I am confounded as to the Weekly'sassertion that I have listed two different dates for my birth. I was born once . . . on August 26, 1946 . . . and have never claimed any other date. If the Weekly has a document which indicates an August 8 date, I would certainly like to see it [5]. But I cannot, for the life of me, understand what the point is . . . except a feable attempt to bolster the Weekly's attack on my integrity.

The Weekly also claims that I "helped found . . . the National Council of Business Advisors" in the mid-1980's, "at the head of which she placed Eddie." I had nothing to do with founding that organization (although I would have been proud to!). The National Council was composed of CEOs of major corporations, including members of President Reagan's kitchen cabinet. Eddie was asked by them to be its president. They advised the White House on various business issues. End of story. I am not sure what Moxley's point is about the Council, but his facts are totally inaccurate [6].

In pursuit of their attempt to smear my character, Moxley and the Weeklynote that my marriage to Eddie occurred only two months after my divorce from my first husband. The implication is obvious. The fact is, I had been separated from my first husband for more than a year when I met Eddie, who, until then, was merely a acquaintance at Little League games. It was yet another year before Eddie and I were married. Moxley's innuendo concerning my moral character has created more pain than he will ever know. It is embarrasing to have to defend my honor publicly because of his vulgar insinuation [7].

The pettiness of the Weekly's attack is beyond understanding. After earning my doctorate, Moxley claims I began "insisting that people call [me] doctor." I not only do not get the point of this absurd statement, but it, like so much else in Moxley's mind, simply is untrue.

However, the remaining accusations and conclusions proffered by Moxley are not petty. They are vile and vicious. He asserts that I was "understandably mum" about my "close ties" with Steven Wagner, a "married but closeted homosexual who was later arrested and conviced of embezzling almost $4 million" from the Newport Mesa School District, and that Eddie and I moved "rent-free" into the Wagner's Santa Ana home.

The facts: We moved to Santa Ana so that I could run for the Assembly. We had two weeks to find a home. Driving through Santa Ana we spotted a lovely home with a "for rent" sign in the yard. The home was vacant. The next door neighbors had a key, showed us the home, and gave to us the phone number of the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Steven Wagner. We had never met them before the day we agreed to rent their home [8]. They were not and have never been friends. They were landlords and we paid monthly rent [9]. Later that year, we, like the general public, learned about Steven Wagner's embezzelment in the newspapers. Several months after I lost the election, we moved.

Moxley concludes that we purchased our current home "thanks to the profits from one of Eddie's most suspicious business moves" and "he began searching the country for wealthy individuals. He called them his 'big accounts.'" What this "suspicious business move" was Moxley does not mention. Nor does he note that when Eddie testifies about "big accounts," he was not talking about wealthy individuals, but large insurance agencies with which to do volume business.

Perhaps the most egregious and vulgar aspect to the Weekly's attack are the allegations about my husband and his business associate, Lucinda Herdman. Lucinda and Eddie have worked together for a number of years, often traveling together on business, as Eddie had done with other employees. The Weekly claims I was suspicious of Lucinda and launched "a freelance investigation into Herdman" through the "Republican-run Orange County district attorney's office." The inference and innuendos are obvious. Again, the facts: I did not do an "investigation." I made an inquiry on behalf of Lucinda, at her request, due to circumstances in a nasty child custody case with her former husband [10]. The circumstances regarding Lucinda's personal matters are not Moxley's or anyone else's business. Of course, in keeping with the Weekly's style of journalism which knows no bounds of privacy or decency, Moxley calls Eddie's sexual impotency a "bizarre assertion" and then notes that Lucinda remains Eddie's "business associate and travel companion." Again, the inference is obvious [11].

What Moxley does not mention is that Eddie's health problems were sustained as the result of activities in the Air Force in late 1963 which caused him to be retired with 100% medical disability [12]. Using cortisone for nearly forty years to enable him to breathe freely have had other side effects, including the one mentioned so crassly by Mr. Moxley. Medical records, both military and civilian, verify Eddie's medical conditions, although his opponents in court laughed and jeered at Eddie when he returned to court after having been hospitalized for emergency treatment to ease his breathing difficulty during the trial.

Moxley claims "it is certain that Herdman secretly accepted a job as vice president of Eddie's company for $125,000." Lucinda's employment was not a secret to anyone [13] and, contrary to what Moxley implies, Lucinda was working for Eddie long before her mother's death. In fact, Lucinda's mother assisted Lucinda in the office. Nor was Lucinda's salary a "secret." Unlike most of us whose salary is not public information, Lucinda's salary was, in fact, very public as part of the court record in the child custody case, which she won.

« Previous Page
Next Page »