It was Daddy’s dirty little secret that he was having sex with his daughter, and it should have stayed that way, a New York judge ruled in ordering disgraced hedge-funder David Bruce McMahan a nominal $1 award against his ex-wife for dishing to a newspaper about the alleged incest.That's how the article starts out. Many people reading this were probably thinking of a father grooming and forcing himself on his minor daughter. But keep reading.
Also, notice that he "won" this civil case but essentially got nothing but more publicity, which he obviously didn't want.
McMahan, CEO of McMahan Securities Co. LP, sued his fifth wife, Elena McMahan, in 2007 for breaking a confidentiality clause in their divorce agreement.He did not raise his genetic daughter. So there may have been a Genetic Sexual Attraction situation going on, which is possible whether or not there was sex. However, notice the word "alleged." There is no confirmation in the news that this relationship was consanguinamorous. On the one hand, all kind of allegations are made in divorces, and on the other hand, maybe something did go on and it prompted the divorce.
McMahan says he lost more than $9 million in fees after news broke of the alleged affair with his long-lost daughter, Linda Hodge.
In 1990, Linda reunited with him. Eight years later, the then-29-year-old allegedly started having sex with her married 63-year-old father, according to court papers.So, she was 21 when she reunited with her genetic father. This is how many GSA situations begin. If they were mutually attracted, it is noteworthy that they held off for eight years. Quite often, holding off does not diminish GSA. There have been people who've fought it for decades, and some of them stop fighting it and then wonder why they fought it after they settle in to a relationship.
A jury found the money manager had “not sustained any damages,” but Westchester Judge Terry Jane Ruderman ruled in a decision released Tuesday that Elena violated the confidentiality clause and should pay her ex the buck for the breach.It's interesting that the jury found that he hadn't been damaged by the allegations. That means either:
1) he had nothing to lose
2) that no loss could be proven (as in a drop in income)
3) the jury doesn't think being accused of consanguineous sex is damaging
4) the jury thinks he's a creep and didn't want to reward him even though they legally should have.
Number 3 would be a good sign, but perhaps it was number 4, which is the worst option of the four.
The judge also set a hearing to determine how much Elena should give McMahan to cover his legal fees.Now that could cost her a pretty penny. Hopefully, justice will prevail.
It used to be that women accused of being "loose" and people accused of being "homosexual" could sue for slander, libel, or defamation, partly because unmarried sex and gay sex used to be criminalized in many places and "accusing" someone of these things was considered insulting them. In US criminal cases, the standard is supposed to be a unanimous jury decision of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the standards are much lower in civil cases; lawsuits are supposed to be decided on the preponderance of the evidence. So, someone could very well be closeted and successfully sue because the person who'd "accused" them of being gay had no actual proof. The risk, though, for the person suing was not only bad publicity, but the risk that they would be outed.
There's more than one actor who has been in popular television series who I know of being reunited with a long-lost genetic daughter and whose subsequent activity and circumstances fit in with a GSA-leading-to-consanguinamory situation. But these actors have not confirmed that, no doubt because their careers would be at risk and they could face prosecution.