The emails reproduced here are complete and unaltered in text except for removal of email addresses for Andrew Raastad, Laura Haddan and Ed (Edward K) Raastad and the addition of level (who said what) indicators and some previous clarifying text (shown indented) for the second message further below. Each of them support and are referred to directly in the Kitty Reflects of 02/02/2012, or in the case of the second one is referred to in the first below. Notes within curly brackets "{}" within the emails below are added there for additional explanation or with "sic" to indicate "originally so written" by the sender.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: We only asked for photos...
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:40:53 -0700
From: Andrew Raastad
To: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
CC: Ed Raastad
{Note that the following could not be converted directly to text and contained incompatible characters (characteristic of being written in MSWord and copy/pasted to an email program), which have been individually converted to text characters displayable here}
I have just spent the past some {sic} while reading and rereading a rather lengthy email. From it, I learned much, and also learned nothing new. I saw that my feelings and opinions were confirmed, that the author is still the most contemptuous, egotistical, and altruistic bitch I have ever known. Her own words mark her for who and what she is, though completely unable and incapable of seeing it for herself. While all around her have turned away and shun her (including her own family, by blood and "ex/in-law"), save the "wannabe" anarchist lapdog with whom she now beds, she continues to struggle between the realms of her manic forged reality and the reality the other 6+ billion inhabitants of this world reside.
For well over five years I have tried to rid my mind, heart, and soul of this vile, this filth, this..... taint from which I came, yet cannot deny thanks to modern advances in DNA technology. I broke this silence a handful of days ago because the woman I love wished only some simple reminders of my past: photographs, nothing more. But as I knew to whom I would need to send the request for those pictures, the outcome was assured from the start: old wounds torn open again, hate and loathing and snide filled emails from this wretched snake wrapped in a thin veil of self serving logic, and in the end another person whose eyes have been opened to the reality, or rather the immorality, this woman wraps around herself like a blanket.
I, and we, came to her without hidden agenda to make only a simple request: that of pictures of years gone by, memories, people, and places that will not come again. Pictures that someday will allow my own children to know their father when he was young, what he looked like growing up, extended family, and so forth. Something that any other moral, caring, and feeling human would gladly go out of their way to produce, copy, send, email, or otherwise put in the hands of the requestor {sic}. Millions of people do it every day with the conveniences of modern technology and devices, using the tools available on the internet made easy through websites and applications such as Flickr, MySpace, FaceBook, Google Picasa, blogs, and many, many more.
The many replies were not of the pictures requested, but of lengthy email discussions where she attempts to prove her self-righteous behavior through illogically conceived explanations based upon distortions, carefully edited and omitted half truths from emails years old, all the while making claims that if these pictures were important I merely "need to ask", or double-speak talk of friendship and what friends do. Her own words prove that friendship is nothing more than advantages, opportunities, and the trading of a commodity. I once said that of all things her primary concern is currency, and it is reaffirmed by her own acid tongue that for any effort on her part contracts must be entered into, monetary compensation paid, and she must derive benefit or she is not willing to trade. Email after email her principle purpose was not to help us in our request, but to dredge up old conversations, attempt to convince yet another that it is her who is right and everyone else who does not share her opinions must be wrong, and attempt to drive a wedge between Laura and myself. For having come to her to make the requests, for being respectful and offering to share in the "burden" of pictures, for all that we did, we walk away with nothing more to show for our efforts than two terribly scanned scraps of memories it is my belief she contrived to use as bait to force us to visit her house, where she could further continue the harassment (a house she would not even own had she not quit her career at Motorola just shy of retiring, thus forfeiting her retirement, tipping the Net Worth scales to Dad's side of the counter at the divorce table, ensuring she would receive by court decision what she morally had no right to claim). Nice try there witch, but we are not Hansel and Gretel to be snared so easily and fattened with candy.
I will say this plain.. We will not be stopping by now, or ever. The idea of it, to return to that house with you there and all the memories associated sickens me. If you are unwilling to freely give what you claim to be simply the caretaker of, unless we jump through your hoops, pay you money, compensate your time, come before you in person .. you are a sad, pitiful, wretched, diseased, and laughable excuse for a human being. You have nothing I want, nor anything I need. You and the pictures can rot in deepest bowls of Hell for all that concerns me, and I would not pass you a glass of water to quench your thirst from the heat of the flames. To have made such a mockery of past events, to twist and pervert facts into lies that fit your recollection and then propound them to others as truth disgusts me, to see that pure unemotional greed in money, possessions, and benefits, is what drives you makes me taste bile when your name is spoken.
Know this, and know it well "Kitty" Antonik Wakefer {sic}: medical science may prove that I am your biological descendant, but you are no mother of mine. Never again will I speak to you, email you, or request anything of you. Nothing you have, possess, or own is of any interest to me nor is it anything I desire, need, or want. No child of mine will ever know you existed from my mouth, nor will they attend your funeral when you die. Others may, or may not, share this opinion, as I leave it to them to decide their own feelings, and make their own choices. I speak for none but myself, but what I speak is plain, simple truth. No letter of yours will be read by me, no email you send will see but this inside of the trash folder, no phone call shall last the first sentence, nor any other form of communication will I accept, save court order. My mother is dead, has always been dead, she left this earth when I arrived, thus leaving me free to believe my mother such a caring and loving and nurturing woman that she gave her life to see mine fulfilled.
Good riddance Mrs. Wakefer {sic}, may our paths never cross again, for it will even then be too soon.
May God have mercy on your soul.
Note that the following is the email to which Andy refers in his first sentence in the email above, the last one in a series between me and Laura (three each with her starting off). I had earlier requested that Laura respond inline rather than simply top post without even including the old email. Since her replies were not done using a software method that produces leveling indicators, I have copied the tic mark (~) she did use in her final email to precede the first line of each of her inserts, as my to attempt to achieve clear understanding by the reader of authorship of all text. In addition, in her attempt to indicate levels, she also still omitted previous text of hers which had been included in the email from me to which she was replying. In order, to make clear the text of Laura's to which many of my older comments refer, I have inserted those older comments of Laura in indented form with the appropriate number of ">" marks preceding each line. Please note that near and at the end of her reply, Laura did not place the tic mark (~) in front of each paragraph, most of which are single lines. I have left those lines as-is and trust the reader will be able to discern that they are hers.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Andrew Raastad
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:35:48 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Organization: MoreLife
To: laura laura
Hello Laura,
laura laura wrote {~} on 12/19/2007 09:15 AM:
> ~Good Morning Kitty,
>
{I had written the following, which would have been preceded by ">>" if Laura was using correct formatting}
> Your rapid reply (within 5 hours of my email) during the typical work
> day leaves me to wonder if you actually discussed my email with Andy
> (having shown it or forwarded it to him) before sending off your reply
>
>
> ~I of course talked with Andrew about your letters and my response to
> them. We spend everyday together and we talk at times throughout the
> day. He is helping out with an IT project at my work, and is often
> here in the afternoons.
It is good to hear that you did discuss with Andy these emails you have
written to and received from me. Being in the same facility each day
with many opportunities to interact can be very informative for both of
you about the other, as well as just plain fun. Actually working
together on the same projects, especially if consisting of many details,
can be a strain to any type relationship - at least at times - but it
can also be greatly rewarding. I and Paul do virtually everything
together and have gained a great deal by this arrangement.
{I had written the following, which would have been preceded by ">>" if Laura was using correct formatting}
> In addition, because you have not replied inline (interspersing your
> responses to my comments and including preceding and ending comments
> as you think necessary), there are many items in my email that you
> have not addressed here. Maybe you have not considered the advantages
> to inline responses, the major one is that the writer *can* address
> every point in his/her (hir) reply and also make it clear to what s/he
> is not responding, though an acknowledgment of simple agreement or
> disagreement (with a decline of or note for future discussion) is best
> for mutual understanding. It is not like the old days of written (or
> typed) postal correspondence where to copy the other person's message
> and add one's own responses would have been extremely tedious and bulky.
> ~Typing in line response is a new thing for me. Never in any business
> I have worked or run, has anyone ever responded to emails like this,
> so I will give it a try today.
Thank you for giving inline response "a try". Yes, I see by the type of
inline reply you made here that this is not something with which you are
familiar. Is it, as it appears, that your email program did not
automatically insert carets (>) or left margin vertical bars when you
did a reply? If this is, so then it is a great limitation of the
software IMO. As you can see here in my response, a vertical bar occurs
with everything at the preceding level. Had your email come to me with a
vertical bar placed before my earlier comments, they would now show with
2 bars and yours with only a single. But maybe you are aware of all this
from other sources, including Andy. If your email program does not
currently automatically insert such carets or bars when doing a reply,
Andy may be able to adjust it so that it does (that is, if the program
has this option at all - and if it does not then I strongly suggest
getting another program).
While I discovered inline responses during my tenure as an engineer at
Motorola and used it in many of my business and personal communications
at that time, I saw that many people then were uncomfortable with it,
preferring to always use a monologue type exchange. To me the
naturalness and convenience was evident, though I didn't make virtually
exclusive use of this method until after beginning communication with
Paul (having begun in October 1999 to assist him by searching out a
relocation for a cryonics storage facility then in southern California).
Paul had used this method for many years, it having roots in UseNet
(circa early 1980s) but of which possibly most of current Internet users
have little if any knowledge. I find this method very simple - and one
can still always digress as it appears worthwhile. And old items no
longer addressed can be snipped (deleted) by the sender when and if the
full amount (message thread) becomes lengthy.
{The following text from Laura was not in my original final reply because of its omission by Laura from her reply to me. It is added as aid to clarify my references.}
>>> I am glad you found my family site. We have not kept it updated
>>> over the last year, simply because there has been a lot going on with us,
>>> and it has been mostly through emails that my family has been getting updates.
>>> Much faster through emails at times. My writings have become very personal
>>> and have been relegated to mostly my journal and to letters to friends.
>>> Last Christmas, I was diagnosed with Cancer and many things, like our website
>>> have gone by the wayside. I am an open book and should you want to know
>>> anything about me, I will answer anything you would like to know.
{I had written the following, which would have been preceded by ">>" if Laura was using correct formatting}
> You haven't said what kind of cancer you were diagnosed as having and
> what was your physical condition at the time and during the preceding
> few years. Therefore, I cannot make any comment regarding the presence
> of risk factors preceding the diagnosis. I do hope that you now
> practice a lifestyle that promotes good health and greatly reduces the
> likelihood of any recurrence of the same type cancer or the start of
> any of the many cancers that are preventable. Good health is necessary
> in order to really optimally enjoy life.
> ~I have been in wonderful health my whole life other then the basic
> dancer injuries, broken toe, sprained ankle, torn tendon. Last
> holiday season I had a lump in my neck and went to the dr. After much
> testing and a heinous biopsy, I was diagnosed with Adenoid Cystic
> Carcinoma. I went to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale and had the cancer
> removed and went through intense radiation for the next 4 months with
> many side effects. I am only now beginning to be able to taste
> anything, and unfortunately, my mouth has a difficult time opening
> wider then a span of two fingers. I go to the Dr. now every other
> month and in January, they will do the first body scan to determine if
> the cancer has spread to my lungs. My lifestyle has always been one
> of health, and really I only get the occasional cold these days now
> that I am working in pediatrics.
I had not been familiar with adenoid cystic carcinoma, it being one of
the rare types, until doing a little research after your relating of the
above. I can imagine that this past year has been a very troublesome one
for you in this regard; I empathize with your distress at this
diagnosis, treatment and prognosis (depending greatly on the original
site). Likely you have done considerable research yourself - as I would
do - and I do hope that you are also making use of current research,
often in general not having completed (or even reached the initiation
of) the gold standard for studies of double blinded controlled trials.
There are the many substances that have various evidential strength for
preventing/inhibiting initiation, promotion and/or recurrence of various
carcinomas; I (and Paul) make use of a large number of these. We are
convinced that most illnesses are preventable and therefore that strong
preventive measures should always be one's first health priority.
{The following text from Laura was not in my original final reply because of its omission by Laura from her reply to me. It is added as aid to clarify my references.}
>>> I realize that over the last several years there has been a huge disconnect
>>> between you and Andrew. While many wounds and hurt feelings run deep, that
>>> does not change the fact that you are his mother and that someday our children
>>> will want to be able to know about his past and family.
[I had written the following, which would have been preceded by ">>" if Laura was using correct formatting]
> Laura, there is a "disconnect" here in our communication. Please refer
> back to my email: "In both cases, the choice was theirs not to respond
> to my contact attempts with each of them. I was repeatedly rebuffed by
> Andy after he moved out and then finally, simply ignored whenever I
> emailed him." The disconnect is not "between" Andy and me in the sense
> that you appear to be implying - that I *and* he refuse to speak
> to/communicate with each other. The refusal is not on my part at all
> and never has been. Along that line, did you actually read my email
> responses to Ed? Since you have made no comment (again, part of the
> disadvantage of *not* responding inline is that one can forget many of
> the points in the message to which one is replying), I have no way of
> knowing for sure.
> ~I did read the response back and forth with Ed. I had already
> discussed it with both of them. Andrew has been very open about your
> relationship and I was aware of the correspondences that you had back
> in 2001. More then just the emails, there were several encounters
> that the two of you had when he returned from the Navy that eventually
> led to the straw that broke the camels back with the rent issues.
It would certainly be interesting to me to know what are these negative
events ("encounters") to which you refer and about which I am accused
without any chance for an impartial hearing. I also find it incredible
why the "rent issue" is held against me, when it is Andy who refused to
act responsibly and to pay his own way as a fully adult human being
capable of earning good money. It appears that he thinks that it is a
mother's duty to give to her children for the rest of her life, even
when nothing that she values is being given to her in return.
> ~Things build up, and that is just where he is at right now, feeling
> unready and unwilling to talk.
{The following text from Laura was not in my original final reply because of its omission by Laura from her reply to me. It is added as aid to clarify my references.}
>>> Some of my favorite memories are sitting with my grandparents and looking
>>> at old photos that would then spur them on to memories and stories that
>>> they had forgotten about.
{I had written the following, which would have been preceded by ">>" if Laura was using correct formatting}
> I have some similar memories, but my grandparents did not make use of
> photographs to the extent that my parents did. There are actually
> movies of Andy's maternal great-grandparents among the many that my
> father took, many in color! - which I had put on VCR back ~1990 from
> the originals. I have never thrown out any old mementos - including
> cards, letters and even audio tapes made by my parents when Andy was
> less than 8. There is an enormous amount of recorded history from the
> Antonik family - and some from the Raastads - in my care here at the
> house in Casa Grande.
> ~This is a big deal to me and in turn to Andrew. We have been
> remodeling the house to prepare to sell it, and he found a card he had
> made for his grandparents when he was 8. That was all he had. No
> pictures of any Grandparents, or any relatives. The most recent
> picture he had was from his Navy days and then anything that Ed has
> taken in the last 5 years or that I have taken. My family are picture
> junkies. We have pictures of everything and I have a passion for scrap
> booking. My Dad has even traced the Haddan and Bennett genealogy back
> to the 1500s. I am looking to create a memory for him. Andrew does
> so much for me and loves me in a way I never thought possible, and I
> desperately want to do this for him. Should the cancer take me sooner
> then later, I want to be able to give him this, even if I cant give
> him years of memories for us.
{The following text from Laura was not in my original final reply because of its omission by Laura from her reply to me. It is added as aid to clarify my references.}
>>> Andrews {sic} memory being what it is,
{I had written the following, which would have been preceded by ">>" if Laura was using correct formatting}
> You will need to explain what you mean by this..... What "memory" are
> you speaking of, as though there was some gap(s) in it of actual
> events due to an injury?
> ~Andrew has the worst short term memory of anyone I have ever met,
> that is not a TBI. He has never had an injury, but he cant remember
> many things. He can't recall things, but often gets spurred on by
> images and can remember very specific details about something when
> prompted by images, hence why this lil project is such a big deal for
> me and for him.
What I think that you are talking about is generally called "long term
memory" as opposed to "short term memory" (which is scratch pad memory,
before some important things are laid down for long term storage). If so
then this is probably familial, since I too have alway had major lapses
concerning long ago life experiences.
{The following text from Laura was not in my original final reply because of its omission by Laura from her reply to me. It is added as aid to clarify my references.}
>>> anything I can do to help facilitate moments like that for our family
>>> would be wonderful.
{I had written the following, which would have been preceded by ">>" if Laura was using correct formatting}
> It is not really *necessary* for you to "facilitate" opportunities for
> Andy, or prospective children that you both may have, to "look[] at
> old photos that would then spur [me or Ed] on to memories and stories
> that [either or us have] forgotten about."{quotes from prior emails not included in her reply, but shown here above} This is not a situation in
> which I cannot be located or I refuse to speak with Andy, and
> therefore not one in which he has no ability to see and arrange to
> make copies of these visual mementos of his youth and his deceased
> relatives. Your prospective family can have all the memorable moments
> that you have for your family, with respect to the family of their
> prospective father, Andy.
> ~My intent was not to spur on you and Ed, but to help Andrew recall
> ~stories and memories of his childhood and grandparents.
But realistically, you cannot have expected that these photographs would
not simply materialize in your hands (with all the necessary detail that
Andy needs for recollection) *without* some effort from me, who has
cataloged and possess them.
> ~As I said before, he is not yet at a point where he feels
> comfortable talking with you and it is my project for him and it is my
> job to take care of this and cause him as little discomfort as possible.
It has been over 6 years since Andy and I had any "encounter" of any
kind, so I find it hard to understand how a competent grown man can
harbor either ill feeling or hurt after such a length of time,
particularly since if he were to fully analyze and examine the reasons
behind such feelings, he would see that those reasons were invalid. If
he never even takes the time to face the situation squarely and to
examine it from all aspects then he will continue to fool himself for
the rest of his life. Andy certainly has some qualities that I would
enjoy having in a friend (as does his father), but unless and until he
shows some mutual esteem for my qualities, particularly those that are
most important to me, then he is incapable of being my friend.
{The following text from Laura was not in my original final reply because of its omission by Laura from her reply to me. It is added as aid to clarify my references.}
>>> Andrew has grown into a very caring man. He does wear his heart
>>> on his sleeve and is very open with his feelings. That is one of the many
>>> reasons why I fell in love with him. What you see is what you get with him.
{I had written the following, which would have been preceded by ">>" if Laura was using correct formatting}
> All of this sounds very good and somewhat different from his
> last communications to me - the very last of which was in Sept 2002.
> It would be nice to know from him that he does address in
> straightforward verbal and/or written manner those incidents, memories
> and ideas that cause him emotional distress. So far though, I am not
> seeing (reading) evidence that he is doing that in regard to what you
> describe as "very open with his feelings".
> ~Andrew has always been open with how he feels and what is going
> through his mind. Our very first date he discussed his relationship
> with you and the rift that is there.
Once again, I want to make it very clear that this "rift", as you call
it, is totally one-sided. All that is needed is for Andy to talk to me
about whatever bothers him from our past "encounters" (a very strange
word to use for events between mother and son). Then either apologize
for his errors or convince me that his interpretation was correct and I
was in error (in which case I will apologize). This will create some
mutual esteem for each other and we can again be friends.
> ~He always steps up to help others when they need him, he always shares
> his deepest thoughts and feelings and he daily tells me he loves me
> and shows me in more ways then I can express. He is an upstanding
> member of the community that people respect and come to for friendship
> and advice. One of the things that always makes me smile is that
> everyone that knows him, including people at Lodge, peers or his
> bosses at work, is that Andrew always tells you the truth, what he is
> thinking and that he is completely genuine. Andrew is what he is and
> that's who you get. It makes me very sad that you cant see that or
> don't know that about him.
The reason that I don't know that about him is that he has not been that
way to *me* ever since he returned from the Navy; actually since about
midway through his hitch. How can I know about what I never experience?
Why is he so nice to everyone *except* his very own mother?
{The following text from Laura was not in my original final reply because of its omission by Laura from her reply to me. It is added as aid to clarify my references.}
>>> Andrew was very hurt by the circumstances around your last encounter
>>> and it still saddens him.
{I had written the following, which would have been preceded by ">>" if Laura was using correct formatting}
> I do not know what you mean by "last encounter", since I have
> not been in the same room with Andy since I was here in Casa Grande
> between December 6 and 12 of 2001 - that's just over 6 years ago,
> though I and Paul have been here every winter/early spring since
> October 2002. (Andy made no response to my comment about
> events/discussions during that visit in post-visit emails, except to a
> PS re. rent payment.) We had had a short duration email exchange in
> October 2001, to which Andy replied only once. I am forwarding to you
> my response to him (the entire thread included) because there is a
> great deal of background both in events and also expressed thoughts
> and emotions at that time by him. The fact that Andy never responded
> to my lengthy reply is very telling to me, and I am now writing him
> that in a separate message
> ~There was no need to fwd those emails, as I have seen those and
> others. More then {sic} just the emails, there were some in person verbal
> exchanges that hurt him.
Without knowing what incident you refer to, I cannot either defend my
actions or apologize. And he cannot gain more information and
understanding either, which might help him to remove the hurt. Without
communication, this "hurt" will simply continue unresolved, festering
like an infected wound.
> ~That is the past. He is not prepared to talk to you at this time and
> emailing him might not be in your best interest at this time. Whether
> or not you hear back from him now, I don't know, but I would not
> expect to hear back from him at this time.
{I had written the following, which would have been preceded by ">>" if Laura was using correct formatting}
> I hope that you both share these messages with each other; to
> not do so is to not be fully open in a relationship that seeks to have
> the greatest of intimacy, not just physically.
> ~Andrew and I have been sharing these communications, although he does
> not want to read them himself. As I have said, he is not at a point
> where he wants to reopen this door and prefers me to share the letters
> verbally with him then read them himself. I am choosing to not
> acknowledge the remark about physically intimacy{sic}. Whether we are or
> not, that is our business. Andrew and I are connected on a far deeper
> level then in the bedroom.
I had started my reply to you early yesterday afternoon after reading
your message in its entirety just before noon; I only restarted on it
mid-afternoon today, Thursday. (The morning yesterday had been so
pleasant, even dancing in the kitchen with Paul, much as my parents
did.) It was my intention originally to respond in my usual manner,
addressing each of your responses. However, your statements above left
me yesterday at first puzzled and then very troubled when I first read
them - disconcerted to the point that I found (and still do find) the
content and tone coming to mind frequently since the first reading. I
had therefore decided not to respond to the specifics of what you have
written further above after your information about your ACC diagnosis.
I only came back to them much later this evening after completing the
rest below, doing so with the urging and aid of Paul who thought the
items needed to be addressed.
My interpretation of your last 3 sentences above is that you feel
offended, and possibly even insulted, by my statement above - my opinion
that full openness of communication is needed for very close and full
relationships to be truly great, in the sense of emotionally fulfilling.
I was continuing to express my pleasure that Andy had a strongly
meaningful romantic relationship and the sincere hopes that it was fully
(in depth and bilateral) communicatively open. My first reaction was
that perhaps you find it offensive to have someone make reference to
physical intimacy (sexual contact), even in a mutually loving highly
substantial relationship. I thought possibly this is a result of a
particular religious adherence that condemns any physical intimacy
without first a prescribed religious ceremony.
Then it came to me that there is another factor - Andy, Ed and my sister
Irene have let me know in various written and spoken exchanges
(beginning in early 2000) that they do *not* agree with my positive
opinion and practice of polyamory - having concurrent mutually highly
loving (psychological, mental, emotional, physical and sexual mutual
esteem) romantic relationships; they apparently no longer agreed (each
having known of my additional relationship) that acting on such ideas is
reasonable and acceptable. It was then their message to me that
polyamory was/is simply an excuse to be promiscuous. In essence, Andy,
Ed and my sister Irene have told me in years past that they think my
ideas of polyamory and actions (concurrent loving relationships with Ed
and Greg, without any deception towards either of them at any time) were
sexually perverted. Andy's language to me never used those specific
words; he was more indirect (at least to me), but that was his clear
intended meaning. Ed, although his words and actions from 1980 onward
were mixed (from expressions of agreement on the concept, the first
actually in 1972 before Andy was even born - and 8 years before any
thought of actually practicing polyamory, to those occasionally of
confusion) and cloudy, rarely if ever specific even in answer to
requests for openness. But Ed was clear in offering his opinion that I
was "promiscuous" when manic to Paul when he phoned Ed in the early
portion of the mania episode I experienced in 2003. [I have since then
suspected that Ed's view is that I was "promiscuous" even when not
manic, despite the fact that I had no sexual relationship - long or
short - since the end of 1967 with anyone other than Ed (Summer 1968)
and Greg after November 1980, until January 2000 when I visited Paul in
person. I become gregarious when manic, never promiscuous; I do seek
more physical contact at times during such episodes from those I love,
but this is not promiscuity by any definition. For the record, I have
had no physical intimacy with anyone other than Paul since Fall of
2000.] My sister, Irene, was/is the most graphic - to her I have a
definite sexual perversion. I have no reason to have any contact
relationship (biological is a given) with her as long as her view of me
is so horrendous.
So since you and Andy have the close sharing that you do and you state
you have had discussions with Ed (and maybe even something from Irene
has gone your way), it is quite reasonable for me to assume that you
also have some degree of this view of me as sexually perverted and, that
in spite of having such a vile person as his mother, Andy has become the
wonderful person he is and whom you love. What a distorted view of me
this is..... If you knew anything about Paul at all then you would know
that he could not possible{sic} love or treasure someone as he does me if I
were the person of this distortion. [This last sentence was entirely his
idea to insert.]
But this digresses from your purpose in contacting me - obtaining copies
of photos of Andy's childhood so that you can prepare a memento for him
- possibly even viewed as a legacy from you. This strong desire on your
part to give the person you love something you have assembled that you
can both enjoy is quite understandable to me.
I do not nor have ever desired to keep only for myself these photos I
(mostly) took since he was a baby and before. It was part of an
unwritten unilateral contract I made when he was born that I would make
and keep safe various records of him for him (and Ed, his father and my
then marital partner). I offered Ed copies of whatever
photos/videos/audios/keepsakes of our 31 years together which he wanted
in 2003 when he moved from this house; he took from the house those
photos of his own childhood but refused my offer. I took and still take
this refusal from Ed as permanent until he decides he wants to readdress
our relationship - which is now, by his choosing, ex-spouses with as
little communication as possible. (If I am not his wife then I am
nothing at all!) [Such a reassessment on Ed's part was what I originally
thought was behind his recent email contact requesting the photos. How
naive I was! The idea of being friends with a former spouse, seems to be
completely foreign to him. And as long as these are his held views
(along with other highly negative ones of me), there is little I see in
him to admire, and therefore he is not, currently at least, friend
material to me.]
While before 2000 Andy always appeared to enjoy seeing the photos/videos
of himself and relatives, he never later expressed to me any interest in
having any copies. It is clear that now he does, part of it likely
because he wants to see you happy in making something for him.
You can come here to 14782 W Belmont Dr CG 85294 and borrow what photos
you decide are meaningful to your memento project. I will make them
available to you at the house for the time period you need for your
selection towards making copies elsewhere (and then returning the
originals) as fulfillment of the responsibility that I undertook when I
became Andy's mother as explained above. However, from what you have
written in your previous messages and here, I am simply the holder of
these records and (at least at this time) you have no other interest in
me. Under these circumstance, any information that you may want
regarding these photographs beyond what is written on them or in the
albums or contained in written matter stored with the albums will not be
freely offered by me. My not being an altruist, but rather a value
trader, a trader to mutual advantage/benefit means that I will not do
something for someone else for which I receive no benefit at all. Please
keep in mind that benefit comes in many forms. I will fulfill my
self-imposed obligation regarding these records as stated. If you wish
more information from me, under these current circumstances, a monetary
payment contract will be needed as compensation for my time and effort,
since there is no other manner at this time in which I will benefit
(such as would come from a truly honest and open friendship of mutual
esteem as I have with Paul and several others).
{The following text from Laura was not in my original final reply because of its omission by Laura from her reply to me. It is added as aid to clarify my references.}
>>> That being said, he has a lot of great memories of his childhood,
>>> including very specific memories of you and Ed. Emotions are very raw
>>> and healing takes time. That is why I believe that Andrew had Ed contact you,
>>> instead of doing it himself.
{I had written the following, which would have been preceded by ">>" if Laura was using correct formatting}
> I do not follow your logic here, Laura. You will need to be
> more specific regarding why you think Andy had Ed contact me rather
> than do it himself. Maybe this is something that you need to do more
> thinking about yourself, as to why in general some people avoid some
> actions and take others (while other people will take actions similar
> to those avoided in similar circumstances). There is a great deal of
> mental(intellectual)/emotional/behavioral/situational/physical
> interaction taking place at every decision point for each person, but
> most is not on the conscious level. If you haven't yet done any
> reading on the cognitive behavioral therapy theory, you may find it
> very valuable in order to better understand yourself, Andy, your
> father, Ed - even me :) Two workbooks I've strongly recommended to
> others are The Feeling Good Handbook by David D Burns and Mind Over
> Mood by Greenberger and Pedasky, though there are others of a more
> review nature. (I first became interested in this avenue of psychology
> back in the early 90s and tried to interest Ed in making use of some
> of the ideas for the betterment of our relationship. He was not
> interested, nor later in counseling for the 2 of us. To paraphrase
> him, I was the one with the problems, not him.)
> ~Andrew had Ed contact you because he knew this was important to me
> and as I said before, he did not want to contact you himself. I did
> not know he had engaged Ed in my little project till after your final
> email with Ed and I saw the email back from you stating that you were
> not altruistic. As for CBT, I am trained in it. I worked in psyc for
> quite some time and actually have both those books. I used the Mind
> over Mood workbook in the locked unit I worked in. Knowing the
> medical background you have and your knowledge in psychology, I am
> sure you understand that people cant be forced into something before
> they are ready. It is the old adage, you can lead a horse to water
> but not make him drink. It is not our job to force ideas on those
> that we love, but share ideas and thoughts and educated them. While my
> opinion matters greatly to Andrew, I will not force or push him to
> communicate with you, it is his decision and when and if he becomes
> ready and can sort out his feelings, you will hear from him.
>
> Be prepared that you will most likely not hear from him at this time.
> I assume that the sharing of pictures with me will go a long way in
> repairing your relationship. Just food for thought.
{The following text from Laura and previously from me was also not in my original final reply because of my deletion. It is added to show the cordial tone of the correspondence to that point.}
>>> I love Andrew more then anything in this world, and I want to do this for him.
>>> I feel like this little project of mine could eventually facilitate the opening
>>> of communication between you two someday and I do hope that is the case. It makes
>>> my heart very heavy there has been a rift between you, especially since I no longer
>>> have my own mom.
>>
>> Once more Laura, you do not *need* to do anything to "facilitate the opening of communication
>> between [us] two someday". Please keep in mind that *I* am not refusing to communicate with Andy.
>> To demonstrate that to you - and to give Andy another opportunity to write to me himself -
>> I am sending him an email at the same time as this goes out to you.
>>
>> Especially since your mother is no longer alive, I definitely understand your desire to see
>> an amiable relationship between me and Andy - I would like now, and have always wanted that also.
>> As I wrote in my closing sentence to Andy in the email of 10/29/2001 (forwarded separately):
>> "Hopefully you will do so and we can engage in some meaningful dialog - one that will increase
>> our understanding of each other and regrow some respect on both sides." He never responded.......
>> Maybe he will now, since I am specifically requesting (again) that he do so.
>>
>>> I pray that in time, things will get better for you two, but I promised to not meddle.
>>
>> Laura, it is not meddling to want to assist someone for whom you care deeply (and when
>> s/he returns that level of affection) to have a happier life. But it is the person hirself
>> who must make the choices and take the actions that are in hir best interest, when viewed
>> with wide perspective and long range - and in turn, bear responsibility for those actions
>> that were taken without this proviso and the results of which are not beneficial.
>>
>>> It would mean a great deal to me if you could find the time to search out some pictures
>>> and scan them for me.
>>
>> For your curiosity, I am including a scan of the photo that is still on the piano where it
>> has been for many years (as another photo of Ed and Andy still in view in the living room).
>> It is of Andy when he was about 6 months old (unfortunately, I failed to put the date on the back
>> of this one), part of a set of photos taken by some studio that was offering some special
>> in conjunction with an offer to get "your beautiful baby into advertising". I thought Andy
>> was such a beautiful baby, but in this first formal sitting he was not particularly happy
>> (nor particularly photogenic to some others, apparently). He had also the day before scratched
>> his face just below his R eye with his fingernail, but I had this appointment so I kept it,
>> scratch and all. (I remember having great difficulty trimming his nails afterwards by myself -
>> he didn't like the procedure at all.)
>>
>>> I have some recent ones of Andrew if you would like them as well.
>>> Hope to hear from you again soon,
>>
>> A recent photo of Andy would be nice; the last I have is one Ed sent back in 2001 with him,
>> Nicky and Sleepy. I did see one of him online from ~2 years ago from the Masonic Lodge
>> in Casa Grande. Unfortunately he does not include one of himself in his LinkedIn public profile -
>> something he might consider changing.
>>
>> You are hearing from me and by all means, continue to correspond with me as you find it benefits
>> you personally. You can also read what I have written publicly on various subjects of a physical,
>> emotional and philosophical nature, and respond at those forums if you are inclined to do so.
>>
>> **Kitty
There is an email from Andy in my Inbox. I have not looked at it - the
discomfort accompanying reading and responding to this message has been
enough for me for a few days. When I have had some restful sleep I will
likely feel more prepared for reading what I expect - from my
impressions via your various statements, mostly in this current email -
is very much like the email he sent in October 2002. I am just not ready
for seeing that now. If my negative expectations turn out to be
unwarranted, that will be a pleasant surprise, but I am truly doubtful
as I write this.
Later: I have now looked at the email myself, after Paul read it and
assured me that the message from Andy did not in content repeat that of
October 2002. I see that Andy, at least at this time, wants only the
photographs from me and nothing more. Andy's "plate" is not the only one
that "is full"; my time is precious to me also and I will not spend the
time under the present circumstances to select, make image files and
electronically send them to you or him. The photographs are available
under the arrangements I have stated here above.
> Again, any pictures would be wonderful.
Please email me a couple days before you would want to come here to make
your photo borrowing selections. Early afternoon or in the evening after
7 would be acceptable. However, I and Paul are not here every day and
evening, so prior agreement on date and time is needed. I will now
expect to hear from you regarding possible dates and times.
**Kitty
PS Great pain and considerable time has been put into this message in
the attempt to remove any miscommunication of my meanings - to remove
potential for you to misinterpret my statements. Paul has assisted me in
doing this so that what I say is not taken as further evidence of the
already distorted view that apparently you have of me now, along with
Andy and Ed.
> Thanks so much,
>
> Laura
The message below is the one I referred to in Kitty Reflects of 02/02/2012 when providing the text of the message I sent directly to Andy after his above.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Regarding Andy's Message
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:51:37 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Organization: MoreLife
To: Laura Haddan
CC: Andrew Raastad, Ed Raastad
Laura,
The message from Andy of 12/21/2007 01:40 PM (which I only opened this
morning) is something I had not expected - it is more extreme than
anything I have ever seen directed to me or anyone I personally know.
(Paul too has never seen anything in anyway so hatred filled directed to
him or anyone he knows at any time in his near 70 years. We both thought
we had lots of experience, but this is a new one.) In addition to the
enormous amount/degree of hatred being vented, there are so many bizarre
statements included that have no bearing in fact; like "quit her career
at Motorola just shy of retiring, thus forfeiting her retirement", being
just one simple example. (I received my full vested interest in my
pension and all my 401-k; I lost no money, but only continuing health
service coverage.)
Before reading Andy's message I had formulated last night in my mind
(and discussed with Paul) a message based on the message Subject only,
"We only asked for photos..." It was to make it clear that you need not
have any contact with me whatsoever when coming here to the house to
select *for yourself* (a definite advantage for you, as I see it) the
photos you wished for your memento for Andy. Instead of entering the
house, you could look at the photo albums and remove those pictures you
wished to borrow while on the front porch or even in your vehicle in the
driveway. I would at no time come into your presence; all contact would
be with Paul who would not engage you in any conversation. You would be
expected to mark those pages where you had removed photos (post-its
would do well) and then return the albums to Paul. When you completed
the copying process (I think 7 days adequate time), I would expect that
you would return the photos. It would not be necessary for you to place
them back in the albums; I would do that myself so that you need not
spend any additional time at this location. It was also my intention to
make it clear that this selection of photos could be done with Andy in
your company or by him alone if you both preferred, again with no
contact visually or audibly with me.
I have no emotional reaction to reading the message from Andy other than
detached concern for someone who is obviously enormously hatred filled
towards the person he is writing. The writer of this email is not
someone I know; the email is like something a psychiatric patient might
write, a patient I might have had when a nurse or if still a practicing
one. (Psych was always my favorite nursing field - I took pleasure and
pride when I was able to help individuals effectively deal with
reality.) If you have not already, I truly hope that you will strongly
urge Andy to work with a reputably effective cognitive behavioral
therapist, and do so very soon.
**Kitty
 |
 |