laurarichardson said:

rogifan said:

If it was drugs that seems odd to me. If someone had a drug problem that was affecting their marriage one would assume it would spill out beyond the marriage in to their professional life. We have no evidence of that with Prince. He made records, toured, gave interviews, did awards shows and made other appearances all without any speculation of drug use/abuse. And no public instances where you wondered if he was under the influence of something. That was NOT the case with Charlie Sheen at all. He was a public embarrassment. Prince, up until the very end was the consummate professional, always totally with it and playing and singing as well as ever.

-- This is the thing that makes no sense to me. Even if he developed a high tolerance to the pain meds (which at his size I find hard to believe) How was he able to get around and get so much done if he was poping pills for the last 10 years? He never looked fucked up at any of his concerts as I have looking his live shows going back to 2004. He rode in the jump seat with the bus driver most of that tour and the driver said he so cool. No one has said anything about him being moody or hyper. Something is just not right and this divorce thing is even more weird.

I don't think they're looking for info about drug use. What would be in the file that would be newsworthy? They may be asking for the files because they have a hunch about something but need confirmation. That can often lead to nothing in these journalistic endeavors. I've followed a missing person's case where a freelance reporter was writing a book. He filed FOIA claims all the time (this isn't one, but it's similar) and half the time the info he got just eliminated a lead, rather than shed any new light on the case.

There's no need to confirm he used pain meds 10 years ago. He died from an overdose. This is about something else and it may, in fact, turn out to be nothing at all.

[Edited 8/15/16 13:54pm]

[Edited 8/15/16 13:55pm]

Mkilpatrick74 said:

laurarichardson said:

-- This is the thing that makes no sense to me. Even if he developed a high tolerance to the pain meds (which at his size I find hard to believe) How was he able to get around and get so much done if he was poping pills for the last 10 years? He never looked fucked up at any of his concerts as I have looking his live shows going back to 2004. He rode in the jump seat with the bus driver most of that tour and the driver said he so cool. No one has said anything about him being moody or hyper. Something is just not right and this divorce thing is even more weird.

Size doesn't stop someone from building a tolerance. I've been on pain meds for close to 10 years thanks to 10 different spine surgeries. Every couple of years we have to increase and tweak dosage. If a normal person took what I tske each day they would likely OD but it can't be helped. It's been a gradual build over the years and nothing one cam do to stop it.. it suxks to have your life revolve around pain meds and know that you have no life without it. If u met me, even with the high dose I take, you'd never know I am on any prescription meds. I'm 100% normal. As he would be too.

Yep.

teach49 said:

Dibblekins said:

I'm not so sure...

.

Admittedly, I am in the UK, NOT the US but my ex and I got a 'friendly' divorce (I was the petitioner, and he didn't contest it). Ours was so friendly we didn't even use a lawyer, just did it ourselves (trust me, it's a fraction of the price). However, you STILL have to cite the reasons why you want a divorce - 'unreasonable behaviour / irreconcilable differences' was our only option out of those given - and you then have to provide quite detailed paragraphs outlining what precisely constituted those unreasonable behaviours. It's not a very pleasant exercise - and requires revealing things you'd rather others didn't know.

In the US, you don't have to go into detail in a no-fault divorce, which is what they had. You might check a box that says "irreconcileable differences" but that's about it. I know this from familial experience with divorce, along with several lawyers on the org who have stated as much.

So, yeah, it's different here.

Sounds better, lol!

laurarichardson said:

rogifan said:

If it was drugs that seems odd to me. If someone had a drug problem that was affecting their marriage one would assume it would spill out beyond the marriage in to their professional life. We have no evidence of that with Prince. He made records, toured, gave interviews, did awards shows and made other appearances all without any speculation of drug use/abuse. And no public instances where you wondered if he was under the influence of something. That was NOT the case with Charlie Sheen at all. He was a public embarrassment. Prince, up until the very end was the consummate professional, always totally with it and playing and singing as well as ever.

He never looked fucked up at any of his concerts as I have looking his live shows going back to 2004.

I know! I completley was shocked when I found out he was taking painkillers. I saw him a handful of times in the previous decade and not once did I think he was acting goofy like someone who was on narcotics. It wasn't like he was stumbling around drunk-like and acting loopy like Anna Nicole. I was taking care of my father this summer because he he had a total knee replacement and he was perscribed oxycodone..and wow...he was so out of it and confused. Prince never seemed that way to me but I'm only coming from a limited perspecitive of a fan...but still he hid it well..and I feel terrible that he was suffering and in any kind of pain. Man that guy loved his fans to push through all that for us. He didn't have to do all of that....I wish he was still here.

teach49 said:

Krystalkisses said:

laurarichardson said:

rogifan said: He never looked fucked up at any of his concerts as I have looking his live shows going back to 2004.

I know! I completley was shocked when I found out he was taking painkillers. I saw him a handful of times in the previous decade and not once did I think he was acting goofy like someone who was on narcotics. It wasn't like he was stumbling around drunk-like and acting loopy like Anna Nicole. I was taking care of my father this summer because he he had a total knee replacement and he was perscribed oxycodone..and wow...he was so out of it and confused. Prince never seemed that way to me but I'm only coming from a limited perspecitive of a fan...but still he hid it well..and I feel terrible that he was suffering and in any kind of pain. Man that guy loved his fans to push through all that for us. He didn't have to do all of that....I wish he was still here.

I don't think he did it for us, or not mainly for us. I think he did it because he loved it, it was in him to his bones, it was what he lived for. If he took medication to keep performing, it was because he wanted to and needed to keep performing...I just really wish he'd taken it easier earlier...and done it while he was sitting the fuck down before he was in so much pain

Mkilpatrick74 said:

teach49 said:

Dibblekins said:

I'm not so sure...

.

Admittedly, I am in the UK, NOT the US but my ex and I got a 'friendly' divorce (I was the petitioner, and he didn't contest it). Ours was so friendly we didn't even use a lawyer, just did it ourselves (trust me, it's a fraction of the price). However, you STILL have to cite the reasons why you want a divorce - 'unreasonable behaviour / irreconcilable differences' was our only option out of those given - and you then have to provide quite detailed paragraphs outlining what precisely constituted those unreasonable behaviours. It's not a very pleasant exercise - and requires revealing things you'd rather others didn't know.

In the US, you don't have to go into detail in a no-fault divorce, which is what they had. You might check a box that says "irreconcileable differences" but that's about it. I know this from familial experience with divorce, along with several lawyers on the org who have stated as much.

So, yeah, it's different here.

I must admit I have always found it strange that when you get married it is just assumed that you love each other and yet when you get divorced, apparently saying I no longer love that person, I don't thinkt anything bad of them but I just don't love them, isn't a valid reason.

rogifan said:

Mkilpatrick74 said:

Size doesn't stop someone from building a tolerance. I've been on pain meds for close to 10 years thanks to 10 different spine surgeries. Every couple of years we have to increase and tweak dosage. If a normal person took what I tske each day they would likely OD but it can't be helped. It's been a gradual build over the years and nothing one cam do to stop it.. it suxks to have your life revolve around pain meds and know that you have no life without it. If u met me, even with the high dose I take, you'd never know I am on any prescription meds. I'm 100% normal. As he would be too.

But then the question is why would drugs be the reason for her asking for a divorce? That's where I was going. My guess is it's something else. But most of all its BS. Certainly not something the Star Tribue should have a right to. There is no public good that could come from this information being released.

Agreed.

rogifan said:

teach49 said:

I don't think they're looking for info about drug use. What would be in the file that would be newsworthy? They may be asking for the files because they have a hunch about something but need confirmation. That can often lead to nothing in these journalistic endeavors. I've followed a missing person's case where a freelance reporter was writing a book. He filed FOIA claims all the time (this isn't one, but it's similar) and half the time the info he got just eliminated a lead, rather than shed any new light on the case.

There's no need to confirm he used pain meds 10 years ago. He died from an overdose. This is about something else and it may, in fact, turn out to be nothing at all.

[Edited 8/15/16 13:54pm]

[Edited 8/15/16 13:55pm]

I'm speculating that because I believe someone else posted in the estate thread that this is what the Star Tribune was after.

Manuela Testolini stated on FB last week that they were looking for evidence of drug use so that's where people are getting it from. I guess it's possible that they stated their reasons in court but we have no evidence of that outside of her comments (and I think she's just speculating at what seems reasonable to her, but I obviously don't know). I really hate to bring that up, though, since there are quite a few people on the org who can't stand her and we don't want to go down that rabbit hole again.

In the end, we'll see soon enough if they find something and report on it. In fact, if they unseal the files there are quite a few orgers who are watching the court files and I'm sure we'll know one way or the other soon. I think the most logical, straightforward reason is usually the right one. P's divorce lawyers asked the judge a few weeks ago to lift a seal on their files because their work project might shed light on on possible heirs and they wanted to send the files to Bremer Trust. Then, the ST went to court to get the seal on the divorce files lifted. I just think they're trying to find out what his lawyers were talking about. Could be a whole lot of nothing or could shed light on something.

In the end, she lost this round. Maybe her lawyers will appeal.

[Edited 8/15/16 14:18pm]

Mkilpatrick74 said:

teach49 said:

I don't think they're looking for info about drug use. What would be in the file that would be newsworthy? They may be asking for the files because they have a hunch about something but need confirmation. That can often lead to nothing in these journalistic endeavors.

[Edited 8/15/16 13:54pm]

[Edited 8/15/16 13:55pm]

We don't know what the Strib is looking for in these records. Mani claimed they were looking for drug-use statements but we don't know if that's true. The could be looking for info on finances or heirs (not necessarily offspring, just people who might have been financially dependent on Prince) or who knows what else. Their reporters haven't said anything about their goals, from what I've read.

laurarichardson said:

leadline said:

He was not using pain pills.

Yeah it sucks that they are getting unsealed, but it looks like they still have the opportunity to have selected pages of those documents withheld.

// Then what was he using because if it was other drugs so what. How many people in the world are using drugs particully in entertainment field. Why is a man who is dead and we know what he died from being put under such investigation by s media outlet. If you do not see something is fishy about this you need to get your eyes check.

He was not on drugs, he was not abusing pills. If you want to believe everything the media spoon feeds you, that is your perogative.

NinaB said:

The endless speculations, diagnosing etc. It's never gonna end is it? I just think he's a performer/dancer, like many others it eventually did damage 2 his hip/s (possibly knee/ancle etc). At some point he had 2 take pain killers 2 function. Over time he built up a resilience, had 2 kp upping it. This did damage 2 his heart/organs(?)
If this is the case, I wish it was made public, no shame in that. Damn sight better than the rumours & speculation going around since April.

laurarichardson said:

NinaB said:

The endless speculations, diagnosing etc. It's never gonna end is it? I just think he's a performer/dancer, like many others it eventually did damage 2 his hip/s (possibly knee/ancle etc). At some point he had 2 take pain killers 2 function. Over time he built up a resilience, had 2 kp upping it. This did damage 2 his heart/organs(?)
If this is the case, I wish it was made public, no shame in that. Damn sight better than the rumours & speculation going around since April.

--- He may be have organ damage from pain meds.

leadline said:

leadline said:

laurarichardson said:

leadline said: // Then what was he using because if it was other drugs so what. How many people in the world are using drugs particully in entertainment field. Why is a man who is dead and we know what he died from being put under such investigation by s media outlet. If you do not see something is fishy about this you need to get your eyes check.

He was not on drugs, he was not abusing pills. If you want to believe everything the media spoon feeds you, that is your perogative.

It's not just the media, it's the police, and the coroner, and a whole bureaucratic infrastructure. Yes, there may have been something else as well, and maybe we are not being told that, but there is no reason to believe he didn't die of what we were told he died of. Why would all the people who knew and loved him collude with a story of him dying of a drug OD if he didn't?

disch said:

I wonder if she's concerned about financial details being public -- perhaps she got a lot more money from the divorce than was assumed, and it'll have a "gold-digger" appearance. That would be (one of) my concerns if I were her.

Yes, I agree. My feeling is she would like to keep the financial details private.

willowcb said:

disch said:

I wonder if she's concerned about financial details being public -- perhaps she got a lot more money from the divorce than was assumed, and it'll have a "gold-digger" appearance. That would be (one of) my concerns if I were her.

Yes, I agree. My feeling is she would like to keep the financial details private.

I think she really has every right to want to keep that private. The only possible public interest is anything pertaining to the estate or his death. And even then, I'm superconflicted...I really want to know what happened to him, and knowing how long it had been going on might shed some light, and at the same time I just think he would really really really hate this.

Mumio said:

rogifan said:

PurpleHeartBreak said:

laurarichardson said:

On good authority, I heard that one of the things that will be revealed from the settlement is that Prince got custody of Larry.

Menes said:

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.

There would be NO SUCH thing in the court documents. None. Nada. It was an uncontested divorce. I want to scream this from the mountain tops. Lawd help me.

Mkilpatrick74 said:

Menes said:

On good authority, I heard that one of the things that will be revealed from the settlement is that Prince got custody of Larry.

Haha haha!!!! Funny as heck lol!

Who has custody of Larry now?

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

willowcb said: