Ruth Paine on "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine" film: "Well done, but powerfully awful"

[Denny Zartman]

One odd detail I noticed in the film was that Michael Paine was living in the same assisted living home as Ruth. On the first viewing, I assumed that it was because they were living in or near the same location in Dallas, Texas that they had been living in the early '60's. On the second viewing of the film, I caught the detail that they were all in Northern California.

Five decades later, still living together under the same roof in some place way across the country? Some estrangement.

[Kirk Gallaway]

I first thought that was strange. But they share a son who moved out here. Michael and his son had , I believe an alternative energy farm or ranch as I recall, until Michael's senility, when they put him in the same assisted living place.

[James DiEugenio]

Denny, that is kind of odd is it not?

I mean, here we are like fifty years later, and they were supposed to be separated, reconciled, and then later divorced.

But there they are in California at the same retirement center in the new millenium?

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

Denny, that is kind of odd is it not?

I mean, here we are like fifty years later, and they were supposed to be separated, reconciled, and then later divorced.

But there they are in California at the same retirement center in the new millenium?

If you had a kid, you might better understand it. Parents, particularly in older age, like to be near their kids.

[Joe Bauer]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Its not true Joe that Ruth was simply a say at home Mom in 1963.

She taught Russian at a high class private school called St. Mark's in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area.

Oh yes. That's right.

But my guess is she didn't make enough on that job to pay her bills.

[Ken Davies]

Usually the children end up picking the retirement/ old age homes that their parents spend their declining years in.

[Denny Zartman]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

If you had a kid, you might better understand it. Parents, particularly in older age, like to be near their kids.

From what I have observed in this life, couples who have truly broken up don't usually end up living together, regardless of child status. Your experience may be different, but in my experience people and their ex's rarely ever want to be in the same room with each other, much less live together under the same roof half a century after breaking up. In my experience, the vast majority of couples who have broken up will actually go out of their way not to be in contact with the other person beyond what is absolutely necessary. And Ruth and Michael were living under the same roof together after their divorce for how long in this case? Decades?

Do you know anyone at all who still lives with their ex? They were together for their children? Their forty and fifty and sixty year old kids? Even if that was the case, there is more than one nursing home in Northern California. Give me a break. Are we going to pretend that they were getting (or even needed) some sort of discount if both of them lived at the same nursing home?

In the documentary, Ruth claims that she and Michael became closer after their separation, seeing each other more often and going out to dinner a lot.

I think back on my relationships and the relationships my friends and family have had over the course of my lifetime, and I can't recall a single one where a couple saw more of each other after the breakup than before, regardless of children. And to even imagine some of them living together again under any circumstances is laughable. In my life experience, couples growing closer after separating is far from business as usual. Most importantly, that's simply not how "breaking up" works.

They separated, and ended up seeing more of each other? They divorced, and were living together in their 80's? To me, it's eye-rollingly implausible.

[Matt Allison]

47 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

To me, it's eye-rollingly implausible.

If it was a ruse, what exactly would be the point of such an exercise?

[Kirk Gallaway]

It's called assisted living. It's not "living together". After my Mother died, my Father was at such a facility before he died.  Often the family, often the kids, and there are 2 of them, made a decision that the Father was starting to degenerate. Losing his memory (below) is a sign of degeneration.  If they were in the same facility. I assume the kids made a decision to put their Father in the same facility that the  Mother was presently in. That's only my guess.

But by the time Michael got there, it was probably too late for them to swap  old spy stories.  But maybe they were fondling each other.... I'm sorry, I mean "handling" each other.     heh heh

I was just trying to helpful and tell you the Father and son lived together in the area. Why don't you just ask Max?, Maybe he saw them together and can give you his observations.

Check this out from his obituary..

In time, the Paines both left Texas. Michael Paine lived and worked in Concord, Massachusetts, and was active in coastal conservation and supported Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. He moved to Sonoma County in 2004.

He  (Michael)and his son, Chris Panym, founded near Sebastopol a “multi-household, multi-age, multi-enterprise community” they called Green Valley Village. They were unable to bring it to fruition.

Chris Panym said that as his father approached aged 90 he lost his memory but all his life was committed to championing the environment and civil liberty.

In addition to his son in Sebastopol and his former wife in Santa Rosa, Paine is survived by his daughter, Tamarin Laurel-Paine of Middlefield, Massachusetts.

 

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/michael-paine-debated-politics-with-jfk-assassin-lee-harvey-oswald-dies-a/

 

 

There will be a memorial service at 1 p.m. on April 14 in the library at Friends House in Rincon Valley. Panym asks people interested in attending to RSVP to him at 707-861-1169.

Editor’s note: This version of the story corrects an error on the make of the car in which the Kennedy’s rode

[Paul Cummings]

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

If you had a kid, you might better understand it. Parents, particularly in older age, like to be near their kids.

This is true but at the same place? I know the housing sucks in California but come on.

[Joe Bauer]

Convalescent homes here on the California Coast charge $6,000 a month or more.

No Medicare or Medi-Cal patients. They are shipped out to the poorer parts of the state.

I imagine the care facility RP resides in is about the same costs as Monterey's as it is also in a nice but expensive part of the state.

Edited October 12, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Denny Zartman]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

It's called assisted living. It's not "living together".

They were sleeping under the same roof. They ate the same food in the same dining room at the same time. If that isn't living together, what is?

[Greg Doudna]

23 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

Von Pein is like a bad nickel, keeps popping up to show us how fake it is. As for Ruth being a war tax protester, was she ever prosecuted for this? Of course not. She has, like all intelligence operatives, a get out of jail free card

This is uncalled-for Allen. I know a bit about war tax resistance. Rarely are there criminal prosecutions. Usually IRS collects the money plus penalty money and war tax resisters do not resist the forcible collection from the bank account. You fling the smearing of Ruth Paine and don't know what you are talking about. 

Wilful failure to file, in which one writes the IRS and tells them there will be no filing for reasons x, y, z, that is informs IRS of one's wilful violation of the requirement to file, is taken seriously by IRS and can be expected to risk prosecution though not always. The IRS may do their own assessment of what is owed and collect it and penalties in lieu of prosecution. But more commonly among Friends involved in tax resistance there is a filing, with partial amount of the tax money placed in a bank account for peaceful purposes instead of paid to IRS, with information to the IRS that the money is placed there instead of paid to the government for reasons x, y, z. On the books that is a violation of a different federal law (wilful failure to pay) but in practice IRS pursues collection not criminal prosecution in these cases. I don't know the details but I assume Ruth Paine followed this second route or something close to it and prosecution would not have been expected. 

An article on war tax resistance in Friends history: https://www.friendsjournal.org/quaker-war-tax-resistance/. 

Friends have long sought the U.S. Congress to pass a bill which would legalize conscientious objection for war taxes analogous to conscientious objection to military service, in which taxes paid by conscientious objectors would be earmarked for peaceful purposes. There is at present no prospect of passage. https://peacetaxfund.org/about-the-bill/

"The Peace Tax Fund Bill would affect the “current military” portion of the U.S. budget. The Peace Tax Fund Bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to permit taxpayers conscientiously opposed to participating in war to have their income, estate or gift tax payments spent for non-military purposes only. The Bill excuses no taxpayers from paying their full tax liability." 

[Kirk Gallaway]

2 hours ago, Paul Cummings said:

This is true but at the same place? I know the housing sucks in California but come on.

Joe's right , Paul. It is very expensive, but money's no object to the Paine's. i lived the vast majority of my life in California. and people from the East have been coming out here all my life. and whatever you hear, they actually still do, but now  they're people from throughout the world, and they're driving up property prices..

The same place? From the article . Michael lived with his son, I would estimate within 20 miles of Ruth's retirement home until he became senile, then I assume he moved into the same facility probably for the reason I mentioned, convenience for their son. I've been in such facilities, some people are lucid, like Ruth, some are committed by their family, and enter because they're experiencing dementia like Michael, and many become increasingly demented as their stay lengthens.

I currently live within 25 miles of my daughter, and if I chose to move to New England,(which I don't)  I would live near my son. So I don't find this at aIl unusual. Michael previously first lived out in Massachusetts, presumably near his daughter, as that is shown to be where she was at his death. Just a guess.

 Max! Would you give us your insights into Ruth and Michael's relationship that you may have witnessed? Or any other relationships either one of them might have had.  Inquiring minds want to know!

[Allen Lowe]

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

This is uncalled-for Allen. I know a bit about war tax resistance. Rarely are there criminal prosecutions. Usually IRS collects the money plus penalty money and war tax resisters do not resist the forcible collection from the bank account. You fling the smearing of Ruth Paine and don't know what you are talking about. 

Wilful failure to file, in which one writes the IRS and tells them there will be no filing for reasons x, y, z, that is informs IRS of one's wilful violation of the requirement to file, is taken seriously by IRS and can be expected to risk prosecution though not always. The IRS may do their own assessment of what is owed and collect it and penalties in lieu of prosecution. But more commonly among Friends involved in tax resistance there is a filing, with partial amount of the tax money placed in a bank account for peaceful purposes instead of paid to IRS, with information to the IRS that the money is placed there instead of paid to the government for reasons x, y, z. On the books that is a violation of a different federal law (wilful failure to pay) but in practice IRS pursues collection not criminal prosecution in these cases. I don't know the details but I assume Ruth Paine followed this second route or something close to it and prosecution would not have been expected. 

An article on war tax resistance in Friends history: https://www.friendsjournal.org/quaker-war-tax-resistance/. 

Friends have long sought the U.S. Congress to pass a bill which would legalize conscientious objection for war taxes analogous to conscientious objection to military service, in which taxes paid by conscientious objectors would be earmarked for peaceful purposes. There is at present no prospect of passage. https://peacetaxfund.org/about-the-bill/

"The Peace Tax Fund Bill would affect the “current military” portion of the U.S. budget. The Peace Tax Fund Bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to permit taxpayers conscientiously opposed to participating in war to have their income, estate or gift tax payments spent for non-military purposes only. The Bill excuses no taxpayers from paying their full tax liability." 

As usual Greg you are widely missing the point here. You cite chapter and verse of penalties, as though you know this is what Ruth faced. No she never faced it, she never paid any penalties, she was never pursued. Or was she? I have no evidence either way but unlike you  I don’t cite guesses as facts. “ I don’t know the details.” Thanks.  I couldn’t have figured that out on my own.

And what is this, I am offending her honor? And you are defending it?  Well, to quote Groucho, that’s  probably  more than she’s ever done. 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Allen Lowe