I know that there is a link to the public court documents for P's Estate case available online and I have a book mark for it. My question is how do I get a link to actual court documents for other cases, not just a log of what was filed?

PurpleBabied said:

I thought divorce documents were generally sealed? And even in states with public records it's not like they post details...just motions.

I'm not sure what the Star Tribune hopes to find out, to be honest.

Its actually the opposite. Divorces are generally public record. A petitioner or respondent has to show good cause why a divorce case should be sealed.

tmo1965 said:

I know that there is a link to the public court documents for P's Estate case available online and I have a book mark for it. My question is how do I get a link to actual court documents for other cases, not just a log of what was filed?

.

That divorce was filed in Hennepin County.

I went to their court records and searched by name.

.

There's a list of actions but the links are not clickable. Scroll down and you'll see that their e-server has been busy trying to contact Prince in the past few months

http://pa.courts.state.mn...1610461456

.

I am wondering if perhaps Manuela doesn't want the divorce papers to become public out of embarrassment..?

.

Maybe P had an affair / fling whilst they were married - and there was a child conceived - and she is embarrassed about it coming to light...Especially if it was with a woman who was close / known to both of them, perhaps?

.

Also, didn't she meet Eric whilst she and P were married? Maybe P's dalliance gave her as good a reason as any to walk and get together with her now-husband..? It just seems odd that P wouldn't contest the divorce, unless he knew he was culpable in some way, at least in part.

.

Anyway - it's all just speculation, for NOW...These things have a nasty habit of coming out in the wash...

tish9311 said:

Cyn said:

Às it's reported in star tribute: Manuela is afraid IF the fill Will become public. I suppose that she was not good on the reason of their divorce and she should ask a lot of money from prince. And IF that became public she May be have some troubles.. I guess she must not sleep well. She propably loved him very much but surely she used him more. Just my opinion.

.

I'm sorry, but the Star Tribune didn't say anything about a "fill will" or her being afraid. It's a matter of public decency only.

.

The divorce was not contested. The settlement was done between them and their attorneys. Once she remarried, it was *totally* over.

.

I will repeat myself once again - the Star Tribune wants to know if drugs had anything to do with the divorce. If you actually READ the article, Bremer are on Mani's side AGAINST the Star Tribune who want the records to be made public. The stuff about Bremer trying to find out about heirs is a separate issue which has NOTHING to do with Star Tribune, who are the ones trying to get a copy of these documents.

It is not to do with secret heirs. Who knows whether Prince at any point in his 57 years fathered a lovechild, if he did it's not relevant to this proceeding.

Anyone else here had a conversation with anyone that was ACTUALLY in the courtroom and on the stand, yesterday? I have. That's what I've been told by a person directly involved. I shouldn't have to literally spell this out to you.

If that's not enough for you, you're a fool.

I am asking you kindly to tone it down with rampant, tabloid-esque, gossipy nonsense that has literally no basis in fact. I am telling you what this issue is about from the people that are there.

Please do not continue to assert that this is about something else entirely. To do so is irresponsible and clouds the issue from the main point- that Star Tribune feel they have "a right" to private information.

Interesting court documents on the real estate. Any locals in the Chanhansen area familiar with the properties listed aside from Paisley Park, Kiowa trail and the Galpin locations?

Militant said:

I will repeat myself once again - the Star Tribune wants to know if drugs had anything to do with the divorce. If you actually READ the article, Bremer are on Mani's side AGAINST the Star Tribune who want the records to be made public. The stuff about Bremer trying to find out about heirs is a separate issue which has NOTHING to do with Star Tribune, who are the ones trying to get a copy of these documents.

It is not to do with secret heirs. Who knows whether Prince at any point in his 57 years fathered a lovechild, if he did it's not relevant to this proceeding.

Anyone else here had a conversation with anyone that was ACTUALLY in the courtroom and on the stand, yesterday? I have. That's what I've been told by a person directly involved. I shouldn't have to literally spell this out to you.

If that's not enough for you, you're a fool.

I am asking you kindly to tone it down with rampant, tabloid-esque, gossipy nonsense that has literally no basis in fact. I am telling you what this issue is about from the people that are there.

Please do not continue to assert that this is about something else entirely. To do so is irresponsible and clouds the issue from the main point- that Star Tribune feel they have "a right" to private information.

Actually you do because you even moreso than us mere mortals need to cite sources as per the rules, just like anybody else. You are a mod but unless you do so it's just heresay or your opinion, not holy writ.

Are you saying that your word is not to be questioned???



ETA....you have no right to get snarky about it either.

[Edited 8/5/16 12:41pm]

nursev said:

babynoz said:

Actually you do because you even moreso than us mere mortals need to cite sources as per the rules, just like anybody else. You are a mod but unless you do so it's just heresay or your opinion, not holy writ.

Are you saying that your word is not to be questioned???



ETA....you have no right to get snarky about it either.

[Edited 8/5/16 12:41pm]

I just read that and Im really bothered by the tone of it all. I know mods rule the forum but damn that was kinda rude. [Edited 8/5/16 12:50pm]

I know, right?

I don't get the whole, "because I said so" vibe. If we state something as fact we have to give a source and I thought that rule applied to everyone.

It is a fact and I told you what the source was.

I'm literally telling you what I was told by one of the people who took the stand yesterday. How exactly can I make it more clear?

If my tone is snarky, it's because I'm literally telling you what happened directly from the courtroom and people are responding with "Nope! Gonna believe whatever the hell I want!" which when it relates to a legal matter, is irresponsible.

So again, unless anyone else has spoken to anyone that took the stand yesterday, then you really ought to pay heed to what I said.

This is a much bigger issue than just people discussing something on the internet, and I really don't think anyone wants the org to get into trouble simply because they chose to ignore facts in favor of spreading hearsay and gossip.

Well, if the mod had a convo with someone who was in the courtroom then I'd assume the person would know more than me who wasn't and didn't. The tone wasn't rude to me either. Was wondering why the convo was going in other directions when it was stated that Bremer was on the side of Mani against ST. Whatever is going on, I hope she wins out and keeps the docs sealed.

And shame on those harassing her and her family.

nursev said:

Truth is all fans can really do is speculate about all the circumstances and the aftermath of Prince's death and each time we ask something we get undeserving responses....truly sad.

The thing about divorce cases is that they are normally public records. Sealing a divorce is done by court order after the moving party gives sufficient reasons why it should be sealed. If the case gets unsealed all that means is that it will be treated just like your divorce or mine.

That goes for most probate cases too. Sealed cases are the exception, not the rule so the motion filed by the media is not unusual even though we don't like the thought of them sticking their nose into these things.

Wow, everyone so infatuated with Mani's 'personal' biznezz

luv4u said:

babynoz said:

Militant said:

I will repeat myself once again - the Star Tribune wants to know if drugs had anything to do with the divorce. If you actually READ the article, Bremer are on Mani's side AGAINST the Star Tribune who want the records to be made public. The stuff about Bremer trying to find out about heirs is a separate issue which has NOTHING to do with Star Tribune, who are the ones trying to get a copy of these documents.

It is not to do with secret heirs. Who knows whether Prince at any point in his 57 years fathered a lovechild, if he did it's not relevant to this proceeding.

Anyone else here had a conversation with anyone that was ACTUALLY in the courtroom and on the stand, yesterday? I have. That's what I've been told by a person directly involved. I shouldn't have to literally spell this out to you.

If that's not enough for you, you're a fool.

I am asking you kindly to tone it down with rampant, tabloid-esque, gossipy nonsense that has literally no basis in fact. I am telling you what this issue is about from the people that are there.

Please do not continue to assert that this is about something else entirely. To do so is irresponsible and clouds the issue from the main point- that Star Tribune feel they have "a right" to private information.

The representatives of the Star Tribune actually said in court they want to find out if there was evidence of Prince's drug use in the divorce paperwork? Really? That was stated in the court proceedings as witnessed by your source?

[Edited 8/5/16 13:15pm]

Militant said:

It is a fact and I told you what the source was.

I'm literally telling you what I was told by one of the people who took the stand yesterday. How exactly can I make it more clear?

If my tone is snarky, it's because I'm literally telling you what happened directly from the courtroom and people are responding with "Nope! Gonna believe whatever the hell I want!" which when it relates to a legal matter, is irresponsible.

So again, unless anyone else has spoken to anyone that took the stand yesterday, then you really ought to pay heed to what I said.

This is a much bigger issue than just people discussing something on the internet, and I really don't think anyone wants the org to get into trouble simply because they chose to ignore facts in favor of spreading hearsay and gossip.

Is this not what you first posted about the matter?

"Just to clear something up - Star Tribune are pushing for these documents to be released because they want to know whether Prince was taking drugs whilst he was married and if that had anything to do with the divorce.

That's the only reason. There's no secret heirs or trust funds or any such nonsense so I want to stop that idea in it's tracks right now.

It's salacious, disgusting and shameful.

They feel they have a right to Prince's personal information because he's no longer here. That's literally the position they've stated.

Disgusting.

I urge anyone on Twitter to tweet them @StarTribune and let them know this is unacceptable and trashy behaviour.


Therefore, please show me in your initial comment specifically where you stated that you were told this information by someone in the courtroom? The fact is you didn't, so like I said, you have no right to get snarky, period.

I have zero problem with you setting the record straight but the "because I said so" attitude when someone questions the source of the information, which you failed to provide in your first comment is uncalled for.

nursev said:

babynoz said:

The thing about divorce cases is that they are normally public records. Sealing a divorce is done by court order after the moving party gives sufficient reasons why it should be sealed. If the case gets unsealed all that means is that it will be treated just like your divorce or mine.

That goes for most probate cases too. Sealed cases are the exception, not the rule so the motion filed by the media is not unusual even though we don't like the thought of them sticking their nose into these things.

Could care less but leave it sealed its really none of our business...but you let us talk to others with that tone and we would be snipped then banned.

Truth.

endiadj said:

Well, if the mod had a convo with someone who was in the courtroom then I'd assume the person would know more than me who wasn't and didn't. The tone wasn't rude to me either. Was wondering why the convo was going in other directions when it was stated that Bremer was on the side of Mani against ST. Whatever is going on, I hope she wins out and keeps the docs sealed.

And shame on those harassing her and her family.

Thank you, endia.

nursev said:

luv4u said:

Wow, everyone so infatuated with Mani's 'personal' biznezz

Now u know I gives two sh--- bout Mani

TBH she hasn't exactly kept herself under the radar for the past three months. Perhaps if she had she might have lucked out and the media would have forgotten about her.

This is the flip side of publicity.

Thread has gotten way tooo long.

babynoz said:

nursev said:

luv4u said: Now u know I gives two sh--- bout Mani

TBH she hasn't exactly kept herself under the radar for the past three months. Perhaps if she had she might have lucked out and the media would have forgotten about her.

This is the flip side of publicity.

Are former wives not allowed to grieve? Who organised the wonderful memorial service in LA that was desperately needed and helped give closure and acceptance to many friends, family and associates?

Why should she be "under the radar"? Or Mayte, or Sheila, or anyone?

I'm not seeing what the problem is.