at-arms?

MG:  Yes, the sergeant-at-arms. And he was on our side because he had some kind of similar family history where his mother had been treated just terribly. And then we got supporters like, what was his name, the chief DA in Brooklyn? I’ll have to fill that in. His mother had been abused, and when he told me the story, I said, “Well, why didn’t you call the police?” He says, “Monica, my father was the police.” The abuser. Actually, he has a women’s organization named after his mother.

But what defeated him was; you would never believe it, you’d think I’m antisemitic, which I’m the opposite because my father and mother were both head of the resistance in Sweden during the Nazi period, but the Jewish vote that votes in one block, were able to get rid of him, and he died disillusioned. But he was one of our staunchest supporters. So, I think that was one of the many exciting things.

But I’ll tell you what’s also exciting. Even today, one day at a time, right now, I have a little boy, he has the most wonderful, honest mother. She had to leave school at an early age because her mother was abandoned by a father who had a sexual addiction to somebody else. And some determined mother sort of stole this husband who had a lot of money. And now this woman is so brave and courageous.

And the father, an alcoholic who’s managed to stop drinking, but I’m sure he’s taking medication. Because he went to treatment, blew it off, is not going to AA, does not have a sponsor, and the judge is allowing it and forcing this kid to visit, which has been a torture for him. Until he finally ignored his mother’s pleadings to go and visit the father, “I’ll be in trouble with the court.” And he said, “I’m not doing it. It’s driving me crazy.” And luckily, now the court has come down with a decision that nobody’s going to force this child.

Hopefully, the parents will get together, but there’s no way of getting together with a person who’s non cooperative, because they believe that they don’t have a problem. So, by giving the power back to judges that they’ve had all the time, that, no, you don’t have to be voluntary to get treatment. If you are court ordered, it works even better.

And if judges knew this, and they were trained; it would take just a day’s training, and such a large percentage of people who are involved in social work are well suited because they grew up in these families, and they can tell who is lying and who’s telling the truth. They can tell, and they feel satisfaction when they can help a family. So, when you say, “What is the most exciting experience?” Every day that I can save a single person from this kind of childhood of torture, of having to visit somebody who’s totally unhinged, and really only interested in not paying child support.

NC:  So, you meet once a month?

MG:  We meet once a month. And until the pandemic, we had all the judges here who were running, because they saw that we were well intended, and they saw us in court. We go to court with people. At the meetings here, we have almost always a representative who is a specialist in family law and has understanding of addiction as well. Which is very rare, but there are a few of those. We have a financial expert, and we often have a psychologist who has grown up in this kind of system and understands how to help. And it is amazing how we can help people.

NC:  Women come to these meetings with their individual problems, and then these experts sort of brainstorm?

MG:  Plus, the other members that have had experience in the court. It becomes like a helping team that circles around the person. So, you could see that we could not do this when my house was filled to the rafter, because there’s only so much you can do in a few hours one Sunday a month. So, what happened instead was that we tried to narrow it down and encourage people to take care of their own state, because the laws were different in each state, to form something similar to the coalition in their own states. And then we kept the national organization, because people come from different states and then we refer them to people who we feel are understanding in their local state.

But basically, we have narrowed down now, to trying to create a model here instead of addressing the universe. Because it was the universe, it was also beyond America. So, what has happened is that we have now shrunk to a smaller modeling kind of model. And because of the pandemic, unfortunately, we can’t meet in person so often. So that we have online, the first Sunday at 3:00 we have a meeting. We have a limited amount of members, but we have that basic group of lawyer help, financial help, and psychological help.

NC:  Now, before I came here, there was a woman who was deaf, and she was in the process of divorce and they didn’t even have interpreters for the deaf. So just talk about her case. Do you remember her case?

MG:  No, I don’t.

NC:  Just give two or three examples of some injustices.

 

MG:  You just have to insist. And what I’ve had advantage of, is that I’ve had a really good relationship with the chief judges. That also was serendipitous. I didn’t realize that we had the power we had. But at the time, when I first became interested in this as a national issue, I didn’t even know who was our chief judge. Well, it turned out that our chief judge was a sexual addict and went to jail. He was the most promising person to become the governor of this state. And he eventually went to jail. I was going to travel out to learn from him what he learned in jail, because he was in jail with an alcoholic interestingly enough, and what they had in common. The women were so outrageously angry in my organization, that they felt that I was betraying them by trying to listen. 

I’ve always regretted that I didn’t work with him to learn from that side how deluded these people are. How a man, like a chief judge, got to the point where he actually, in his official capacity, in a limousine that was paid for by the state, had an extra set of clothing where he went to a phone booth, and had a mistress, and he called the mistress and the mistresses’ children, and threatened them in some awful way in this outfit.

It was so bizarre how deluded these people can be. This was the chief judge of New York. But that’s hushed up also by the newspapers. So, it’s a very political thing. It wasn’t covered as much as it was Senator Tully’s case. He eventually went to jail, but was out within six months. And no one really figured out how that was even possible because he got a long jail sentence. It turned out that his wife and his son also did corrupt things, but it was hashed out.

NC:  Have you been involved as an activist in the women’s movement, or other areas, since your second wave experience?

MG:  Yes. I have always been partial to the women in the women’s movement that come from this end of it, and I got to be very good friends with those who had a large enough vision to realize that this aspect of the women’s movement is also a very important aspect. Even to this day, even as women are liberated, equitable distribution is probably one of the worst forms of addressing injustices in the court. So, I’m very hopeful, but right now, the political climate is not focused on any of these things, really, except the abortion. We cannot possibly have Trump, a clear sexual addict, whose brother was an alcoholic so the addiction runs in his family, clearly; he just has a different form of it, and Putin, and other power addicts, to take over the world.

So, I think we have to stand back now until the election. And once we have at least a decent president of the United States, who may, I’m 90 now, soon, in a few days; he is over 80, and soon Trump is 80 too, and they’re both showing signs of aging; the edge that I wish Biden would emphasize more, is that he has experience. And sometimes experience outweighs; because he’s surrounded by people who can help him with his memory. But Trump doesn’t seem to learn from experience. He seems to just dig himself a deeper and deeper hole. So, if we can somehow get the court system to respond to the larger need of the country than just republicans need to win, I think after the election, it’s going to be our time.

NC:  Are you currently involved as an activist?

MG:  Yes.

NC:  How has your involvement in the movement affected your later life, personally and professionally, if at all?

MG:  It’s been inspirational. Because it’s kind of a fight of good and bad. I have been able to sort out in my life that maybe people aren’t bad, maybe they’re just addicted. It’s an unfortunate thing, that the fallout from addiction is not consistent. Some addicted people seek help right away. Some addicted people just fall asleep and there’s no violence involved. Well, they are the ones who die the soonest because nobody pays attention to them. Then you have the violent ones and the stubborn ones. The hardest ones that we see most of, and they are the ones that are deluded to the point, if you don’t get them early enough in the progression; because addiction always gets worse, not better if not addressed.

It’s a downward slope. If you don’t get them early enough, they actually begin to believe their own lies. And so, they’re deluded. And when they begin to believe their own lies, they’re so convincing to the court, who is unprepared that someone’s going to look you in the eye and just blatantly make things up as they go along. That that’s how we got Santos. He couldn’t even tell the truth about who was his own mother, and he won.

And his opposition didn’t even think to do oppositional research. He’s now won, luckily, but if he had done oppositional research, and that’s again, about money. That gradually, this country has given in to the power of money and politics to such an extent, that it’s really frightening. What’s going to happen the next election? Are we going to have an addict dismantle our legal system? That’s where it’s come down to.

And this is very much a women’s issue. And to women’s credit, what is really supporting Biden is the attitude on abortion. That has become a political, justice revenge, to the lies and the hypocrisy of the Republican Party, that no longer can be called the Republican Party but just a kissing up to Trump party. I don’t want to sound judgmental about that because there is a certain amount of people who are not educated enough, to really understand what goes on with Trump.

There are also some people who are scared. They are really literally scared that their families are going to be threatened. Look what happened to Nancy Pelosi’s husband. A non-political person who just happened to be home instead of her. What these people are willing to do is just horrible. And what this one man is willing to stir them up to do, he’s just stolen from Nazi language.

NC:  Right. And he’s using Nazi language. Clearly.

MG:  This is very much a women’s issue. And this election is very much a women’s issue. So, I think to be heard, about the narrower group of old-fashioned women who are being disadvantaged from not having a career, and income of their own, it’s not the time. But I do think that the time for justice for women is already happening in the election. When it comes to the abortion issue, I don’t think Trump anticipated that. We have to win the election first. First things first. Then, I think people are ready to hear what’s happening to women in the courts, which is an abomination and totally unnecessary.

By getting rid of AFC’s, mandating judges to learn that they can make a big difference in the people. Right now, they kind of throw up their hands, “Who’s telling the truth? We can’t tell.” And they have AFC’s to help them who are less trained than they are and they are the ones who take the responsibility if something tragic happens. They will be the ones who are in the headline, not the judges. That’s all it is. Completely unnecessary. Train the judges, and get motivated judges. The judges that might have some history in their own family and understand how a person who is addicted can be so convincing and actually believe their own lies. So, I think that’s a very exciting prospect. That the truth shall set us free. But we’re so afraid of the truth now, that unless we win this next election, it’s going to be a very depressing time for America. It’s going to become another dictatorship.

NC:  Well, I want to thank you for this interview on a very important topic. You’re absolutely right in terms of what’s at stake for women this coming election.

MG:  Yes. We have to make them aware, and we have to also make the system aware that these people are lying so convincingly because it’s part of the side effect of their disorder. It’s predictable. And there is a way of empowering people in the system to give these children a chance not to have to grow up with disfunction. All you need is one functional parent, and to support the people who are telling the truth. Right now, the judges are not equipped to know who’s telling the truth because the liar is more convincing than the frightened person. And that’s true in general: the frightened people are the people in the Republican Party, too.

NC:  Exactly.

MG:  Look what happened to Nancy Pelosi’s husband. That could happen to any one of them.

NC:  Absolutely. So, thank you again.

MG:  Thank you.

NC:  Thank you very much.