morningsong said:

lwr001 said:

here we go ,, this is why ST wants the shit unsealed so folks can stop with the fucking scripted narrative...that dude is faded..and guess what,,its ok for him to be

So, a divorce document in 2006 has a connection to a 1983-ish film shoot? Not seeing the straight line there.

listen i like the pictures. i am not trying to make any connection..nor do i care whats in the divorce docs unl;ess of course he punched mani in the stomach and caused an abortion..he is not god...he was human and prone to human like behaviors..for some of you who think he can do no wrong , well...

morningsong said:

teach49 said:

Wow.

Yeah, when you die there is no right to privacy anymore. You can even find old SSNs online from dead people, and I've always thought that was a bit dicey.

That's why Mani is the only one who can fight it because she's still alive and still has that right. But it also proves they are not coming after her. They want info on Prince. I wonder what they're working on, though. Often reporters will cast a wide net, but that doesn't mean they don't have an angle. It's just that it could change based on what they find so they don't want to commit.

[Edited 8/16/16 11:36am]

That's the thing, all the reasonings she's given for how this will affect her life have been shot down, and her "right to privacy" is basically irrelevant. If it can happen to them it can happen to us.

I hope she appeals. No point in sealing a court document if the media can have it opened. This will set a bad precdent. No one has any privacy if the media is allowed to have access to sealed docs.

Understandable if the police were opening the documents but for a gossip news story. I read the decision and I just do not get why the judge is allowing it. Makes me wonder what is really going on? Why are they so hard on this story?

any lawyers on here who can point to where in the constitution grants us the right to privacy that so many are speaking of?

lwr001 said:

morningsong said:

So, a divorce document in 2006 has a connection to a 1983-ish film shoot? Not seeing the straight line there.

listen i like the pictures. i am not trying to make any connection..nor do i care whats in the divorce docs unl;ess of course he punched mani in the stomach and caused an abortion..he is not god...he was human and prone to human like behaviors..for some of you who think he can do no wrong , well...

Minn is a no-fault divorce state. You do not have to list any reason for the divorce so nothing about puching is going to be in the file. He also did not contest it and they used an arbitrator. I think they are looking for fianacial information.

laurarichardson said:

lwr001 said:

listen i like the pictures. i am not trying to make any connection..nor do i care whats in the divorce docs unl;ess of course he punched mani in the stomach and caused an abortion..he is not god...he was human and prone to human like behaviors..for some of you who think he can do no wrong , well...

Minn is a no-fault divorce state. You do not have to list any reason for the divorce so nothing about puching is going to be in the file. He also did not contest it and they used an arbitrator. I think they are looking for fianacial information.

i would never think he would do that...

lwr001 said:

morningsong said:

So, a divorce document in 2006 has a connection to a 1983-ish film shoot? Not seeing the straight line there.

listen i like the pictures. i am not trying to make any connection..nor do i care whats in the divorce docs unl;ess of course he punched mani in the stomach and caused an abortion..he is not god...he was human and prone to human like behaviors..for some of you who think he can do no wrong , well...

Basically you are preaching to the choir. Most didn't see him as a god. Trust. Before all this, godlike wasn't what was springing from folks lips around these parts. And yet we're still here.

morningsong said:

lwr001 said:

listen i like the pictures. i am not trying to make any connection..nor do i care whats in the divorce docs unl;ess of course he punched mani in the stomach and caused an abortion..he is not god...he was human and prone to human like behaviors..for some of you who think he can do no wrong , well...

Basically you are preaching to the choir. Most didn't see him as a god. Trust. Before all this, godlike wasn't what was springing from folks lips around these parts. And yet we're still here.

very good,, i mean his pimp hand was strong....its funny , he had all his woman hanging out at the memorial. iw onder what jill, cat and anna talked about

laurarichardson said:

lwr001 said:

listen i like the pictures. i am not trying to make any connection..nor do i care whats in the divorce docs unl;ess of course he punched mani in the stomach and caused an abortion..he is not god...he was human and prone to human like behaviors..for some of you who think he can do no wrong , well...

Minn is a no-fault divorce state. You do not have to list any reason for the divorce so nothing about puching is going to be in the file. He also did not contest it and they used an arbitrator. I think they are looking for fianacial information.

They are looking for everything.

lwr001 said:

any lawyers on here who can point to where in the constitution grants us the right to privacy that so many are speaking of?

Not a lawyer but you don't have to be. It is a tricky issue, to be sure. Here's a brief historical run-down for you:

http://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html

purplethunder3121 said:

lwr001 said:

morningsong said:

I wish I could figure out how to post these documents. I've tried several things but nothing has worked yet.

morningsong said:

I wish I could figure out how to post these documents. I've tried several things but nothing has worked yet.

Maybe just post the link?

I know others have posted a link before, but God only knows what thread that's in.

morningsong said:

laurarichardson said:

They are looking for everything.

The newspaper questioned whether some of the documents in the divorce file would shed light on why he was taking painkillers, any potential heirs, or the value of his estate at the time of their divorce.

1) Perhaps he was taking them because he had pain. They cannot get his medical files so they want to get the information from the divorce.

2) Do they really want to expose heirs who idenity is going to be protected by the Probate court.

3) He made 44 million and 6 million from CDs according to the AGE live guys in 2004. No need to know the value of his estate when we know he had a good years from 2004- 2006.

Once again was the judge who ruled on this on is crack? No real reason that a newspapers need to know any of this information. I hope she appeals it.

teach49 said:

morningsong said:

I wish I could figure out how to post these documents. I've tried several things but nothing has worked yet.

Maybe just post the link?

I know others have posted a link before, but God only knows what thread that's in.

I believe they are on the Star Tribunes website. Shows you what assholes they are.

LuxLove said:

Genesia said:

sunset3121 said:

How do you know? Did they share the results of their genetic testing with you?

I'm amazed at how frequently conjecture appears as a statement of fact on the org

No, I don't know, but going off their skulls, thumbs, big toes and eyes, they have no symptoms of what is a dominant gene so, if present, will be expressed (although expression does vary from mild to severe). Just like you don't carry achondroplasia/dwarfism, you don't carry Pfieffer. If you have no symptoms, you don't have the allele. So no, I don't think either of them had it.

Doctors tend to categorise Pfeiffer syndrome into three groups according to severity:

• In type I, the effects of the mutation can be mild and the child’s appearance little affected, apart from the characteristic broad thumbs and big toes – see below.
• Type II and III are much more severe. Many sutures are affected and the headshape and the face are very abnormal. The skull is short from front to back and very tall (turricephalic). The face can be quite set back and the eyes protruding.

[Edited 8/16/16 13:57pm]

rogifan said:

morningsong said:

And that's why I say f**k the Star Tribune. They are no better than rags like the National Enquirer.

Yeah, but I don't think the rags bother with getting files unsealed to look at facts. They just report BS straight up, without any evidence at all.

Not saying it's much better, but at least they aren't doing that.

I still think they're casting a wide net but have a specific angle that they're not revealing. I've seen reporters do that before.

But that's as far down the road of speculation that I'm willing to go.

teach49 said:

morningsong said:

I wish I could figure out how to post these documents. I've tried several things but nothing has worked yet.

Maybe just post the link?

I know others have posted a link before, but God only knows what thread that's in.

Sometimes the simplest solution is the best.

https://www.documentcloud...nseal.html

sunset3121 said:

LuxLove said:

No, I don't know, but going off their skulls, thumbs, big toes and eyes, they have no symptoms of what is a dominant gene so, if present, will be expressed (although expression does vary from mild to severe). Just like you don't carry achondroplasia/dwarfism, you don't carry Pfieffer. If you have no symptoms, you don't have the allele. So no, I don't think either of them had it.

Doctors tend to categorise Pfeiffer syndrome into three groups according to severity:

• In type I, the effects of the mutation can be mild and the child’s appearance little affected, apart from the characteristic broad thumbs and big toes – see below.
• Type II and III are much more severe. Many sutures are affected and the headshape and the face are very abnormal. The skull is short from front to back and very tall (turricephalic). The face can be quite set back and the eyes protruding.

What in the HAIL??? I really could have done without the visuals. All this time and I've never seen someone post something like that.

[Edited 8/16/16 12:46pm]

Wannabeyourlover1 said:

I read on another site that one of two things may be in those documents..... Either Manuela's bad behavior towards Prince, OR, that she divorced Prince because he was addicted to drugs. And that is why she is saying if the documents are released that the public will harass her. And if you guys remember what she posted on FB after their divorce, saying something to the effect that she hopes Prince wouldn't wind up on TV like Charlie Sheen. ( remember Charlies outburst about his drug addiction). After much critisism, Manuela took the post down. So, I am hoping they keep the dirt sealed. But, doesn't look that way.

Oh boy, I never knew this about Manuela. From what I read, she divorced Prince. Not sure if this is true or not, but "supposedly" Manuela was having an affair with Eric Benet and she became pregnant with Eric's child while she was married to Prince. It make sense because I always wondered why Prince and Manuela did not have a child together. I could be wrong. I heard things online from Manuela divorcing Prince because she wanted his money & she broke up his marriage with Mayte. Now from what I know, Prince had his marriage to Mayte "annulled". I think Prince made his choice and the heart wants what the heart wants. He didn't want to be married to Mayte anymore, obviously. Sorry -- I know I got off-base here.

Why is the post quoting me as having said something I didn't and WTF is with the pics? What the F has this thread become?

NinaB said:

BillieBalloon said:

It must be, I was confused about this too. The idea that Lemmy was Prince's drug dealer is laughable.

Boggles the mind. Lemmy was a cool guy tho. My Mum knew him back in the day & he always looked out 4 her.

I met him once. He actually was a nice dude.

teach49 said:

lwr001 said:

any lawyers on here who can point to where in the constitution grants us the right to privacy that so many are speaking of?

Not a lawyer but you don't have to be. It is a tricky issue, to be sure. Here's a brief historical run-down for you:

http://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html

its my understanding fromt readings that nothing implicitly states teh right to privacy that most assume we have

I can't look at those pictures of that poor baby!!!!!!! That seriously makes me wanna cry. Omg as a mother this seriously hurts my heart. OMG I feel sick to my stomach.

lwr001 said:

teach49 said:

Not a lawyer but you don't have to be. It is a tricky issue, to be sure. Here's a brief historical run-down for you:

http://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html

its my understanding fromt readings that nothing implicitly states teh right to privacy that most assume we have

You are probably right about that. Some things are definitely protected (like your SSN when you are alive), but some things are not. And, most divorce proceedings are a matter of public record...although you don't get the lawyer's work product...but it's mostly motions and settlements and such.

Not being a lawyer, my sense is that our privacy is not as protected as we think. I'm sure this case is not setting precedents. In fact, they are probably using precedents to get what they want. But, now we're in lawyer territory.

[Edited 8/16/16 12:46pm]

cloveringold85 said:

Wannabeyourlover1 said:

I read on another site that one of two things may be in those documents..... Either Manuela's bad behavior towards Prince, OR, that she divorced Prince because he was addicted to drugs. And that is why she is saying if the documents are released that the public will harass her. And if you guys remember what she posted on FB after their divorce, saying something to the effect that she hopes Prince wouldn't wind up on TV like Charlie Sheen. ( remember Charlies outburst about his drug addiction). After much critisism, Manuela took the post down. So, I am hoping they keep the dirt sealed. But, doesn't look that way.

Oh boy, I never knew this about Manuela. From what I read, she divorced Prince. Not sure if this is true or not, but "supposedly" Manuela was having an affair with Eric Benet and she became pregnant with Eric's child while she was married to Prince. It make sense because I always wondered why Prince and Manuela did not have a child together. I could be wrong. I heard things online from Manuela divorcing Prince because she wanted his money & she broke up his marriage with Mayte. Now from what I know, Prince had his marriage to Mayte "annulled". I think Prince made his choice and the heart wants what the heart wants. He didn't want to be married to Mayte anymore, obviously. Sorry -- I know I got off-base here.

Manuela's oldest daughter is only about 4 or 5 years old. She did not have a baby in 2006, 2007, or 2008.

morningsong said:

I finally read the actual court papers. Damn, there is no such thing as right to privacy. They (ST) are looking for anything and everything. So in 30-days, everybody will be able to cast their lots and see if they are right. And from the looks of it, everybody might just be right to some degree.

Do you have the link?

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

morningsong said:

I finally read the actual court papers. Damn, there is no such thing as right to privacy. They (ST) are looking for anything and everything. So in 30-days, everybody will be able to cast their lots and see if they are right. And from the looks of it, everybody might just be right to some degree.

Do you have the link?

She posted it. Just scroll up a bit on this page.

Interested to know your thoughts...