Chapter 10 - The District Attorney
I was not the complainant in the way television makes it seem.
Rachel explained:
“Once potential forged documents and false evidence are referred, prosecutors decide independently.”
“Can I tell them I don’t want charges?”
“You can express views. They are not bound.”
“Do I want charges?”
“That is not a legal question.”
I met Assistant District Attorney Laura Chen.
She was careful.
“We are evaluating attempted obtaining property by false pretenses, forgery, and related document offenses. I am not promising charges.”
“What about Michelle?”
“She cooperated.”
“Lana?”
“Currently we have no evidence she created or knowingly used false invoices.”
“Hera?”
“We’re evaluating.”
“Does the bucket matter?”
“Separate domestic conduct. Unless it meets charging criteria, likely not part of financial case beyond context.”
Good.
No stacking every bad behavior into a criminal indictment.
Chen asked:
“Did Hera ever present you the false invoices as genuine?”
“No.”
“Did he demand money based on them before filing?”
“No.”
“Did he file them?”
“Some were attached in divorce response.”
“Under oath?”
“His financial declaration referenced them.”
She nodded.
That mattered.
Then:
“Did he forge your signature?”
“I didn’t do it.”
“Do you recognize the image source?”
“Yes.”
I identified old insurance form.
They would use forensic examiner.
Not my opinion alone.
Weeks passed.
Divorce moved.
I returned to work.
I was a procurement director for a medical technology company, which meant spreadsheets were more comforting than people.
Colleagues knew I was divorcing.
Nothing else.
Lana called once.
I did not answer.
She left voicemail:
“I need to know what Hera did with the rest of my money.”
Her money.
Interesting.
I called through Rachel.
Lana had records showing she gave Hera $9,000 cash eighteen months earlier to “hold for emergencies.”
He never told me.
Now she wondered whether he used it.
This was separate from $18k.
Could be unrelated.
We traced.
Hera deposited $8,500 into his personal account.
Three weeks later, transferred same approximate amount into our joint account.
Was that theft from Lana?
She had given him money to hold, not gift.
Potential debt between them.
Not my case.
But it showed pattern.
He moved money between family roles casually.
Yours.
Mine.
Mom’s.
Joint.
All blurred when convenient.
That pattern explained how he justified the $18k.
To him, if joint account was half his, he could use it.
If Michelle created invoices for “family labor,” they were real enough.
If house was mine, marriage made it partly his morally.
Rules became suggestions whenever they blocked what he wanted.
Then the trust accountant found something I did not expect.
Hera had actually paid $23,400 toward improvements over eight years.
Legitimate.
A custom closet.
Outdoor lighting.
Built-in bookshelf.
None preapproved by trustee.
But real.
I asked Rachel:
“Does he deserve reimbursement?”
She surprised me.
“Possibly some equitable consideration depending facts, though occupancy acknowledgment weighs against. We should not pretend he contributed nothing.”
That annoyed me.
Then I realized why it mattered.
If I wanted a fair ending, I could not use his fraud to erase genuine facts.
We separated real contributions from fake ones.
$23,400 actual.
$146,380 fabricated.
Ordinary living expenses excluded.
Hera had a possible argument over $23,400.
Not $183,000.
That distinction gave me credibility.
At mediation I offered to resolve his genuine improvement claim for $15,000 without admitting legal obligation, in exchange for complete waiver of property claims.
Hera refused.
He wanted $180,000.
Then $120,000.
Then $95,000.
Rachel said:
“He is negotiating against evidence.”
I said:
May you like
“He is negotiating against his ego.”
We went to hearing.
