Reply #600 posted 08/17/16 12:39am
Reply #601 posted 08/17/16 1:15am
wildgoldenhone y |
ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said: I want you all to know the ex-wife presented to the Judge copies of message-board posts and comments posted in the immediate aftermath of her divorce. You know which message board comments she is talking about, eh? You are now all part of the court record! :falloff: U KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS? MANIA'S ON THE ORG!! Smile everybody! |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #602 posted 08/17/16 1:29am
wildgoldenhone y |
ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:
XxAxX said:
^ did she mention her prior history as a fan who posted on just such message boards, establishing herself as part of the online presence she claims to have been harassed by?? just wondering
Well the Judge did point out "It notes that if Ms. Testolini desired to stay out of the public eye, she should not have provided pictures of her children to US Magazine." Ouch! [Edited 8/16/16 19:08pm] OUCH IS RIGHT! . |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #603 posted 08/17/16 3:33am
Heidi |
Why Mani's divorce papers and not unseal Mayte's ? Why not bother with Mayté's divorce papers ? |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #604 posted 08/17/16 5:43am
XxAxX |
XxAxX said:
ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:
Well the Judge did point out "It notes that if Ms. Testolini desired to stay out of the public eye, she should not have provided pictures of her children to US Magazine."
Ouch!
[Edited 8/16/16 19:08pm]
oooo. slam.
important distinction between what the judge said and the "It" the judge refers to. "It notes that if Ms. Testolini desired to stay out of the public eye, she should not have provided pictures of her children to US Magazine."
the Judge did not say: "if Ms. Testolini desired to stay out of the public eye, she should not have provided pictures of her children to US Magazine."
"It" is the The Star Stribune. read the order., p.11 para 3
the Judge only points out that the Star Tribune made this point. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #605 posted 08/17/16 5:56am
Heidi |
Correct. The judge simply agreed with the point made by ST. Which - let's be honest - is a fair point. I still think that ST are scum, but I'm wondering what are Mani's grounds to prevent the unsealing of documents? Is it to protect herself of him ?
.
She posted something on her FB about having PTSD - what's that about ?
.
And still, I'm wondering, why ST never tried to unseal the divorce papers from Mayté's divorce ? |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #606 posted 08/17/16 6:14am
leadline |
wildgoldenhoney said:
ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:
Well the Judge did point out "It notes that if Ms. Testolini desired to stay out of the public eye, she should not have provided pictures of her children to US Magazine."
Ouch!
[Edited 8/16/16 19:08pm]
OUCH IS RIGHT! .
I agree that is true what the judge is saying, but her doing that should have no bearing whether these particular docs get released or not. That quote makes it seem like if that line never existed, she would have had a better shot at keeping her private life under wraps, when in reality, what she did with US Magazine and what is happening now should be mutually exclusive as it pertains to this case.
But like I said all along in this thread, she is protecting herself here and not Prince, she doesn't want the public to know why they got divorced, or, how much she received, or, was still receiving, in her settlement. I can understand that.
[Edited 8/17/16 6:15am] "You always get the dream that you deserve, from what you value the most" -Prince 2013 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #607 posted 08/17/16 6:14am
XxAxX |
Heidi said:
Correct. The judge simply agreed with the point made by ST. Which - let's be honest - is a fair point. I still think that ST are scum, but I'm wondering what are Mani's grounds to prevent the unsealing of documents? Is it to protect herself of him ?
.
She posted something on her FB about having PTSD - what's that about ?
.
And still, I'm wondering, why ST never tried to unseal the divorce papers from Mayté's divorce ?
definitely a fair point. she has made the most of her association with prince for many years now, using his celebrity status to augment her own wherever she can.
and if she is media shy, whyever was she on that episode of hollywood exes??? that alone could be considered guaranteed to generate a lot of unkind fan speculation.
i don't and never will follow her on FB so i don't know what she said about PTSD.
but, i'm aware from reading posts here that she's used internet fora herself to stab at prince over the years with off hand remarks she posts (prince, charlie sheen dig) and later deletes... so it's not like she even does that great a job of protecting her own privacy.
again, in my opinion the file should remain sealed to protect prince's privacy.
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #608 posted 08/17/16 6:30am
rogifan |
I'm sorry I still don't see where the Star Tribune made a compelling argument argument that it is in the public interest for this stuff to be unsealed. Outside of people being interested in celebrity gossip what is the public good here? Paisley Park is in your heart
#PrinceForever 💜 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #609 posted 08/17/16 6:35am
Reply #610 posted 08/17/16 6:43am
LuxLove |
rogifan said:
I'm sorry I still don't see where the Star Tribune made a compelling argument argument that it is in the public interest for this stuff to be unsealed. Outside of people being interested in celebrity gossip what is the public good here?
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #611 posted 08/17/16 6:49am
Genesia |
Manuela tried to have it both ways. The court didn't buy it. We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #612 posted 08/17/16 6:51am
Reply #613 posted 08/17/16 6:55am
rogifan |
rogifan said: I'm sorry I still don't see where the Star Tribune made a compelling argument argument that it is in the public interest for this stuff to be unsealed. Outside of people being interested in celebrity gossip what is the public good here? Oh and I don't care how much people dislike Mani or whatever. Still doesn't make a case for unsealing this being in the public interest. It's just people being vindictive because they don't like someone. Paisley Park is in your heart
#PrinceForever 💜 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #614 posted 08/17/16 7:04am
Genesia |
rogifan said:
rogifan said:
I'm sorry I still don't see where the Star Tribune made a compelling argument argument that it is in the public interest for this stuff to be unsealed. Outside of people being interested in celebrity gossip what is the public good here?
Oh and I don't care how much people dislike Mani or whatever. Still doesn't make a case for unsealing this being in the public interest. It's just people being vindictive because they don't like someone.
Seriously? Do you think the judge came to prince.org and said, "Man, people really don't like this woman. I better unseal the divorce records"?
Of course, that didn't happen. The decision is based on legal precedent. That's what all those "So-and-so vs. So-and-so citations" in the decision refer to. The relative popularities of the plaintiff and defendant have nothing to do with it.
We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #615 posted 08/17/16 7:06am
LuxLove |
rogifan said:
rogifan said:
I'm sorry I still don't see where the Star Tribune made a compelling argument argument that it is in the public interest for this stuff to be unsealed. Outside of people being interested in celebrity gossip what is the public good here?
Oh and I don't care how much people dislike Mani or whatever. Still doesn't make a case for unsealing this being in the public interest. It's just people being vindictive because they don't like someone.
What winds me up about the hate for Manuela is that Prince would be fighting this too & even if she is out for herself she is protecting him by default & we should all be greatful for that. And I have loved him since I was 7 (though my dad insists it's actually since I was 4 cos he says I loved SOTT ) so that's 25 years & I do not believe PRINCE owes me anything or I have the right to know anything just because I bought his music & fancied the arse off him. He was a private person & he would be hating all this!
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #616 posted 08/17/16 7:16am
PaisleyPrint |
Camille10 said:
PurpleHeartBreak said:
My guess is since Manuela is worried about harassment, the documents will reveal that Prince did indeed carry the Pfieffer Syndrome gene.....that being the reason he did not want to try and have any more children. She wanted kids. That is just my guess, though. [Edited 8/15/16 12:22pm]
This is also my guess.
Why would he marry someone who wanted children and he didn't. That's one of the MAIN things discussed by couples before tying the knot. Doesn't make sense to me. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #617 posted 08/17/16 7:26am
Mumio |
destinyc1 said:
http://pagesix.com/2011/0...xs-fiance/ REMEMBER THIS ARTICLE
Just checked that article out. Interesting, does anyone know why it was reported in the article that Prince cold-shouldered Diddy?
Welcome to "the org", Mumio…they can have you, but I'll have your love in the end |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #618 posted 08/17/16 7:35am
Mumio |
Genesia said:
Seriously? Do you think the judge came to prince.org and said, "Man, people really don't like this woman. I better unseal the divorce records"?
Of course, that didn't happen. The decision is based on legal precedent. That's what all those "So-and-so vs. So-and-so citations" in the decision refer to. The relative popularities of the plaintiff and defendant have nothing to do with it.
Sorry, but this really cracked me up
Welcome to "the org", Mumio…they can have you, but I'll have your love in the end |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #619 posted 08/17/16 7:37am
malbena |
Mumio said:
Genesia said:
Seriously? Do you think the judge came to prince.org and said, "Man, people really don't like this woman. I better unseal the divorce records"?
Of course, that didn't happen. The decision is based on legal precedent. That's what all those "So-and-so vs. So-and-so citations" in the decision refer to. The relative popularities of the plaintiff and defendant have nothing to do with it.
Sorry, but this really cracked me up
Me too! Genesia's posts overall make me laugh out loud before my computer. Great sense of humor much needed especially on rather critical threads! Keep up This is my normal life. These marital standards cannot be recreated with money. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #620 posted 08/17/16 7:38am
LuxLove |
Mumio said:
destinyc1 said:
http://pagesix.com/2011/0...xs-fiance/ REMEMBER THIS ARTICLE
Just checked that article out. Interesting, does anyone know why it was reported in the article that Prince cold-shouldered Diddy?
P. Diddy is the devil. You didn't know? |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #621 posted 08/17/16 7:48am
malbena |
wildgoldenhoney said:
ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:
I want you all to know the ex-wife presented to the Judge copies of message-board posts and comments posted in the immediate aftermath of her divorce.
You know which message board comments she is talking about, eh?
You are now all part of the court record!
U KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS? MANIA'S ON THE ORG!! Smile everybody!
Whether sealed or unsealed, the certain resentment against this individual has, is, and will continue. Thus, I don't find this argument relevant in her defense added to the fact that she chose to share about her private life via social media.
I would encourage her and her lawyers however to stress more on the privacy of Prince and how most people who respected him would rather see his divorce kept private. and focus on his music, his talent, his philantropy, this unique persona and much more he had to offer.... This is my normal life. These marital standards cannot be recreated with money. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #622 posted 08/17/16 7:49am
ISaidLifeIsJus tAGame |
XxAxX said:
XxAxX said:
oooo. slam.
important distinction between what the judge said and the "It" the judge refers to. "It notes that if Ms. Testolini desired to stay out of the public eye, she should not have provided pictures of her children to US Magazine."
the Judge did not say: "if Ms. Testolini desired to stay out of the public eye, she should not have provided pictures of her children to US Magazine."
"It" is the The Star Stribune. read the order., p.11 para 3
the Judge only points out that the Star Tribune made this point.
If the Judge didnt think this was an important argument he wouldnt have put it in his Order. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #623 posted 08/17/16 7:52am
zenarose |
XxAxX...... I read the Facebook post you are speaking of!! Quote " Thankfully I am passed the days of someone slamming a kitchen cabinet and me instinctively ducking for cover" Also this Quote
"I developed it after some major trauma several years ago" refering to PTSD. I do have a screen shot of it just in case it disappears. It shows that it was posted today 8/17/2016, 3 hours ago. IMO she is referring to PTSD due to domestic violence, whether from her Father, Mother, sibling, spouse, ect. It could also refer to several other violent situtions such as rape or robery.... I had to read what she said a couple of times. Then I got SO DANG MAD!! I paced around making up new cuss words (I added them to my spread sheet for future use) I am going to think on this a bit. I don't know what she is insinuating.... but I don't think I'll take a bite of that pie. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #624 posted 08/17/16 8:01am
LuxLove |
zenarose said:
XxAxX...... I read the Facebook post you are speaking of!! Quote " Thankfully I am passed the days of someone slamming a kitchen cabinet and me instinctively ducking for cover" Also this Quote
"I developed it after some major trauma several years ago" refering to PTSD. I do have a screen shot of it just in case it disappears. It shows that it was posted today 8/17/2016, 3 hours ago. IMO she is referring to PTSD due to domestic violence, whether from her Father, Mother, sibling, spouse, ect. It could also refer to several other violent situtions such as rape or robery.... I had to read what she said a couple of times. Then I got SO DANG MAD!! I paced around making up new cuss words (I added them to my spread sheet for future use) I am going to think on this a bit. I don't know what she is insinuating.... but I don't think I'll take a bite of that pie.
Perhaps she is prepping people for something.
I dunno I still hope she wins the appeal.
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #625 posted 08/17/16 8:02am
malbena |
zenarose said:
XxAxX...... I read the Facebook post you are speaking of!! Quote " Thankfully I am passed the days of someone slamming a kitchen cabinet and me instinctively ducking for cover" Also this Quote
"I developed it after some major trauma several years ago" refering to PTSD. I do have a screen shot of it just in case it disappears. It shows that it was posted today 8/17/2016, 3 hours ago. IMO she is referring to PTSD due to domestic violence, whether from her Father, Mother, sibling, spouse, ect. It could also refer to several other violent situtions such as rape or robery.... I had to read what she said a couple of times. Then I got SO DANG MAD!! I paced around making up new cuss words (I added them to my spread sheet for future use) I am going to think on this a bit. I don't know what she is insinuating.... but I don't think I'll take a bite of that pie.
Do you have a link for that post? This is my normal life. These marital standards cannot be recreated with money. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #626 posted 08/17/16 8:04am
ISaidLifeIsJus tAGame |
malbena said:
zenarose said:
XxAxX...... I read the Facebook post you are speaking of!! Quote " Thankfully I am passed the days of someone slamming a kitchen cabinet and me instinctively ducking for cover" Also this Quote
"I developed it after some major trauma several years ago" refering to PTSD. I do have a screen shot of it just in case it disappears. It shows that it was posted today 8/17/2016, 3 hours ago. IMO she is referring to PTSD due to domestic violence, whether from her Father, Mother, sibling, spouse, ect. It could also refer to several other violent situtions such as rape or robery.... I had to read what she said a couple of times. Then I got SO DANG MAD!! I paced around making up new cuss words (I added them to my spread sheet for future use) I am going to think on this a bit. I don't know what she is insinuating.... but I don't think I'll take a bite of that pie.
Do you have a link for that post?
Just go to FB and type her name in under search.
So, now it has gone from the ST is searching for drugs, to it was domestic violence per the insinuations of the ex? |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #627 posted 08/17/16 8:06am
rogifan |
Genesia said:
rogifan said:
rogifan said:
I'm sorry I still don't see where the Star Tribune made a compelling argument argument that it is in the public interest for this stuff to be unsealed. Outside of people being interested in celebrity gossip what is the public good here?
Oh and I don't care how much people dislike Mani or whatever. Still doesn't make a case for unsealing this being in the public interest. It's just people being vindictive because they don't like someone.
Seriously? Do you think the judge came to prince.org and said, "Man, people really don't like this woman. I better unseal the divorce records"?
Of course, that didn't happen. The decision is based on legal precedent. That's what all those "So-and-so vs. So-and-so citations" in the decision refer to. The relative popularities of the plaintiff and defendant have nothing to do with it.
I'm not talking about the judge, I'm talking about fans. I'm thinking about Prince's privacy. This woman seems whack and Prince isn't here to defend himself. [Edited 8/17/16 8:12am]Paisley Park is in your heart
#PrinceForever 💜 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #628 posted 08/17/16 8:10am
LuxLove |
LuxLove said:
zenarose said:
XxAxX...... I read the Facebook post you are speaking of!! Quote " Thankfully I am passed the days of someone slamming a kitchen cabinet and me instinctively ducking for cover" Also this Quote
"I developed it after some major trauma several years ago" refering to PTSD. I do have a screen shot of it just in case it disappears. It shows that it was posted today 8/17/2016, 3 hours ago. IMO she is referring to PTSD due to domestic violence, whether from her Father, Mother, sibling, spouse, ect. It could also refer to several other violent situtions such as rape or robery.... I had to read what she said a couple of times. Then I got SO DANG MAD!! I paced around making up new cuss words (I added them to my spread sheet for future use) I am going to think on this a bit. I don't know what she is insinuating.... but I don't think I'll take a bite of that pie.
Perhaps she is prepping people for something.
I dunno I still hope she wins the appeal.
Or maybe she is just saying the stress of the situation is causing a PTSD flair up?
I have contracted speculation-itis from this forum
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Reply #629 posted 08/17/16 8:11am
zenarose |
ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:
malbena said:
Do you have a link for that post?
Just go to FB and type her name in under search.
So, now it has gone from the ST is searching for drugs, to it was domestic violence per the insinuations of the ex?
That's the way it appears to me. When you get a chance read her post and see what your thoughts are. I'm really stunned. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
copyright © 1998-2024 prince.org. all rights reserved.