nelcp777 said:

laurarichardson said:

The disallowances are for the some of the stupid claims. Breamer is saying we are not paying because your claim is bogus.

This has nothing to do with the divorce papers. I do find the Roc Nation claim interesting because they are saying they have Equity Term agreement for five years to stream music. I am puzzled how Breamer or Londell made the decision to go with Universal if they knew agreement was in place. In addtion, it looks like content must be exclusive for at least 90 days so we may get to see music on other platforms just not immediatley. I hope this means we can unrealshed stuff soon and wonder if Tidal held back payment for fear of the agreement being violated.

The Roc Nation is very interesting. I wonder if the WB releases were also a reason for their claim. You brought up some very good points/questions.

Roc Nation's language of exploiting Prince's music sounds wierd, considering Prince's stance on artistic freedom.

According to their claim, they are entitled to the next 2 unreleased studio albums to be released. There are not any specific titles. The 90 days, can that be conveyed to the WB releases? That deal and submissions was prior to Tidal, unless I am incorrect.

I am not sure if the 90 days pertains to WB but so what if it did. Basically the estate can put content on other platforms after the 90 days so what is the big deal. I am not a fan of Jay-Z music but I admire his hustle and this looks bad on the estate. As if they are trying to cut Tidal out completly instead of just honoring the contract for the five years and giving up a few releashes for 90s days. It is not like they would be in business forever with Tidal. I also think if Prince had equity in Tidal this could be great for the estate if Tidal ever gets sold to Apple or Goggle. Not sure Breamer is doing a good job

We dont know what the terms are of the contract P had with Tidal.

What we do know is Tidal is saying the terms of the contract was modified by an oral agreement.

Or at least that is what Tidal is saying.

We dont know what the terms of the oral agreement was (if any).

morningsong said:

tmo1965 said:

Does anyone know where the divorce documents can be accessed from? I notice that all documents listed on the "Register of Actions" are not clickable, even on the probate case. What does "result: Held" mean and was it there previously?

Not sure I'm understanding your question. But I have clickables if you scroll up further. Nothing on the Divorce case is seeable. No idea what Held means. The Probate stuff is clickable, unless there's some restriction for other countries.

I don't think that the divorce documents are going to be listed in with the probate documents because they are from 2 different courts. We go here http://www.mncourts.gov/I...elson.aspx to read the probate docs. I was wondering where can we go to read the divorce docs?

ISaidLifeIsJustAGame said:

tmo1965 said:

morningsong said:

Not sure I'm understanding your question. But I have clickables if you scroll up further. Nothing on the Divorce case is seeable. No idea what Held means. The Probate stuff is clickable, unless there's some restriction for other countries.

I don't think that the divorce documents are going to be listed in with the probate documents because they are from 2 different courts. We go here http://www.mncourts.gov/I...elson.aspx to read the probate docs. I was wondering where can we go to read the divorce docs?

Yeah, I have the links to both cases post several times throughout this thread, on purpose. Scroll up a bit and you'll see all the information you need for both.

morningsong said:

tmo1965 said:

I don't think that the divorce documents are going to be listed in with the probate documents because they are from 2 different courts. We go here http://www.mncourts.gov/I...elson.aspx to read the probate docs. I was wondering where can we go to read the divorce docs?

Yeah, I have the links to both cases post several times throughout this thread, on purpose. Scroll up a bit and you'll see all the information you need for both.

MORNINGSONG:........ This will be us waiting on the divorce files to be unlocked.....

I'm confused...

What does the word 'held' mean?

And why did Omar pay $102 to this court case just this past week or so?

My head hurts...I think I might wait until one of our legal eagles spells everything out for me.

Dibblekins said:

I'm confused...

What does the word 'held' mean?

And why did Omar pay $102 to this court case just this past week or so?

My head hurts...I think I might wait until one of our legal eagles spells everything out for me.

I saw that Omar had paid but couldn't figure out what he had to do with it. Figured I'd wait on ISAIDLIFEISJUSTAGAME to let us know. On October 5thish the judge ruled that the files would be open, but "held" until 11/14. So maybe he will deal with that tomorrow??

zenarose said:

morningsong said:

Yeah, I have the links to both cases post several times throughout this thread, on purpose. Scroll up a bit and you'll see all the information you need for both.

MORNINGSONG:........ This will be us waiting on the divorce files to be unlocked.....

Judge Fraser thinks he slick. "Sure ST, I think they ought to be public too...in about 50 years."


Watch everything is going to be redacted

zenarose said:

Dibblekins said:

I'm confused...

What does the word 'held' mean?

And why did Omar pay $102 to this court case just this past week or so?

My head hurts...I think I might wait until one of our legal eagles spells everything out for me.

I saw that Omar had paid but couldn't figure out what he had to do with it. Figured I'd wait on ISAIDLIFEISJUSTAGAME to let us know. On October 5thish the judge ruled that the files would be open, but "held" until 11/14. So maybe he will deal with that tomorrow??

Looks like Omar requested a copy of whatever Bremer's got a copy of.

This article came out today

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7573659/roc-nation-tidal-court-papers-exclusive-rights-prince-catalog

zenarose said:

This article came out today

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7573659/roc-nation-tidal-court-papers-exclusive-rights-prince-catalog

.

That Jay-Z has to have his hands in everything, doesn't he? He already has too much money! How much is enough?! It's always about the damn money. Greedy vultures, they are!! SMH

cloveringold85 said:

zenarose said:

This article came out today

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/7573659/roc-nation-tidal-court-papers-exclusive-rights-prince-catalog

.

That Jay-Z has to have his hands in everything, doesn't he? He already has too much money! How much is enough?! It's always about the damn money. Greedy vultures, they are!! SMH

SHADY ........SHADY

morningsong said:

zenarose said:

MORNINGSONG:........ This will be us waiting on the divorce files to be unlocked.....

Judge Fraser thinks he slick. "Sure ST, I think they ought to be public too...in about 50 years."


Watch everything is going to be redacted

I hate how his personal life is being rifled through and people acting like greedy vultures over divorce papers. That truly is non of our business, but it's America, I guess. Stuff like that should not be public.

endiadj said:

I hate how his personal life is being rifled through and people acting like greedy vultures over divorce papers. That truly is non of our business, but it's America, I guess. Stuff like that should not be public.

It is pitiful how people keep peeking in at such things, folks need to be ashamed of themselves for looking.

zenarose said:

morningsong said:

Judge Fraser thinks he slick. "Sure ST, I think they ought to be public too...in about 50 years."


Watch everything is going to be redacted

morningsong said:

zenarose said:

Well.......my divorce records are not sealed and anyone that is so inclined to may view them

and all their content. They are a matter of publice record. Right or wrong..... it is the law.....

zenarose said:

morningsong said:

Well.......my divorce records are not sealed and anyone that is so inclined to may view them

and all their content. They are a matter of publice record. Right or wrong..... it is the law.....

What's your case number?

zenarose said:

morningsong said:

Well.......my divorce records are not sealed and anyone that is so inclined to may view them

and all their content. They are a matter of publice record. Right or wrong..... it is the law.....

.

Yes, 'tis true, unfortunately. Most court records/divorce are available to the public. I know in the state of Florida, you can view them online, but sometimes they are kept private. There really is no privacy anymore -- everything is on the internet these days!

morningsong said:

zenarose said:

Well.......my divorce records are not sealed and anyone that is so inclined to may view them

and all their content. They are a matter of publice record. Right or wrong..... it is the law.....

What's your case number?

.

LMAO!!

morningsong said:

zenarose said:

Well.......my divorce records are not sealed and anyone that is so inclined to may view them

and all their content. They are a matter of publice record. Right or wrong..... it is the law.....

What's your case number?

BR-549

zenarose said:

morningsong said:

Well.......my divorce records are not sealed and anyone that is so inclined to may view them

and all their content. They are a matter of publice record. Right or wrong..... it is the law.....

My guess is the divorce was sealed because all of the finacial info was listed. You are not in P's income bracket and I bet other weatlhy people have their divorces sealed as well.

I do not think it is a big deal and the Star Tribune should be ashamed of themselves.

zenarose said:

morningsong said:

What's your case number?

BR-549

Dang, your case number starts with a brrrrrrr...I don't know if I wanna know.

Granted I have no idea what jurisdiction the number goes to.

nelcp777 said:

There was a condemnation process in 2008, link:

http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1612115818

It has Prince and Manuela listed as respondents. Anyone know what this is about?

I know it is off topic, but it caught my eye.

I looked up two of the respondents and they are property owners in Channahsen making me think these folks may have been renters are involved with some property development with Prince. He had commercial properties as well as residential and you can see from the court papers mortage companies are involved.

laurarichardson said:

CooperC62057 said:

laurarichardson said:

My guess is the divorce was sealed because all of the finacial info was listed. You are not in P's income bracket and I bet other weatlhy people have their divorces sealed as well.

I do not think it is a big deal and the Star Tribune should be ashamed of themselves.

STOP IT. Your entire post could have been made without referencing zenrose' income. This is where you continually put yourself in controversy. I think you enjoy it. You have no idea what zenarose income bracket is so just STOP. Good gawd, ya'll.

I had to reference her income to make my point. It is not personal as I would bet she is not in Prince's income bracket and there is nothing to take offense about stating that. I am not in P's income bracket and never will be so now I put self on front street so you can relax.

High net worth people do not operate the way the rest of us do. In some cases that can't even if they wanted to.

[Edited 11/14/16 18:13pm]

laurarichardson said:

zenarose said:

Well.......my divorce records are not sealed and anyone that is so inclined to may view them

and all their content. They are a matter of publice record. Right or wrong..... it is the law.....

My guess is the divorce was sealed because all of the finacial info was listed. You are not in P's income bracket and I bet other weatlhy people have their divorces sealed as well.

I do not think it is a big deal and the Star Tribune should be ashamed of themselves.

I have been practicing for 30 years and I have never been involved in divorce case that was sealed. Financial wealth is not a compelling enough reason for a Judge to seal a divorce case.

Dibblekins said:

I'm confused...

What does the word 'held' mean?

And why did Omar pay $102 to this court case just this past week or so?

My head hurts...I think I might wait until one of our legal eagles spells everything out for me.

I dont know what "held" means.

It must be specific to Minnesota legal lingo.

It could mean the release of the file was held.

It could mean a hearing was held.

I just looked at the divorce filings.

Motions were filed on October 28, and on October 31, 2016.

Two Memorandums were filed October 31, 2016.

Another Memorandum was filed November 7, 2016.

After looking at the divorce proceedings from 2006 it appears "held" means a hearing at court.

They probably had a hearing today on the above motions that were filed.

My best guess.