tmo1965 said:

NinaB said:

"...I developed it after some major trauma several years ago..." "...Somehow PTSD (at least in my case) has made past events suddenly more difficult 2 deal with & new & unrelated things can come up 2 trigger a PTSD response. Like a mass shooting or terror attack...or even the loss of a loved one particularly when it was sudden & tragic..." She goes on 2 say people with PTSD should talk 2 someone about it etc.

The way it's written leaves a lot to speculate about. She should have come out and said that she is talking about the Mumbai attack.

of course she should have. she left it murky on purpose. the shit show begins......

rogifan said:

rogifan said:

nursev said:

The only thing Prince was beating up was I know men are physically stronger than women, but in 30 years no woman has ever said P was abusive. Controlling yes...but Prince was not hitting women.

Ugh....why are we even discussing this?!? Makes me ill.

Give it time, as this thread continues, eventually he will have every affliction known to man and have committed every crime possible. With some of the posts here, who needs tabloids? Not even sure why there was an autopsy/investigation, all the answers are right here.

[Edited 8/17/16 10:45am]

we at the ORG are right, smack in the middle of this issue.

the judge denied ms. testolini's motion in part on the basis that stale financials were hardly likely to cause her suffering and harassment. pointing out that she hardly steers clear of the public eye.

but she filed an affidavit which allegedly claims online forums such as this one affect her and her family somehow.

now, the public access online court nelson-testolini divorce file reaches from 2006 through 2010 during which time it looks like at least two certificates of dissolution were issued. so it was not an uncomplicated divorce.

whatever information is in there, the court has given ms. testolini one month during which time she can file more motion papers moving the Court on the basis of her claims and arguments, and hopefully persuading said court to keep the file sealed

imo, arguments supporting a continuing seal on the file were pretty weak, but maybe her attys will come up with something better. to whit:

IF THE ORG CONTINUES TO BASH MANI - RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW 20 PAGES?? - FOR REASONS RELATING TO HER PAST DIVORCE, AND IF IN FACT WE LIVE UP TO THE WAY SHE HAS PRESENTED US IN COURT, AND IF SHE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT ELEMENT OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS /PTSD SHE MAY BE CLAIMING, THEN THE COURT MIGHT GRANT HER MOTION.

THE ORG AND COMMENTS HERE COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE MS. T'S CASE

think of it. us fans having an actual affect on the outcome.... maybe we should steer clear of discussing this subject here at this website, now that we know ms. testolini is inclined to present websites and rambling speculation of fans like this to the court as 'damaging'.

just a thought

[Edited 8/17/16 10:54am]

XxAxX said:

we at the ORG are right, smack in the middle of this issue.

the judge denied ms. testolini's motion in part on the basis that stale financials were hardly likely to cause her suffering and harassment. pointing out that she hardly steers clear of the public eye.

but she filed an affidavit which allegedly claims online forums such as this one affect her and her family somehow.

now, the public access online court nelson-testolini divorce file reaches from 2006 through 2010 during which time it looks like at least two certificates of dissolution were issued. so it was not an uncomplicated divorce.

whatever information is in there, the court has given ms. testolini one month during which time she can file more motion papers moving the Court on the basis of her claims and arguments, and hopefully persuading said court to keep the file sealed

imo, arguments supporting a continuing seal on the file were pretty weak, but maybe her attys will come up with something better. to whit:

IF THE ORG CONTINUES TO BASH MANI - RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW 20 PAGES?? - FOR REASONS RELATING TO HER PAST DIVORCE, AND IF IN FACT WE LIVE UP TO THE WAY SHE HAS PRESENTED US IN COURT, AND IF SHE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT ELEMENT OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS /PTSD SHE MAY BE CLAIMING, THEN THE COURT MIGHT GRANT HER MOTION.

THE ORG AND COMMENTS HERE COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE MS. T'S CASE

think of it. us fans having an actual affect on the outcome.... maybe we should steer clear of discussing this subject here at this website, now that we know ms. testolini is inclined to present websites and rambling speculation of fans like this to the court as 'damaging'.

just a thought

[Edited 8/17/16 10:54am]

I see your point but why come here on purpose to read what we have to say about her? She is causing her own emotional distress, not us. Stay off the org if you don't want your feelers hurt...just my honest opinion.

[Edited 8/17/16 11:04am]

XxAxX said:

we at the ORG are right, smack in the middle of this issue.

the judge denied ms. testolini's motion in part on the basis that stale financials were hardly likely to cause her suffering and harassment. pointing out that she hardly steers clear of the public eye.

but she filed an affidavit which allegedly claims online forums such as this one affect her and her family somehow.

now, the public access online court nelson-testolini divorce file reaches from 2006 through 2010 during which time it looks like at least two certificates of dissolution were issued. so it was not an uncomplicated divorce.

whatever information is in there, the court has given ms. testolini one month during which time she can file more motion papers moving the Court on the basis of her claims and arguments, and hopefully persuading said court to keep the file sealed

imo, arguments supporting a continuing seal on the file were pretty weak, but maybe her attys will come up with something better. to whit:

IF THE ORG CONTINUES TO BASH MANI - RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW 20 PAGES?? - FOR REASONS RELATING TO HER PAST DIVORCE, AND IF IN FACT WE LIVE UP TO THE WAY SHE HAS PRESENTED US IN COURT, AND IF SHE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT ELEMENT OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS /PTSD SHE MAY BE CLAIMING, THEN THE COURT MIGHT GRANT HER MOTION.

THE ORG AND COMMENTS HERE COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE MS. T'S CASE

think of it. us fans having an actual affect on the outcome.... maybe we should steer clear of discussing this subject here at this website, now that we know ms. testolini is inclined to present websites and rambling speculation of fans like this to the court as 'damaging'.

just a thought

[Edited 8/17/16 10:54am]

A very valid point and one which I certainly never thought of.

purplethunder3121 said:

XxAxX said:

we at the ORG are right, smack in the middle of this issue.

the judge denied ms. testolini's motion in part on the basis that stale financials were hardly likely to cause her suffering and harassment. pointing out that she hardly steers clear of the public eye.

but she filed an affidavit which allegedly claims online forums such as this one affect her and her family somehow.

now, the public access online court nelson-testolini divorce file reaches from 2006 through 2010 during which time it looks like at least two certificates of dissolution were issued. so it was not an uncomplicated divorce.

whatever information is in there, the court has given ms. testolini one month during which time she can file more motion papers moving the Court on the basis of her claims and arguments, and hopefully persuading said court to keep the file sealed

imo, arguments supporting a continuing seal on the file were pretty weak, but maybe her attys will come up with something better. to whit:

IF THE ORG CONTINUES TO BASH MANI - RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW 20 PAGES?? - FOR REASONS RELATING TO HER PAST DIVORCE, AND IF IN FACT WE LIVE UP TO THE WAY SHE HAS PRESENTED US IN COURT, AND IF SHE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT ELEMENT OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS /PTSD SHE MAY BE CLAIMING, THEN THE COURT MIGHT GRANT HER MOTION.

THE ORG AND COMMENTS HERE COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE MS. T'S CASE

think of it. us fans having an actual affect on the outcome.... maybe we should steer clear of discussing this subject here at this website, now that we know ms. testolini is inclined to present websites and rambling speculation of fans like this to the court as 'damaging'.

just a thought

[Edited 8/17/16 10:54am]

A very valid point and one which I certainly never thought of.

Really? Hence I sat my tail down.

CMSantos71 said:

XxAxX said:

we at the ORG are right, smack in the middle of this issue.

the judge denied ms. testolini's motion in part on the basis that stale financials were hardly likely to cause her suffering and harassment. pointing out that she hardly steers clear of the public eye.

but she filed an affidavit which allegedly claims online forums such as this one affect her and her family somehow.

now, the public access online court nelson-testolini divorce file reaches from 2006 through 2010 during which time it looks like at least two certificates of dissolution were issued. so it was not an uncomplicated divorce.

whatever information is in there, the court has given ms. testolini one month during which time she can file more motion papers moving the Court on the basis of her claims and arguments, and hopefully persuading said court to keep the file sealed

imo, arguments supporting a continuing seal on the file were pretty weak, but maybe her attys will come up with something better. to whit:

IF THE ORG CONTINUES TO BASH MANI - RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW 20 PAGES?? - FOR REASONS RELATING TO HER PAST DIVORCE, AND IF IN FACT WE LIVE UP TO THE WAY SHE HAS PRESENTED US IN COURT, AND IF SHE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT ELEMENT OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS /PTSD SHE MAY BE CLAIMING, THEN THE COURT MIGHT GRANT HER MOTION.

THE ORG AND COMMENTS HERE COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE MS. T'S CASE

think of it. us fans having an actual affect on the outcome.... maybe we should steer clear of discussing this subject here at this website, now that we know ms. testolini is inclined to present websites and rambling speculation of fans like this to the court as 'damaging'.

just a thought

[Edited 8/17/16 10:54am]

I see your point but why come here on purpose to read what we have to say about her? She is causing her own emotional distress, not us. Stay off the org if you don't want your feelers hurt...just my honest opinion.

Common sense has no place here.

So was the perfume fiasco initially Mrs. Benet's venture he was left to clean-up? Where the company chased him down bank to bank to pull the $4 million settlement for failure to promote it?

"A judge in April ordered Prince to pay $3.95 million for Revelations’ out-of-pocket losses, while denying the company’s request for punitive and lost-profit damages. The judge found there was no evidence that Prince and co-defendant Paisley Park Enterprises acted with malicious intent. Prince appealed the ruling the following month."

"David Donahue, an attorney with Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu Pc in New York representing Universal Music, declined to comment on the settlement. C. Kawezya Burris, an attorney with Kaye Scholer LLP in New York representing Prince, didn’t immediately return a voice-mail message seeking comment.

The case is Revelations Perfume and Cosmetics Inc. v. Prince Rogers Nelson, 603350/2008, New York State Supreme Court (Manhattan)."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-29/musician-prince-settles-lawsuit-by-vivendi-over-marketing-deal

slowlywiltingflower said:

deerpath said:

So was the perfume fiasco initially Mrs. Benet's venture he was left to clean-up? Where the company chased him down bank to bank to pull the $4 million settlement for failure to promote it?

"A judge in April ordered Prince to pay $3.95 million for Revelations’ out-of-pocket losses, while denying the company’s request for punitive and lost-profit damages. The judge found there was no evidence that Prince and co-defendant Paisley Park Enterprises acted with malicious intent. Prince appealed the ruling the following month."

"David Donahue, an attorney with Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu Pc in New York representing Universal Music, declined to comment on the settlement. C. Kawezya Burris, an attorney with Kaye Scholer LLP in New York representing Prince, didn’t immediately return a voice-mail message seeking comment.

The case is Revelations Perfume and Cosmetics Inc. v. Prince Rogers Nelson, 603350/2008, New York State Supreme Court (Manhattan)."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-29/musician-prince-settles-lawsuit-by-vivendi-over-marketing-deal

What does this have to do with a divorce that took place in 2006?

Could you line it up for us really slow people?

XxAxX said:

Mkilpatrick74 said:

laurarichardson said:

XxAxX said:

we at the ORG are right, smack in the middle of this issue.

the judge denied ms. testolini's motion in part on the basis that stale financials were hardly likely to cause her suffering and harassment. pointing out that she hardly steers clear of the public eye.

but she filed an affidavit which allegedly claims online forums such as this one affect her and her family somehow.

now, the public access online court nelson-testolini divorce file reaches from 2006 through 2010 during which time it looks like at least two certificates of dissolution were issued. so it was not an uncomplicated divorce.

whatever information is in there, the court has given ms. testolini one month during which time she can file more motion papers moving the Court on the basis of her claims and arguments, and hopefully persuading said court to keep the file sealed

imo, arguments supporting a continuing seal on the file were pretty weak, but maybe her attys will come up with something better. to whit:

IF THE ORG CONTINUES TO BASH MANI - RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW 20 PAGES?? - FOR REASONS RELATING TO HER PAST DIVORCE, AND IF IN FACT WE LIVE UP TO THE WAY SHE HAS PRESENTED US IN COURT, AND IF SHE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT ELEMENT OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS /PTSD SHE MAY BE CLAIMING, THEN THE COURT MIGHT GRANT HER MOTION.

THE ORG AND COMMENTS HERE COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE MS. T'S CASE

think of it. us fans having an actual affect on the outcome.... maybe we should steer clear of discussing this subject here at this website, now that we know ms. testolini is inclined to present websites and rambling speculation of fans like this to the court as 'damaging'.

just a thought

[Edited 8/17/16 10:54am]

--- So we should continue to bash her (LoL).

Go for it. Full steam ahead.

^ well...? i guess not. it's mean to bash her anyway.

but i'm betting five bucks that this very thread will be attached as "Exhibit B" to her next motion.

if i were her legal team i'd come on here and stir things up....

wait. no..

XxAxX said:

^ well...? i guess not. it's mean to bash her anyway.

but i'm betting five bucks that this very thread will be attached as "Exhibit B" to her next motion.

if i were her legal team i'd come on here and stir things up....

wait. no..

What are you doing? We're trying to win the appeal, right?

morningsong said:

XxAxX said:

^ well...? i guess not. it's mean to bash her anyway.

but i'm betting five bucks that this very thread will be attached as "Exhibit B" to her next motion.

if i were her legal team i'd come on here and stir things up....

wait. no..

What are you doing? We're trying to win the appeal, right?

Genesia said:

XxAxX said:

morningsong said:

What are you doing? We're trying to win the appeal, right?

Oh you just wanna be noisy. I get it. Ha.

CMSantos71 said:

XxAxX said:

we at the ORG are right, smack in the middle of this issue.

the judge denied ms. testolini's motion in part on the basis that stale financials were hardly likely to cause her suffering and harassment. pointing out that she hardly steers clear of the public eye.

but she filed an affidavit which allegedly claims online forums such as this one affect her and her family somehow.

now, the public access online court nelson-testolini divorce file reaches from 2006 through 2010 during which time it looks like at least two certificates of dissolution were issued. so it was not an uncomplicated divorce.

whatever information is in there, the court has given ms. testolini one month during which time she can file more motion papers moving the Court on the basis of her claims and arguments, and hopefully persuading said court to keep the file sealed

imo, arguments supporting a continuing seal on the file were pretty weak, but maybe her attys will come up with something better. to whit:

IF THE ORG CONTINUES TO BASH MANI - RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW 20 PAGES?? - FOR REASONS RELATING TO HER PAST DIVORCE, AND IF IN FACT WE LIVE UP TO THE WAY SHE HAS PRESENTED US IN COURT, AND IF SHE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT ELEMENT OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS /PTSD SHE MAY BE CLAIMING, THEN THE COURT MIGHT GRANT HER MOTION.

THE ORG AND COMMENTS HERE COULD POTENTIALLY MAKE MS. T'S CASE

think of it. us fans having an actual affect on the outcome.... maybe we should steer clear of discussing this subject here at this website, now that we know ms. testolini is inclined to present websites and rambling speculation of fans like this to the court as 'damaging'.

just a thought

[Edited 8/17/16 10:54am]

I see your point but why come here on purpose to read what we have to say about her? She is causing her own emotional distress, not us. Stay off the org if you don't want your feelers hurt...just my honest opinion.

[Edited 8/17/16 11:04am]

i agree with you. i just mention the situation so we are aware of our surroundings and the 3D implications of this thread

morningsong said:

XxAxX said:

Oh you just wanna be noisy. I get it. Ha.

i did leave earlier, but then i saw everyone's names posting here and got sucked back in. so yeah, noisy

XxAxX said:

morningsong said:

Oh you just wanna be noisy. I get it. Ha.

i did leave earlier, but then i saw everyone's names posting here and got sucked back in. so yeah, noisy

Nah, I'm not talking about here. SSDD, around these parts.

I'm talking about what's in the divorce papers. You've messed up Exhibit B now.

XxAxX said:

some of ya'all crazy !!!!

leadline said:

rogifan said:

leadline said:

rogifan said:

nursev said:

The only thing Prince was beating up was I know men are physically stronger than women, but in 30 years no woman has ever said P was abusive. Controlling yes...but Prince was not hitting women.

Ugh....why are we even discussing this?!? Makes me ill.

Give it time, as this thread continues, eventually he will have every affliction known to man and have committed every crime possible. With some of the posts here, who needs tabloids? Not even sure why there was an autopsy/investigation, all the answers are right here.

[Edited 8/17/16 10:45am]

No kidding. Pretty soon some stupid tabloid will have Prince was a wife beater stories because they misread something snooping on the org.

rogifan said:

leadline said:

Give it time, as this thread continues, eventually he will have every affliction known to man and have committed every crime possible. With some of the posts here, who needs tabloids? Not even sure why there was an autopsy/investigation, all the answers are right here.

[Edited 8/17/16 10:45am]

No kidding. Pretty soon some stupid tabloid will have Prince was a wife beater stories because they misread something snooping on the org.

That wouldn't be good.

deerpath said: