Thursday, December 12, 2013

Too. Much. Info.

From the NY Post:

The ex-wife of Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa discovered he was a devil of a husband when she listened in to X-rated cell phone voicemails to him from his alleged mistress, Queens Borough President-elect Melinda Katz, her attorney said Wednesday.

Mary, Sliwa’s third ex-wife, was the Guardian Angels’ executive director during her marriage to the law-and-order legend.

She had her husband’s voicemail password so that she could handle calls for the organization, Siegert said in court.

Mary “was also privy to telephone messages from Melinda Katz to Curtis Sliwa that were coming in constantly over long periods of time,” he told Magistrate Margaret Morgan.

“They deny any relationship at all prior to 2011. That’s not true,” Siegert said.

Siegert promised that emails and voice recordings from Katz to Sliwa spanning from December 2009 to July 2010 will come out in a separate action filed by Mary Sliwa in Manhattan Supreme Court last May.

That suit documents 13 instances during Mary and Curtis’ marriage when her husband allegedly abandoned his marital bed and engaged in “sexual intercourse” with Katz, the court papers claim.

Sliwa separated from Mary and moved in with Katz in the spring of 2011.

Siegert gave a sneak-peak into the evidence: “It was sex, it was money. It was her being a mistress. It was him calling at 2 a.m,” he said.

The voicemails allegedly match descriptions of infidelity in the Manhattan Supreme Court suit. The first romp allegedly took place at Katz’s Forest Hills home on Feb. 25, 2010.

The illicit lovers allegedly continued meeting at the Queens home where the politician grew up, with Sliwa fibbing to his wife on March 31, 2010 that “he wasn’t feeling well and was dehydrated” and would sleep at his Empire State Building office.

Then on June 5, 2010, Sliwa allegedly claimed he “would be going to the big fight night at Yankee Stadium” even though he didn’t come home until 3:30am, according to the suit.

19 comments:

Gary the Agnostic said...

And she still has four full years as Borough President in front of her.

Anonymous said...

One or both just perjured themselves

Anonymous said...

A man cheating on his wife....what's so new about this?

Anonymous said...

What idiots voted in this liar? How can we get her thrown out for character defects?

Seriously. Is there anything we can do at a grass roots level to get this woman out of office as soon as possible? Protests? Petitions?

Anonymous said...

When they lie to their wives, they also lie to their mistresses. We don't know if he told Katz that he and his wife were separated. Did someone say, "One's a liar and the other swears to it."

Anonymous said...

"Is there anything we can do at a grass roots level to get this woman out of office as soon as possible?"

Wait four years. She is the mayor in waiting. De Blasio will be an utter failure and Katz is probably already planning her ascension to Gracie mansion. She just had to get this Sliwa ugliness behind her. In a year or so Curtis will be gone from her home and bed and Katz will be listing to the right side of the political aisle and when 2017 rolls around she will be positioned to be the Anti-de Blasio. A middle of the road democrat form an outer borough who will trade on her gender to be the first woman mayor of NYC. God help us.

Anonymous said...

"Seriously. Is there anything we can do at a grass roots level to get this woman out of office as soon as possible? Protests? Petitions?"

No, unless you have a lot of money.

Anonymous said...

Curtis is the reason I no longer watch Inside City Hall. Michael Nitzky, are you reading this?

The Bard to Katz said...

"If thou dost marry, I’ll give thee this plague for thy dowry. Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny. GET THEE TO A NUNNERY, go. Farewell. Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go, and quickly too. Farewell." - Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1

Anonymous said...

crappy- i agree with your title of the article... TOO MUCH INFO! their divorce is THEIR business NOT ours!

Anonymous said...

Do you think he wore his red beret when they did the nasty?

Anonymous said...

Remember that before this city was smart enough to elect Giuliani so we could finally crack down on crime, Sliwa was out there on the streets on his own protecting people.

Anonymous said...

Not interested in divorces or anyone's sex life except mine. But I do care about children who are harmed. Shame on them both.

Anonymous said...

Remember that before this city was smart enough to elect Giuliani so we could finally crack down on crime, Sliwa was out there on the streets on his own protecting people.

And he's been rewarded for that ten-fold. Do you think he would have ever gotten a radio show if it wasn't for his history as a crime fighter? He made plenty of money in radio, which is why he originally agreed to the monthly child support payments to wife #3. Since then, his salary was finally cut.

Anonymous said...

Sure, he made money. Good. In America we provide money in exchange for things the market wants. Guess that includes his show.

Anonymous said...

Is that Sliwa without the stupid hat on? I thought it was surgically attached

Anonymous said...

Now you know why he wears the hat.

Anonymous said...

That guardian angel get up that he still wears is really quite embarassing. He should ditch it. When he was younger it did not seem so ridiculous. Now, it seems quite SILLY.

Yes, the divorce is personal. Her character though comes into play in her role as Borough President. She appears to lack the type of character that you want in a politician that is going to run your borough.

They are public figures. Let's face it that makes their personal fair game. Did they really believe that their sordid personal business would not come back to bite them in the butt.

Anonymous said...

She's elected and Salem Radio likes having some local radio content, and he's it. So they got a steady income. Do you think they care about what the public thinks?