Nikki Araguz, Jewel Thief Extraordinaire

Views: 5639
Nikki and her husband Thomas

I’ve largely stayed out of the ruckus over the whole “Nikki’s a jewel thief” meme going on because it had little to do with the trans community. However, it’s gotten to the point where I think that bias has come into play. As many of you know, Nikki just spent 15 days in jail and was just given 50 additional days in jail for her role in the supposed theft of a watch.

The facts of the case are that Nikki and a lady went out drinking. Then, depending on who you believe, the drunk lady traded watches with Nikki or, if you believe the drunk lady,  Nikki took this lady out drinking as part of a plot to secretly drug her so that Nikki could then steal her watch… and in a stoke of genius, Nikki replaced the stolen watch her old watch.

My opinion is that the lady she was out drinking with made a drunk-trade (it happens). Under Texas law, you have 72 hours to back out of a contract (verbal or written) and from what I can tell, the drunk-trade lady wanted to back out of the trade within the 72 hour time limit. However, by then the watch had already disappeared.

So, instead of taking this to some small-claims court like any normal person would, the drunk-trade lady begins to ham it up in the media. She actually claimed to be the victim of a nefarious plot wherein she was suspiciously drugged and the jewel thief’s (Nikki) best and brightest idea was to replace the stolen watch with the thief’s own watch. The media pounced on the story without question and MANY people actually thought that this was the best, most probable explanation for what happened that night.

I suspect that this wouldn’t have turned into a 3-ring circus had the drunk-trade lady made a trade with just some random person that night and I’m sure that Nikki isn’t the first person to show up to court late. In the end, I think Nikki was guilty of not knowing the 72 hour rule, for being late to court, for not having the cash to pay for a criminal defense in this case and therefore having to instead accept a plea deal…  that’s all.

Is spending the better part of a quarter of a year in jail plus paying the ‘victim’ several thousand in restitution a reasonable outcome in this case? I’m thinking no… I can’t help but notice that there seems to be this sense that Nikki should pay for something… that she’s guilty of something and that it’s good that she’s finally getting her comeuppance. That collective feeling is called bias.

I mean, if people are really going to buy the  “drunk-trade lady is a victim of a nefarious plot” scenario as being the most reasonable explanation to what happened, then that seems (at least to me) to be a clear-cut suspension of critical thinking due to bias. I’m not sure that Nikki has ever had any real shot at not being automatically seen as some demon hell-spawn who eats mewing kittens for breakfast. Where did that bias come from? Well, these ideas were manufactured through the hard work of print and television media.

From August 2010:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-x0E5QFRN8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK_lUPdM2P8

Do you think that media treatment just impacts Nikki? Well, you’d be wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiCuLP1xXTk 

Therefore, I wanted to make a quick post and simply encourage people to use their critical thinking. She wasn’t found guilty; she has no money, can’t pay for a criminal defense and took a plea deal. Did any evidence ever arise supporting the idea that the drunk-trade lady was drugged? Nope. Was the reaction of the judge normal for folks who turn up late to court? I don’t know; I’ve never been late to any courtroom… but I’m betting that being late isn’t a rare occurrence. How common is it to know about the 72 hour rule? I don’t know… Did you know about the 72 hour rule?

Here’s an example of the way most of my conversations go when I talk about Nikki:

Random Person: It’s only right! This “woman” lied to her husband about being born a man! (Seriously, they’ve actually made the air quotations with their fingers)

Me: Actually Thomas knew, he used to accompany Nikki to my transgender clinic.

Random Person:  Erm, uh… Well, she left her poor husband!

Me: Actually, it turned out they were living together. Here’s a copy of their new lease signed just weeks before Thomas died.

Random Person:   Uh… okay… But she wants to steal the kids benefits!

Me: Actually, Nikki worked to get the kids their benefits – which they now have.

Random Person:  Okay… But her birth certificate clearly says she’s a man!

Me: Actually, it turned out her birth certificate says she was born female. Here’s a copy of it.

Random Person:  Oh hell. Can’t we just hate her without facts getting in the way?!?

I get it; there’s a lot of people out there who don’t like Nikki and I’m betting that they don’t even know why anymore. And that, my friends, is the entire point of this post.

9 thoughts on “Nikki Araguz, Jewel Thief Extraordinaire

  1. FOX News never bothered to publish their results because then people like Dana Taylor would have nothing to write about on her perverts-central.org (ahem, I mean ts liberation) site.

  2. If you have a court date, you should CAMP by the front door, especially if you’re a public figure (insurance benefits lawsuit). But yeah, everything else about the case is fishy — but not the tardiness as it was one thing she had complete control of.

  3. I have always had my doubts that Nikki was guilty of anything in this matter, even though I knew little about it. The timing of it has always seemed suspicious to me. Now that I have more reliable information, it seems extremely unlikely to me, that Nikki was guilty of any wrongdoing in this matter.

  4. Cristan I am really not sure what to think about Nikki. When Nikki’s husband died I felt sad for the children and Nikki. Then as more information surfaced I tried to place it all in some sort of context. Then I ran across the 1995 Jerry Springer incident. I think Nikki was 19 at the time. Here is a you tube link …. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ9–L6R8jE

    I think you make a weak case when you say her BC says female because that is not her original bc. In the video she very clearly says she is a guy and that she has a d*** between her legs. She now says that she regrets going on Jerry Springer but the fact is that she did and was paid for doing so. And I have never seen her say she lied on that show.

    Do you fault the birth mother for wanting to care for her children? I really don’t know anything about the real mother but I have never met a mother who had no interest in the welfare of her children. I have met some who didn’t act like it but that was because of things like drug addiction and other tragedies.

    I have no idea about the watch theft incident. I can say that if some drunk lady offered to trade me her Rolex for my Timex I would refuse and try to find her a safe ride home so she could sleep it off. Perhaps I’m just a ditz but that is how I would handle it.

    I will try to refrain from judging Nikki or the actual mother of the children. I think what is important is the welfare and future of the children. I hope life works out for the children and everything else is anecdotal to that.

    1. I think you make a weak case when you say her BC says female because that is not her original bc.

      Actually, that’s incorrect. There are only 2 types of BCs: Amended and Original. In Texas, my BC is amended… and there’s my original TX BC and then there’s the amended TX BC (and that BC states that it’s amended). In California, they reissue an original. It’s not an amended BC. In other words, in CA, for transsexuals, they treat the original sexed status as an error in the same way an incorrect birth date, time, location, etc. In CA, they are correcting an error on the original BC because in CA, MTF transsexuals were born female, not male. In Texas, a MTF transsexual is deemed to have been born male… which is why an amended BC is issued.

      This is one of the HUGE problems with Judge Clapp’s decision – which he chose to not address even though this was a point maid by Nikki’s lawyers. The 14th amendment of the constitution holds that if CA asserts that Nikki was born female, TX must recognize that assertion. Nikki wasn’t born in TX and TX must therefore use the documentation officially recognized by the state of CA (in the same way CA must recognize TX documentation).

      Incidentally, this was one of the reasons for the last court date in Wharton. According to standards and practices, the Judge must address the points raised in the case. In Nikki’s case, he didn’t bother to address any of the points made by Nikki’s legal team. Judge Clapp refused to offer any legal reasoning behind his decision and said that this last hearing was a waste of his time. That’s called bias.

      Then I ran across the 1995 Jerry Springer incident.

      I’ve known one other trans woman who went on Springer. She was 18 and was told that it would be a serious show. When she got there, she was told that the show was scripted and if she didn’t play along, she’d have to find her way home. The show also made as much alcohol as she wanted available to her.

      Yah, I did a total facepalm when I learned that she was on Springer. Yah, 19 year olds are not known for their maturity or critical thinking abilities, but still…

      Do you fault the birth mother for wanting to care for her children?

      Yes, I do.

      She hated Nikki with a passion. For years Nikki raised those kids and it was Nikki who paid child support. 4 out of 7 days the boys lived with Nikki and Thomas. When Heather Delgado started out with this suit, she was getting 300K. If she wins, she will still receive only about 300K after legal fees. For that, she’s outed her children in small-town Wharton. When the kids she claims such concern for went back to school, instead of being the kids of a fallen hero, they’ll were known as the kids of the guy who married a pre-op transsexual… their step-mom – the very step-mom they lived with 4 days out of the week for most of the last 4 years. Heather’s doomed her kids to a life of schoolyard hell… and for what?!?

      I don’t think this is at all about the kids for Heather Delgado. It was Delgado who went to the press first. She outed Nikki and her kids to the press. Delgado even put those poor kids on TV several times! Nikki refused to talk to the media for 2 weeks until they found the cell number and began calling her day and night. As of now, ALL Nikki’s benefits are going to pay for legal fees. She won’t see a dime. At this point, she’s only fighting for the legal recognition of her marriage.

      Those are the objective facts. Now, how do those facts square with Heather Delgado going on Fox, claiming to be a victim, trotting the (already traumatized) kids on national television, claiming that Nikki – the kid’s parent for most of their conscious life – was a man and claiming that she (Delgado) was doing all this for the well-being of the kids?

      I can say that if some drunk lady offered to trade me her Rolex for my Timex I would refuse and try to find her a safe ride home so she could sleep it off.

      I don’t drink; I haven’t taken a drink in more than 20 years. One of the major reasons I don’t drink is because I’m constantly hearing about the absurd drama that happens – to all sorts of people – because they thought that going out for a night on the town sounded like “fun.” I’m not too sure that Nikki’s any different in that regard to a LOT of the “normal” people I meet in my day-to-day life.

      I think what is important is the welfare and future of the children

      Well, the kids already have their money and they have a ton of benefits up to and including a free university education up through PhD level. So, on that level, they’re already taken care of. Unfortunately, they’ve become pariahs, were bullied so much due to their mother going to the press with all of this that they had to be taken out of public school. Not only did they lose their father and Nikki -a parent that they relied upon more that their own mother – the context in which they knew them both was stripped from them in the most public way. What happened to them was as cruel as it was unnecessary.

  5. Cristan you are quibbling about the concept of original. I was using it in the dictionary definition of the one originally issued. You want to replace that concept with a legal recognition that doesn’t mean original but accepted as original.

    As to the rest of your response I have no way of knowing if what you assert without proof is in any way accurate or valid. I did watch some of the taped things Nikki did when all this originally surfaced. My impression was that Nikki wasn’t being very forthright but perhaps she was just nervous about it all.

    You say “I don’t think this is at all about the kids for Heather Delgado.”. Have you ever spoken directly with Heather? Are there any taped clips where she has said the things you assert? If so I would like links so that I can learn a bit more.

    1. Cristan you are quibbling about the concept of original. I was using it in the dictionary definition of the one originally issued.

      Well, I’m using it in the way that it’s correctly used with reference to certificates of live birth. Just because Delgadio’s lawyers equivocated and claimed that Nikki’s BC wasn’t original doesn’t make it so. When Heather’s side identifies a stolen photocopy of Nikki’s erroneous BC calling it “original” they are misrepresenting its status. It’s only “original” if you mean “first copy” just as if someone’s BC with a misspelling of the father’s name was “original”. But that’s not the context in which they’re using the word “original”. They’re claiming that there was an original non-erroneous BC and a second one was issued… and that’s a misrepresentation of the facts. In CA, Nikki was born female; the male designation is viewed as being an error – like a misspelled name. There is only one original BC and that BC states that Nikki was born female in the EXACT same way that had Nikki’s father’s name (eg Joe Smith) was listed Joey Smith, the error would be corrected and the original reissued.

      As to the rest of your response I have no way of knowing if what you assert without proof is in any way accurate or valid

      Fair enough. It would probably be helpful to set up a timeline and post it. It might be hard do find 3rd party evidence for the first 2 weeks since Nikki reached out to me just a day or two after her husband died. It’s going to be hard to prove that her intention was to lay low and avoid the press those first couple of weeks… unless her mom could corroborate that… hrm… I’ll have to think about how to corroborate what was going on via 3rd parties since she made no public statements about the suit for weeks before she finally made a statement to the press.

      Have you ever spoken directly with Heather?

      Only very briefly and it wasn’t more than a few words. She doesn’t like me. All I have to go on is what Nikki told me years ago before Thomas died, what Nikki now says, what Nikki’s family says, the documented history of struggles between Heather and Nikki and what Nikki’s church friends said.

      Are there any taped clips where she has said the things you assert?

      Absolutely! :) That should go on that timeline!

      Remember, Thomas died on July 4, 2010. Days before his funeral, Nikki heard that the ex was going to go after her and gossip broke out in Wharton. Thomas’ funeral was July 12 and Nikki is made to feel unwelcome. The day after Nikki buried her husband (Tues, July 13), she is officially informed of the suit seeking to declare her male and her marriage void. Heather broke the news via her lawyers on Fri July 16 and the news broke Saturday morning, July 17. It isn’t until July 21 that Nikki finally made a statement to the press… by then ~ 2 weeks has gone by wherein she was wrung through the rumor mill.

      Here’s the first news story from July 17: http://www.leader-news.com/articles/2010/07/17/ne

      Note that Nikki is not quoted and note the history Heather has with Nikki. Note that it was this initial report wherein Heather outs own her kids.

      Here’s a video I did from July 2010 wherein I’m fairly pissed and am reviewing Heather’s media (mis)statements:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3f7-UDiNMg

      I’m sure you’re not the only one who would benefit from seeing the verified facts put into some sort of timeline. I’ll put that on my to-do list :)

Leave a Reply