>DOUGH
TYB
>>18857922 lb
>BREAKING: The U.S. Secret Service is investigating how an intruder was able to walk into National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan's home in Washington, D.C., in the middle of the night - Semafor
>>18858413 lb
Sullivan's wife works for fukn Garland.
Maggie Goodlander
Home » Resources » Maggie Goodlander
Maggie Goodlander
Maggie Goodlander is currently Counsel to Attorney General Merrick Garland.Prior to joining the U.S. Department of Justice, Maggie taught constitutional law and administrative law at the UNH School of Law.
Maggie has spent much of the past decade working in legal and policy positions in each branch of the United States government and in both houses of Congress. She served as a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, as a senior advisor to United States Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, and as counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment and Senate trial of President Donald Trump.
Born and raised in Nashua, Maggie is a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy Reserve and serves on the board of directors of New Hampshire Legal Assistance and the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire. She is a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School.
https://nhwomensfoundation.org/staff-item/maggie-goodlander/
https://www.fosters.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/23/portsmouths-jake-sullivan-unh-picked-bidens-national-security-adviser/6391128002/
>Maggie Goodlander is currently Counsel to Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Margaret Goodlander Wedding, Husband And 10 Facts To Know
Post author
By Linda Debrah
Post date
February 28, 2022
Margaret Goodlander is popularly known as Jake Sullivan’s wife. She is a lawyer and an advisor. Her husband Jake, is a government official working as a National Security Advisor to the administration of Elected President Joe Biden.
Margaret’s full name is Margaret Maggie Goodlander and likes to be called Maggie. She teaches civil law and administrative law at the UNH Law School. Also, she is an advisor for national security and foreign affairs to Senator Joseph Lieberman. Previously, she served as Senior Speech Writer for Senator Lieberman. She has spent most of the last decade serving in legal and legislative positions in every department of the U.S. government.
Quick Facts: Margaret Goodlander Wedding, Husband And 10 Facts To Know
Name Margaret Goodlander
Gender Female
Height 5 feet 5 inches
Weight 57 kg
Nationality American
Profession Lawyer, Advisor
Married/Single Married
Husband Jake Sullivan
Education Yale University
Instagram maggiegoodlander
Twitter @MagGoodlander
10 Facts On Margaret Goodlander
Margaret Goodlander is very private about her personal life. Although the Internet lacks information on her age and birthday, she appears to be in her late thirties.
She was born and raised in Nashua, New Hampshire, and is currently living in Portsmouth. The details regarding her family are not disclosed.
The successful lawyer graduated from Yale University with a bachelor of arts and earned her law degree from Yale Law School.
Margaret Goodlander married Jake Sullivan at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. The wedding service was attended by the great names of American politics and Hilary Clinton was one of them.
Despite being involved in American politics and law for a long time, she lacks a Wikipedia profile. Nevertheless, Margaret Goodlander is mentioned in her husband’s Wikipedia bio.
Jake Suvillan’s wife, Margaret Goodlander, is also a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy Reserve.
As of 2020, there is no news of Jake and Margaret Goodlander having children.
The net worth of Margaret Goodlander has not been disclosed but her husband has a net worth of approximately $5 million.
The well-known lawyer and advisor are currently writing a biography on Daniel Webster.
Margaret is not much of a social media user. She has kept her Instagram account private with 649 followers. She has a Twitter account with 715 followers.
Bitch lobbying for the Big Steal
podcast that's been shoahed
Podcast
Elections in a Crisis
Monday, April 20, 2020
SHARE
Voting Stickers
Adjunct Professor Maggie Goodlander discusses how COVID-19 will impact elections and steps that are being taken to expand absentee voting and voting by mail. Produced and Hosted by A. J. Kierstead
Maggie Goodlander is a lawyer and adjunct professor of constitutional & administrative law at UNH Law School. Over the past decade, she has served in legal and policy positions in each branch of the federal government. After graduating from Yale University in 2009, Maggie worked for four years in the United States Senate. She first served as advisor for foreign affairs and national security to Senator Joseph Lieberman and later as a senior advisor to Senator John McCain and was responsible for assisting with the drafting and legislative strategy for the Senate’s 2013 bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. Three years later, after graduating from Yale Law School, Maggie went on to serve as a law clerk to two federal judges: Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2016-2017) and Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court (2017-2018). She also served as counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and House Managers during the impeachment and Senate trial of President Donald Trump. Maggie maintains a robust pro bono practice in New Hampshire while also serving as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve.
Get an email when the latest episode releases!
UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law is now accepting applications for JD, Graduate Programs, and Online Professional Certificates at https://law.unh.edu
Legal topics include civil rights, elections, absentee voting, mail in voting, government emergency preparedness
Read the Transcript
A. J. Kierstead (Host):
Adjunct professor Maggie Goodlander joins me to discuss the impact of COVID-19 on upcoming elections. This is The Legal Impact presented by the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, now accepting applications for JD graduate programs and online professional certificates. Learn more and apply at law.unh.edu. Opinions discussed are solely the opinion of the faculty or hosts and do not constitute legal advice or necessarily represent the official views of the University of New Hampshire.
A. J. Kierstead (Host):
Maggie, with the recent COVID-19 crisis, we're in the midst of a presidential election cycle, which is raising many concerns over handling voting while promoting social distancing and stay at home orders. Has there been instances like this in the past where something like this has happened around election time?
Maggie Goodlander:
I think the short answer is no. There are very few things that election officials across this country agree on, but I think it's fair to say everyone agrees that this is a truly unprecedented moment for our country, including for this upcoming election. I think in history, the one example of Americans going to the polls during a pandemic was the 1918 flu pandemic. And there, the lessons that I think we can draw from that, it was obviously a very different scale in 1918. Women didn't even have the right to vote in the United States, so the electorate looked very different.
Maggie Goodlander:
But what we learned from what did happen in that midterm election was that voter turnout was very, very low when presented with the choice between their health and their life in some cases and the right to vote, many Americans had to make the difficult choice to keep their lives and health. So voter turnout was very low. And the other data point on that election is that a lot of people got sick because they did make the choice to go to the polls. So I think the upshot is we haven't seen anything quite like this and from the one example we have seen, there are some pretty important lessons to be drawn.
A. J. Kierstead (Host):
Bringing it to the present, Wisconsin actually held their primary a few weeks ago and raised national attention with it. How did they handle it?
Maggie Goodlander:
Wisconsin's April 7th election I think is really sort of an how-to guide both on the one hand of how to avoid having an election like that anywhere in the United States again. But also I think it really points the way for New Hampshire and other states as to what challenges we're going to have to face and really contend with in the weeks ahead. So what happened in Wisconsin, there was a dispute between the governor and the state legislature over the timing of the election. And ultimately it proceeded unlike other States that had delayed their elections by a couple of weeks and in some cases a couple of months. Wisconsin proceeded in the middle of the pandemic in part because there was no agreement between the branches of the state government.
Maggie Goodlander:
And I think what we saw on the ground, what were challenges both in the in-person voting that took place on the ground. In the city of Milwaukee, for instance, there were only five polling places open. 175 out of 180 polling places were closed. And that's for a simple reason that most poll workers in Milwaukee, and the same is true across the United States, the vast majority of poll workers are over the age of 60. I think it's 58% of the poll workers are over the age of 60 and 25% are over the age of 70. So this is a vulnerable group of people and the polling places simply couldn't stay open, so that's the in person piece.
Maggie Goodlander:
There was also an effort, a very, very valiant effort, which I think in some ways can be characterized as a success in Wisconsin to scale up dramatically the absentee voting that took place for the election. So much like New Hampshire, in Wisconsin, historically, elections have been almost entirely conducted by same-day in-person voting, so I think in the past Wisconsin's never had more than 10% of votes cast by absentee ballot. On April 7th, it looks like from the data we're seeing, somewhere between 70 and 80% of voters actually cast their ballot by absentee ballot, but there are just a whole host of challenges and difficulties that we saw play out in Wisconsin with respect to how those ballots were cast, which ballots were counted. But I think to the extent that there were real successes, it's really thanks to the incredible work of election administrators on the ground and also the National Guard, which was mobilized in Wisconsin to assist with the administration of the election.
A. J. Kierstead (Host):
Now, New Hampshire is already making plans for how they're going to handle the elections through the rest of the year. What are they looking at doing at this point?
Maggie Goodlander:
The very good news is that, as you say, New Hampshire has already started and hit the ground running. The secretary of state and the attorney general have issued some very promising guidance as a first step to make clear that New Hampshire voters will not have to choose between their health and their right to vote, and that any person in the state, any eligible voter in the state who wishes to vote by absentee ballot can do so by claiming a disability. So it's a little bit of, not an entirely intuitive interpretation of the term disability, but I think it does work and it's a great first step that the attorney general and the secretary of state have taken. But I think they'd be the first to say that there's just a lot more work that needs to be done, on the one hand, to scale up absentee voting in New Hampshire.
Maggie Goodlander:
I think in the last couple of elections it's been less than 5% of ballots cast by absentee, so there are a whole bunch of questions about how certain statutes that would otherwise sort of narrow or complicate the absentee balloting process should be applied, whether they need to be changed and also a whole bunch of work that'll have to be done logistically on the ground to be ready. And this all will have to happen in a very short amount of time. We have, I think as of today, 147 days until the September 8th primary, and we're less than 200 days away from the November 3rd general election.
A. J. Kierstead (Host):
Yeah. I mean this is something people don't usually keep in mind when they're figuring out reworking elections is if you're going to be switching to absentee ballot, online voting, all these other, other than in-person voting solutions is the funding, staffing, security for all these is a huge issue. And if you're going to dedicate more and more funding into these non in-person voting options, you're taking away from facilities that will be available or materials that may be available for in-person voting.
Maggie Goodlander:
Yeah. I think it's going to be a delicate balance to figure out how to plan for it. We're operating in the shadow of unprecedented and extraordinary uncertainty here. We don't know what the world will look like on September 8th, and we don't know what it will look like on November 3rd. If it looks anything like it did on, on April 7th, then we're going to have to have in place plans that will allow us to have close to 100% of voters vote by mail, vote absentee by mail, but still have, and I think Wisconsin does show that you still need, no matter what, that backstop of in-person voting.
Maggie Goodlander:
And it's been exciting to see in New Hampshire towns across the state who are attempting to carry out their local elections, municipal elections. The town of Conway has experimented with drive-through voting. We saw that in some places in Wisconsin and elsewhere around the country. So this is going to require the most extraordinary creativity from all parts of the state.
A. J. Kierstead (Host):
What sort of role would the federal government in these States restructuring how they handle these? Especially, it's not, when it comes to government, this is very quick timelines that need to be put in place.
Maggie Goodlander:
Yeah, so I think the federal government, there are three, at least three kind of basic ways in which the federal government's going to be really important between now and November 3rd. The first is on funding. So already the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which is the independent federal agency charged with election administration, has been responsible for giving out grants to states through a statute passed in 2002 called the Help America Vote Act. So there already was before the coronavirus pandemic a channel of federal funding that was coming into New Hampshire and other states. Last month with the passage of the CARES Act, Congress appropriated an additional $400 million to states specifically for COVID-related contingency planning and costs. So New Hampshire is eligible to receive a little over $3 million as part of that sort of fund through the CARES Act. But it's going to be, I think, important for Congress to continue to support states as they scale up. The costs are not insignificant, so funding is one.
Maggie Goodlander:
And the two others are related. The post office, the postal service, USPS is the most popular federal agency. I think I saw on a recent Pew poll. But it's also going to be a completely essential player in scaling up vote by mail for obvious reasons. But the postal service is almost out of money, and so Congress is going to have to act. We just simply can't hold an election without, in a pandemic scenario, without the post office, so that's going to be critical.
Maggie Goodlander:
And then the third way is related. I think we're going to see, because I would say probably over, between 45 and 50 states are going to be significantly scaling up. There are five states that already allow for universal voting by mail, but pretty much every other state in the country is going to be scaling up their vote by mail operations significantly over the next couple of months. And I think it's fair to say that we're going to see a range of supply chain issues that arise from the printing of envelopes, the printing of ballots. And so I think there could be a role for the federal government to play in ensuring that election administration supply chains are operating as they should be.
A. J. Kierstead (Host):
Do you have anything else that you'd like to put out there as a prediction for how things might happen or changes you might see happening as we get closer to November?
Maggie Goodlander:
Yeah. I think that my prediction is that we should, we need to be, and we'll have to be ready for anything, and this is going to require an all hands on deck kind of effort. I think the really good news and what keeps me feeling really positive about how things will develop for New Hampshire is that this is the state that's the home of the first in the nation primary and there is dedication on both sides of the aisle for keeping New Hampshire first in the nation. And so we've carried that responsibility, including most recently in February for the primary. Just a week after a very different kind of disaster in Iowa, New Hampshire really rose to the occasion.
Maggie Goodlander:
And so I think we should consider ourselves extremely lucky that February 11th didn't look anything like today looks. And the pandemic had not yet hit us in the way that it would in just a few weeks after that. And we should consider ourselves extremely lucky that that didn't happen and do everything that we possibly can to make sure that we're ready for both the elections that are coming up, statewide elections this fall.
A. J. Kierstead (Host):
Thanks for listening to The Legal Impact, presented by UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law. To help spread the word about the show, please be sure to subscribe and comment on your favorite podcast platform, including Apple Podcasts, Google Play, and Spotify
https://web.archive.org/web/20200723170049/https://law.unh.edu/blog/2020/04/elections-crisis
DHS plans largest operation to secure U.S. election against hacking
A 24/7 war room will operate from Election Day until local officials are confident in the results. It shows just how far DHS’s cybersecurity agency has come since 2016.
Julian Belilty casts his early vote in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. on Oct. 28. (Tom Brenner/Reuters)
Julian Belilty casts his early vote in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. on Oct. 28. (Tom Brenner/Reuters)
By
Joseph Marks
Oct. 30, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. UTC
The Department of Homeland Security’s cybersecurity division is mounting the largest operation to secure a U.S. election, aiming to prevent a repeat of Russia’s 2016 interference and to ward off new threats posed by Iran and China.
Follow the latest on Election 2020
On Election Day, DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency will launch a 24/7 virtual war room, to which election officials across the nation can dial in at any time to share notes about suspicious activity and work together to respond. The agency will also pass along classified information from intelligence agencies about efforts they detect from adversaries seeking to undermine the election and advise states on how to protect against such attacks.
“I anticipate possibly thousands of local election officials coming in to share information in real time, to coordinate, to track down what’s real and what’s not, separate fact from fiction on the ground,” said Matt Masterson, CISA’s senior cybersecurity adviser, who has helped lead election preparations. “We’ll be able to sort through what’s happening and identify: Is this a typical election event or is this something larger?”
AD
The operation will run for days or weeks until winners are clear in most races — and potentially until the election is formally certified in December. “We’ll remain stood up until the [election] community tells us, ‘Okay, we’re good, you can stand down,’ ” Masterson said.
The wide-ranging operation is the culmination of four years during which CISA has grown from a backwater agency that was largely unknown outside Washington to the main federal government liaison to a nationwide ecosystem of officials running the elections.
CISA’s growth is especially notable because it has happened despite an abiding lack of interest in election security from President Trump. He has held only one Cabinet-level meeting on the topic during his presidency and generally views discussion about Russian interference as threatening the legitimacy of his 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton, even though there’s no evidence actual votes were changed.
AD
CISA has been aggressively responding to interference attempts for weeks already. It helped states tackle a drumbeat of disinformation, including what officials said was an Iranian effort to intimidate voters in Florida and other states and a Russian scheme to hack Democratic and Republican Party officials.
As states brace for larger-scale interference attempts on Nov. 3 — including the possibility that hackers time may try to manipulate voter registration data or vote tallies, or otherwise prevent large numbers of people from casting ballots —CISA’s Northern Virginia headquarters will convene dozens of officials from DHS, intelligence agencies, political parties, social media companies and voting machine vendors to orchestrate how the government can respond.
If there are concerning signs of interference, teams of CISA employees stationed in different regions across the country stand ready to deploy to polling places or election offices to help assess what’s going on.
>DHS plans largest operation to secure U.S. election against hacking
All of these old articles under new light
The agency is also focused on tamping down unwarranted panic: It’s planning phone conferences with media every few hours to explain any interference it sees — and to put into context events that may raise suspicions but turn out to be more typical Election Day problems, such as malfunctioning voting machines, confusion about voter rolls and crashing elections office websites.
CISA ran similar operations during the 2018 midterm elections and on Super Tuesday during the presidential primaries, neither of which was affected by significant hacking activity from abroad. CISA Director Chris Krebs warned at the time, however, that Russia may be “keeping its powder dry” and described those elections as a “dress rehearsal for the big show” in 2020.
Chris Krebs, director of the DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington in 2019. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Chris Krebs, director of the DHS's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington in 2019. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Krebs and other officials have managed to talk candidly about those threats largely by flying beneath Trump’s radar, focusing on the nitty-gritty of securing voting machines and other election technology, and steering clear of broader questions about the U.S.-Russia relationship, current and former officials said.
AD
“The folks at CISA continue to just play it straight and call it as they see it,” said Suzanne Spaulding, who led a predecessor agency to CISA called the National Protection and Programs Directorate during the Obama administration. “Part of it is flying under the radar, which is unfortunate. You’d like to have a president out there reinforcing the messages CISA’s putting out. But the best they can do is try to get their message out to the key people who need to hear it.”
While the agency has been criticized for a slow learning curve about the peculiarities of election administration and for sometimes not providing threat information quickly enough, CISA has almost certainly helped the U.S. vote become more secure now than it was four years ago. It has sent staff to test the cybersecurity of election systems in hundreds of jurisdictions since 2016 and helped many states shift to more secure voting systems that include paper records for all votes and the capability to conduct rigorous post-election audits.
And the war room effort crystallizes just how far the agency has come since it firsttried to help election officials protect against cyberattacks in the last presidential election, amid early reports that Russia was responsible for hacking reams of documents from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee and was scanning state election website for vulnerabilities.
At the time, the Obama administration was hesitant to voice its concerns about election security publicly out of fear of undermining voter confidence, but DHS officials tried to quietly share cybersecurity tools with states and urge them to ensure voter rolls and election night reporting systems were as protected as possible.
They had only limited success. The agency faced skepticism from some state officials and outright hostility from others who feared a federal takeover of elections. Georgia’s top election official at the time, now-Gov. Brian Kemp (R), even erroneously accused DHS of hacking into his state’s election systems. A DHS inspector general later determined there was no hacking and that the Internet traffic Kemp cited likely came from state employees visiting DHS databases.
On Election Day in 2016, the agency managed a smaller-scale war room but was hampered by its lack of relationships with state and local officials.It didn’t have any direct contact with those officials that night and instead used staff at the Election Assistance Commission and the National Association of Secretaries of State as an intermediary,= said Neil Jenkins, a former DHS official who managed the operation.
AD
Tensions got worse when the outgoing Obama administration designated election systems as “critical infrastructure” in January 2017 — a designation that’s also used for the financial, health-care and energy sectors that makes it easier to give election officials security clearances and share secret intelligence information. State officials balked. They rejected the designation in a joint declaration, suggesting DHS was spreading unfounded rumors that the 2016 election result itself was corrupted by hackers.
Jenkins likened the early DHS relationship with states then as akin to exchanging business cards in the middle of a crisis when the two sides had no reason to trust each other.
“Trust doesn’t happen right away. It takes a couple years to build trust, and that’s what CISA has done now. They’re in a totally different place now because they had time to develop that relationship,” he said.
AD
That trust continued to build during the Trump administration after the president’s first DHS secretary, John Kelly, opted to retain the “critical infrastructure” label for election systems. It helped CISA burnish its image as a nonpartisan player and signaled that both a Republican and Democratic administration believed states needed to dramatically improve election cybersecurity. It was an especially notable move given the Trump administration’s commitment to overturning much of the Obama administration’s actions.
A drumbeat of new details about Russia’s 2016 operations that continued to trickle out via the media during the following years, and the release of the special counsel report by Robert S. Mueller III in 2019, also convinced many states to work collaboratively with the federal government.
“We realized that we were playing with a different animal,” West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner (R) said of the time frame between 2017 and 2018. “The federal government knew something we didn’t. That’s when the walls started to come down.”
>who would ever trust the DHS?!
>that's crazy
especially after they were busted hacking into state election systems
Disinherited Tamposi drops appeal
By Staff | Feb 26, 2011
CONCORD – Elizabeth Tamposi has dropped her challenge to a ruling that cut her off from her family’s fortune, court staff said, which makes her ongoing divorce case “like fighting over a carcass,” her former husband’s lawyer said Friday.
The Supreme Court upheld most of Tamposi’s divorce decree on Friday, but sent the case back to Hillsborough County Superior Court for reconsideration of the $50,000 annual alimony she was ordered to pay her ex-husband.
Theodore Goodlander, 67, of California, and Tamposi, 56, of Gilford, separated in 2006 after nearly 25 years of marriage, and Goodlander filed for divorce in 2007, citing irreconcilable differences.
They were a wealthy couple, and their divorce “was highly acrimonious and expensive,” Hillsborough County Probate Court Judge Gary Cassavechia wrote last year in a ruling that disinherited Tamposi from her family’s fortune.
Settling a dispute between Tamposi and her brothers over management of the family trusts, Cassavechia found that she had violated the terms of her father’s will and trust, and thus forfeited any right to benefit from it.
Cassavechia’s ruling was issued around the time the Supreme Court heard arguments in the divorce case, Goodlander’s lawyer, Charles Douglas III, said Friday.
While Tamposi appealed the probate ruling, fighting to keep her share of the family trusts, Goodlander argued at the Supreme Court that a portion of the Tamposi fortune was owed to him.
However, on Feb. 14, Tamposi notified Hillsborough County Probate Court that she had withdrawn her appeal, essentially accepting Cassavechia’s ruling, staff there said Friday.
“Had the Probate Court ruling gone in her favor, this would have had a bigger impact,” Douglas said of the ruling Friday. “Because she was stripped from Sam’s trust, it’s like fighting over a carcass. There’s not much left in terms of assets.”
Douglas said he believes Tamposi withdrew the appeal so that any remaining assets in her trust could be transferred to her children in advance of a change in federal estate tax laws.
“She chose to withdraw the appeal,” Douglas said. “It was in the interests of her family to get it over with ASAP because of a change in the estate tax.”
Tamposi’s lawyer, William Brennan, couldn’t be reached for comment Friday.
Goodlander had appealed Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Diane Nicolosi’s 2009 decision on the couple’s divorce, arguing he should have received a greater share.
Goodlander also argued Nicolosi shouldn’t have allowed the couple’s adult children to get involved in the divorce case, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument and most of his other claims in its ruling Friday.
Both Goodlander and Tamposi were millionaires when they married, but neither has worked for a long time, court records show.
Goodlander owned a computer company, Cab Tech, and later Storage Computer Corp. and Kristiania Corp., a real-estate holding company.
Tamposi worked in the Tamposi family real estate empire until 1989, when she left to serve as assistant secretary of state for consular affairs in Washington, D.C. She left that post in 1992, forced to resign as a result of a scandal involving politically motivated searches of passport records.
“It is undisputed that Goodlander has generated no steady income since 2003 and that Tamposi has not been steadily employed since 1992,” the Supreme Court’s ruling states.
Goodlander and Tamposi have three children, ages 26, 23 and 19. In the course of their divorce, Nicolosi “found that both Betty and Ted had taken liberties with assets of their children,” Cassavechia wrote.
Tamposi was ordered to pay back $320,000 into their children’s trust fund and to take personal responsibility for $765,342 in debt as part of the final divorce decree.