Saturday, March 27, 2010

Father of the Year Front Runner


I believe that we have a front runner candidate for Father of the Year. I mean, it's really going to be hard to top a guy who takes funds that were donated to his only surviving son (after the rest of his family, his girlfriend and two other children, were killed in a house fire) and spends all of the money within three months on such expenditures as hookers. Um, wait. What now?

Correct. Meet Tubal Eduardo.

Mr. Eduardo experienced an unbelievable tragedy on March 12, 2007, when his girlfriend, Heather Marchie and two of his three children, Tubal Jr., 5, and Angelina, 4, were killed in a fire in the home that they shared with Mr. Eduardo and with his third child, a one Noah (who appears to have been around 3-ish). Now, according to NJ.com, after said tragedy, there was a fundraiser that was arranged by the "...parent-teacher association at the Weston School". Apparently, one of the children who was killed in the fire had been attending that school prior to death. The funds raised were to go into an account for Noah and were to be used so that Noah would be able to have something for his future. It was a very nice gesture, really.


But what was not so nice of a gesture was this alleged scumbag allegedly siphoning the funds for his own personal use. According to WCBS-TV, there was $38,000 raised for little Noah. As of the filing of court papers for this unimaginable act, there was $114.27 left in that account. Hmm. Seems to be a little short, doesn't it? Yep. It does. I wonder where it went?


Well, if you consult another article by the fine folks over there at NJ.com, you'll learn that allegedly some of the funds, "at least $7,107 went to First Professional Referral Services." Um, what's a professional referral service? "I believe it’s an escort service," said a one Detective Michael Schutta in court. Oohhh. I see. (Referral service? What are they referring people to? Free clinics? Penicillin, perhaps?) I wonder what kind of hookers these were? I mean, were they regular, couple hundred bucks an hour, hookers? Or were they like Eliot Spitzer's whores who could run thousands of dollars? It's hard to say which one would be better if you had to choose. The whole idea is completely reprehensible.

So, let me get this straight. This guy loses his girlfriend and two of his kids in a fire. He and his little baby son survive. The kind, kind people at his deceased child's elementary school hold a fundraiser for the surviving child. They raise 38 grand. (They do allot 5 grand for the father, by the way.) And this guy takes the money and buys hookers with it? Are you kidding me?! How does one excuse that sort of behavior?

I don't know how "one" excuses it, but I know how his defense attorney is excusing it and it is absolutely despicable. According to a one seemingly horrible individual, a one defense lawyer Maureen O'Reilly, "...her client had just endured a tragedy. " Huh. When my dad died, I considered that to be a tragedy. I didn't siphon money from a (non-existent) fund and go get myself a bunch of hookers. I mean, I was pretty overwrought at the time, but not money-stealing, hooker-hiring overwrought, you know?

This awful human being also makes sure that we understand that after the fire, "Eduardo had nothing" and that"A good part of his family was gone." Yeah, I understand that. Get to the part where it's OK to steal from your son in order to buy yourself some hookers. Get to that part. "Mr. Eduardo used the funds in order to live," she said. Among the purchases was an 8-year-old car. "I hardly believe that's living the high life." That's not the part I was expecting.


I don't give a crap as to whether he purchased an 8-year old car or an 8-year old child! (He had just lost almost his whole family, don't forget. Child purchasing, while wrong, might have seemed more warranted.) The point is that it wasn't his money! What part of that don't you understand, you soul-less, reptilian, defense attorney, you?!

Aside from the hooker funding, there were also "$14,346.75 in cash withdrawals, and $2,472.22 for food, gas and lodging." That "food, gas and lodging" I'm assuming is hooker related. I'm wondering if the whole "He bought an 8-year old car" defense is what explains the nearly fifteen grand in cash withdrawals. Do we next get to hear about how stupid he was that he paid that much for an 8-year old car? I can't imagine that we will (and I pray to God that we don't).

It would appear that all that this scumbag can get is a five year jail sentence if he's found guilty. Granted, anything can happen (innocent until proven guilty, remember!). But if he's found guilty, it's up to five years in jail. That seems like an awfully short period of time for someone who was stealing from his little boy who had survived a fire that killed the majority of his family. It seems like not quite long enough. Definitely the front runner for Father of the Year. Definitely.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

2 comments:

Mark said...

Defense attorneys are the kind of people who would argue for leniency for the Menendez brothers because they are orphans. I understand that the nature of our system dictates that we have people who do that job, just like nature dictates that we have maggots to break down down dead matter so that it can rejoin the Circle of Life™, but that doesn't mean I want to watch either of them work or have them at my dinner party. Reptilian, indeed.

As for the "dad," maybe five years in the slammer will be enough, especially if he's left in the general population. It's my understanding that even among the rapists and killers, guys who have done children wrong are less than popular. I know it sounds a little perverse to hope that one more family member is taken from this boy after all he has been through, but I just don't see a scenario in which "dad" is going to set up this kid for success from here on out.

Mare said...

Ah, yes. The ol' "Yes, they killed them, but that doesn't mean they're not orphans and that you shouldn't feel sorry for them and, most importantly, find them innocent" defense.

I have a friend who is a divorce attorney. He used to be a defense attorney until he realized that he just could not stoop that low and still live with himself every day. That's the part I don't get. The whole livin' with yourself part.

And I can't see the "dad" being any sort of positive influence or guiding light in this kid's future either. Let's fabricate an egregious hypothetical situation here and ask what if he really didn't understand that the money was supposed to be ONLY for the kid and NOT for his own hookers. Let's say he really didn't get that part of the whole deal. Is someone that dense and with so little functioning gray matter really going to be able to raise a child to do anything other than emulate the parent? I highly doubt it.

I, too, am hoping the "dad" finds his soul mate in prison.

~ M