| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I said, you actually got a good point saying that IF Mani poisoned him, she wouldn't be the first suspect. Something like that. And didn't someone say that IF someone killed Prince, it probably was a woman?
Now, I don't think he got murdered, there's no evidence for that. I mean, yeah if you look closely, literally everyone would have a motive for it, but there's no evidence. I don't even believe that they find the person who gave him these illicit pills.
I believe that it was an accident, he simply didn't know what he's taking and he was one of the unlucky people in the USA. I mean, look at how many people die because of the fentanyl crisis. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The conjecture and conspiracy is the "why" - which no one here knows. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Why don't you share it them because we have all seen the tax docs from 2007 and her name is not on them. She is not listed as a President or Vice President. Holding on to some old document from before they divorced means nothing if she was removed and she would have to explain how she can still be an officer if her name is not on the tax forms.
These are facts. This is no different then her babbling about how she was in his will as if the same will would still be around 20 years later and one wife later.
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yes. please pay no attention to the crazy. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
M2 did not posion him she just sat back and waited for an opportunity to present itself. Stories have been going around for years that she screwed up some of his business and then after they divorced she wanted him to continue to finance her lifestyle despite the fact that she had access to a bank account and a business he funded.
Who cannot see what her deal is? This women was a mistress. What does that tell you about her? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said:
M2 did not posion him she just sat back and waited for an opportunity to present itself. Stories have been going around for years that she screwed up some of his business and then after they divorced she wanted him to continue to finance her lifestyle despite the fact that she had access to a bank account and a business he funded.
Who cannot see what her deal is? This women was a mistress. What does that tell you about her? I never said she killed him. She comes off as an opportunist. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
amethyst68 said: laurarichardson said:
M1 name does not appear on any tax forms for L4OA. I am sure her name was removed after they divorced. You realize that these are tax documents. As far as the trademark the estate did challege M2 we just cannot tell what is going on right now. For all we know Omarr may have convienced Comerica to drop it but the estate did what it was suppose to do and that was to challege her.
Please stop making up this fairy tale that this man cared about this women after they divorced. We have not seen one pices of evidence of any interaction between them that was pleasant. M1 has not produced any evidence and seems to have forgoten about her own comments on that T.V. show.
I will make a prediction that this nonsense will be still be going on 10 years from now and we still will not see any evidence that she was involved in his life after they divoced.
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, just ask. I will gladly share the information I have. But don’t come in here accusing me of lying because you’re ignorant of facts. I have no reason to make up stories for the hell of it. Ha, these kind of post make me laugh. It's like asking someone what shade of green do they need to see before they understand green means go. What exact word do you need to show your proof. . "All you need to do is ask". well? | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
She is an opportunist. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I totally agree with the bolded, I try to get angry before I allow myself to really grieve. And no need to say thank you Dude, or Dudette.
And yes Mani took the opportunity right after he died....so yeah, says a lot about her character | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sorry the JW say they do not prevent people from having surgery and you can use your own blood for transfusions. Several people have said that he had hip surgery not replacement. I know it is hard to believe but maybe everything that could be done was done and he had no choice but to take meds. I mean if he refused to have any sort of replacment he would not have been walking. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
And I also believe that even if they would prevent people from having surgery, Prince wouldn't have done it, since he was against such things before he even converted. No one could stop Prince from doing things and no one could've make him do things either. Prince only ever did what he wanted to do. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Well a few people said he had a hip procedure and perhaps he could have had some other procedure done but I really think he would not have been walking at all if he really needed a replacment. Sometimes these procedures do not go well and their is nothing to be done but take meds.
Arithitis for instance can put you in a wheelchair and all they can do is give you meds. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laurarichardson said:
Why don't you share it them because we have all seen the tax docs from 2007 and her name is not on them. She is not listed as a President or Vice President. Holding on to some old document from before they divorced means nothing if she was removed and she would have to explain how she can still be an officer if her name is not on the tax forms.
These are facts. This is no different then her babbling about how she was in his will as if the same will would still be around 20 years later and one wife later.
The facts are out there if only you looked for it. No one, especially me, has any reason to make up stories. I guess that’s what you’re used to seeing. There are several sources but this is one just shared with me. Look at the last 3 pages of the document http://www.mncourts.gov/m...6,-and.pdf | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Were these Exhibits recently unsealed? I dont remember seeing these before. The Exhibit is an email dated September 1, 2016. It states the issues surrounding the charity is complex and the records sparse. In November 1996 a non-profit corporation was created named Love for One Another Charities. The Directors of the Corporation were P, M1 and Kirk. They cannot find documents that shows this was ever modified. Cousins is listed on some of the LLC documents as Manager. Then crazy things happened. $8.2 mil was transferred from one account to another account. The new account listed Cousin's Florida address.
| |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The $8.2 million is still in the charities account along with property. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
amethyst68 said:
The $8.2 million is still in the charities account along with property. Interesting documents. The attorneys are saying there isn’t any good paperwork to show what’s been going on with the Love 4 One Another Corporation or LLC throughout the years. Does that explain why the directors listed in the later tax returns are different than the directors listed at the time of incorporation of the Corporation in 1996? There just isn’t paperwork available to show those changes? So really no one knows what has been going on, no one knows who the current directors are, and it can’t be verified, without a complete set of paperwork. The only thing that’s clear is the situation in 1996. Any current director had better hurry up and get in touch with these attorneys, because that person would then have a fiduciary duty to make themselves known as such. Unless already done so, of course. Btw, the allegations in these documents regarding Patrick Cousins and Londell McMillan are pretty shocking. I wonder when Patrick Cousins will show up with his 70 boxes of documentation... but that’s for the estate thread. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CandyCool said: amethyst68 said:
The $8.2 million is still in the charities account along with property. Interesting documents. The attorneys are saying there isn’t any good paperwork to show what’s been going on with the Love 4 One Another Corporation or LLC throughout the years. Does that explain why the directors listed in the later tax returns are different than the directors listed at the time of incorporation of the Corporation in 1996? There just isn’t paperwork available to show those changes? So really no one knows what has been going on, no one knows who the current directors are, and it can’t be verified, without a complete set of paperwork. The only thing that’s clear is the situation in 1996. Any current director had better hurry up and get in touch with these attorneys, because that person would then have a fiduciary duty to make themselves known as such. Unless already done so, of course. Btw, the allegations in these documents regarding Patrick Cousins and Londell McMillan are pretty shocking. I wonder when Patrick Cousins will show up with his 70 boxes of documentation... but that’s for the estate thread. The tax returns don’t have to list all of the directors. The returns aren’t used to substantiate who is involved in the charity. Whatever documents they have in their possession show exactly who the directors are. It’s the reason the estate lawyers wanted to have Mayte and Prince’s divorce records unsealed. They’ve already confirmed it. [Edited 1/21/18 7:54am] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
amethyst68 said: CandyCool said: Interesting documents. The attorneys are saying there isn’t any good paperwork to show what’s been going on with the Love 4 One Another Corporation or LLC throughout the years. Does that explain why the directors listed in the later tax returns are different than the directors listed at the time of incorporation of the Corporation in 1996? There just isn’t paperwork available to show those changes? So really no one knows what has been going on, no one knows who the current directors are, and it can’t be verified, without a complete set of paperwork. The only thing that’s clear is the situation in 1996. Any current director had better hurry up and get in touch with these attorneys, because that person would then have a fiduciary duty to make themselves known as such. Unless already done so, of course. Btw, the allegations in these documents regarding Patrick Cousins and Londell McMillan are pretty shocking. I wonder when Patrick Cousins will show up with his 70 boxes of documentation... but that’s for the estate thread. The tax returns don’t have to list all of the directors. The returns aren’t used to substantiate who is involved in the charity. Whatever documents they have in their possession show exactly who the directors are. It’s the reason the estate lawyers wanted to have Mayte and Prince’s divorce records unsealed. They’ve already confirmed it. [Edited 1/21/18 7:54am] So you are saying that the divorce records show that Mayte remains a director, right? You do realize that a director is responsible for the correct running of a business or charity. You will have seen the mess as described in the court documents we’ve been discussing (“lack of proper paperwork” as the attorneys so nicely put it)? Are you sure you want the potential fall-out of that for someone whom I assume is your friend? The trademark issue is then also hers to follow-up. That’s gonna bring this board down, “M1 against M2”. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CandyCool said: amethyst68 said: The tax returns don’t have to list all of the directors. The returns aren’t used to substantiate who is involved in the charity. Whatever documents they have in their possession show exactly who the directors are. It’s the reason the estate lawyers wanted to have Mayte and Prince’s divorce records unsealed. They’ve already confirmed it. [Edited 1/21/18 7:54am] So you are saying that the divorce records show that Mayte remains a director, right? You do realize that a director is responsible for the correct running of a business or charity. You will have seen the mess as described in the court documents we’ve been discussing (“lack of proper paperwork” as the attorneys so nicely put it)? Are you sure you want the potential fall-out of that for someone whom I assume is your friend? The trademark issue is then also hers to follow-up. That’s gonna bring this board down, “M1 against M2”. Who cares what that responsibility requires? I don’t. But the fact is this $8 million dollar now defunct charity and its property are the sole responsibility of Mayte Garcia now that Prince is no longer here. She can revive it or completely dissolve it by distributing the assets. Prince could have done that himself if he really wanted to dissolve Love 4 One Another but for one reason or another he didn’t. For them to pursue an LLC in 2008 makes me think he had intentions of reviving it. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CandyCool said: amethyst68 said: The tax returns don’t have to list all of the directors. The returns aren’t used to substantiate who is involved in the charity. Whatever documents they have in their possession show exactly who the directors are. It’s the reason the estate lawyers wanted to have Mayte and Prince’s divorce records unsealed. They’ve already confirmed it. [Edited 1/21/18 7:54am] So you are saying that the divorce records show that Mayte remains a director, right? You do realize that a director is responsible for the correct running of a business or charity. You will have seen the mess as described in the court documents we’ve been discussing (“lack of proper paperwork” as the attorneys so nicely put it)? Are you sure you want the potential fall-out of that for someone whom I assume is your friend? The trademark issue is then also hers to follow-up. That’s gonna bring this board down, “M1 against M2”. I question the mindset of a woman pursuing a trademark days after Prince’s death. She had nothing to do with the formation of the charitable foundation. It was founded by Prince and Mayte, on Mayte’s birthday at that and in honor of the son they’d just lost. If she was smart, she’d drop it. This will bad for her reputation. [Edited 1/21/18 8:58am] | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
amethyst68 said: CandyCool said: So you are saying that the divorce records show that Mayte remains a director, right? You do realize that a director is responsible for the correct running of a business or charity. You will have seen the mess as described in the court documents we’ve been discussing (“lack of proper paperwork” as the attorneys so nicely put it)? Are you sure you want the potential fall-out of that for someone whom I assume is your friend? The trademark issue is then also hers to follow-up. That’s gonna bring this board down, “M1 against M2”. Who cares what that responsibility requires? I don’t. But the fact is this $8 million dollar now defunct charity and its property are the sole responsibility of Mayte Garcia now that Prince is no longer here. She can revive it or completely dissolve it by distributing the assets. Prince could have done that himself if he really wanted to dissolve Love 4 One Another but for one reason or another he didn’t. For them to pursue an LLC in 2008 makes me think he had intentions of reviving it. The court does. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
amethyst68 said: CandyCool said: So you are saying that the divorce records show that Mayte remains a director, right? You do realize that a director is responsible for the correct running of a business or charity. You will have seen the mess as described in the court documents we’ve been discussing (“lack of proper paperwork” as the attorneys so nicely put it)? Are you sure you want the potential fall-out of that for someone whom I assume is your friend? The trademark issue is then also hers to follow-up. That’s gonna bring this board down, “M1 against M2”. I question the mindset of a woman pursuing a trademark days after Prince’s death. She had nothing to do with the formation of the charitable foundation. It was founded by Prince and Mayte, on Mayte’s birthday at that and in honor of the son they’d just lost. If she was smart, she’d drop it. This will bad for her reputation. [Edited 1/21/18 8:58am] Agree. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CandyCool said: amethyst68 said: Who cares what that responsibility requires? I don’t. But the fact is this $8 million dollar now defunct charity and its property are the sole responsibility of Mayte Garcia now that Prince is no longer here. She can revive it or completely dissolve it by distributing the assets. Prince could have done that himself if he really wanted to dissolve Love 4 One Another but for one reason or another he didn’t. For them to pursue an LLC in 2008 makes me think he had intentions of reviving it. The court does. No, the court does not care. Why should they? Charitable foundations don’t have to go through probate court. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
amethyst68 said: CandyCool said: The court does. No, the court does not care. Why should they? Charitable foundations don’t have to go through probate court. No, not the probate court. If you were my friend I’d ask you to stop posting, because you're suggesting there has been a failure to act with due care. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, let’s say those suggestions were made in error. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
She is and clearly has been nothing but a blatant opportunists from the start with Prince. It bothers me how people close to him or people who supposedly support Prince (photographers, family, etc) support her as if she was such a great addition to Prince's life. I am an outsider looking in everytime I try not to think negatively something else shady shows up. It reeks and shows nothing positive. It makes me sad for Prince and he is not on earth anymore - it is just sad. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Vashtix said:
She is and clearly has been nothing but a blatant opportunists from the start with Prince. It bothers me how people close to him or people who supposedly support Prince (photographers, family, etc) support her as if she was such a great addition to Prince's life. I am an outsider looking in everytime I try not to think negatively something else shady shows up. It reeks and shows nothing positive. It makes me sad for Prince and he is not on earth anymore - it is just sad. Very few of his associates, especially the close associates, have anything to do with her. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
That is good to hear his close associates leave M2 alone. | |
- E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |