On May 14, 2010, during the telephone hearing, Respondent's attorney Terence Denefe alleged, not under oath, that Respondent has not been given access to Plaintiff's finances through discovery.   That is not a true statement.  She not only knows of their shared property, such as homes, she has lived in them.  She has driven their cars, watched their TVs, and knows every belonging he has, especially clothing.

Respondent has had full access to all information about Plaintiff's finances, as his wife and accountant.  She has ample skills to interpret such information, as a college graduate with a Masters in Business Administration (MBA).  As is the case in many, if not most marriages, the wife has more knowledge of her husband's property and accounts than he has.

Respondent has in her possession all data regarding Plaintiff's financial status, including Discovery documents from a previous divorce process, cancelled by a DC Judge in February 2009.  Not much has changed since that documentation. All account numbers are the same.

Plaintiff has not been served with any request for specifics of the discovery process, above and beyond what the Respondent can see for herself.  All papers and accounting systems have been  open to her inspection.  If Respondent and her attorney do not share enough information, that is not the responsibility nor fault of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff and Respondent live in the same condo in Washington DC.  Respondent checks the mail before the Plaintiff has the opportunity.  If it is possible that the Respondent has any papers in her possession, addressed to the Plaintiff, including requests for discovery details, the Court is asked to order her to promptly give those to the Plaintiff.