malbena said:

Bassette said:

".....Testolini asked that if the judge unsealed any documents, that he redact financial information and the names of spiritual counselors involved in the case, among other things......."

This surprises me: spiritual counselors for Prince?

Could it be to legitimately protect the privacy of parties involved in either the mediation or the resolution of the marriage?

If it were Larry Graham, for example, it would only make his reputation more difficult among Prince fans.

I believe he would have been their spiratual advisor since they both were JWs and Larry is an elder in the church. I can understand why she would want any providing advice or consule to want their name hidden. Spritual consuling is no different than speaking with your shrink. Personal stuff gets divulged and I can certainly see why she we not that known or even that they sought consuling from the church.

BillieBalloon said:

givegoodlove said:

His speeding tickets are public record in MN. He's awesome but his divorce is not our business. If they open it for sake of investigating his bizarre murd... I mean death, that would make sense for those involved to know. why does that qualify as a big news story anywhere else but here?

You mean the one in had from 10 years ago.

givegoodlove said:

His speeding tickets are public record in MN. He's awesome but his divorce is not our business. If they open it for sake of investigating his bizarre murd... I mean death, that would make sense for those involved to know. why does that qualify as a big news story anywhere else but here?

I agree with you that technically none of this is our business, even the speeding tickets. My issue is with the double standards and selective outrage I'm seeing in general. The judge released a detailed 17 page explanation to support his ruling. The citations of case law and precedent put him on solid legal footing in his decision. That's all I'm trying to say.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3013833-Nelson-Testolini-order2Unseal.html

You're also correct that this isnt a big story. It's only the org making a big deal of a routine legal matter because people lash out when their emotions overflow. Everywhere else it's just another celebrity news story. It a very average file and seriously doubt that anything revealed will reflect poorly on Prince.

malbena said:

disch said:

Ha i have no need to stir up an argument about Prince's death -- plenty of folks have been arguing that every which way on plenty of threads with no help from me.

No, I mention Prince's death because that's what prompted the Strib to request the docs be unsealed. They (and no on else) cared all that much when he was alive. They're seeking them to be unsealed because I imagine they think they might find info relevant to his death or to his estate.

-

And I stand by my assessment that it's a little disingenuous to slam the Strib reporters for wanting to see documents that normally are public, while (some posters) have been chomping at the bit to see his full autopsy, a very intimate document that is normally sealed under Minn. law. Just an observation about some folks' ideas about what info should be should be private vs. what info should should be public, and when we should strive to "follow prince's wishes" and when we should not.

.

Seems like you are trying to stir-up an argument about Prince's death, am I right?

.

A divorce and a death are two completely different things. When there is a suspicious death, such as Prince's, and this is still an ongoing investigation, the public has every right to know what happened.

.

Manuela has stated to the judge that nothing in the divorce papers have anything to do with his death. This suggests to me that Manuela wasn't divorcing him because of (supposed) drug use.

.

Like I said earlier (which you ignored my point), disclosing divorce documents and autopsy/death records are two completely different things. When someone dies a suspicious death, and is still an active homicide investigation, the public has every right to know what happened to that person and the circumstances surrounding his/her death.

.

Also, you mentioned "Prince's wishes". Do you personally know what his wishes were? Furthermore, a deceased person no longer has a right to privacy because it's irrelevant when someone has died.

.

All you have to do is turn on the evening news and hear about homicides all the time, and they disclose the "what, when, where,why & how" that person died. Until the homicide investigation is closed, we won't have much more information.

disch said:

But did the strib say their goal is just to verbatim publish his divorce records? I got the impression it was so their reporters could review them for pertinent info (to prince's death, estate, etc.), and their reporters can't access them if they're sealed.

-

The catch-22 is, if there some fans want to know more about his death, it's going to take investigative journalists doing investigation, which means delving into various private documents, among other things. It will kind of necessitate journalists "invading his privacy," so to speak. I mean, if we're concerned about following Prince's wishes, we should all stop speculating about his death entirely, because he clearly didn't want us to know ANYTHING about whatever issues led to that.

laurarichardson said:

I think someone people are getting two issues confused. It is fine to make the docs public but another thing for a major american newspaper to want to publish the information.

Would the Star Tribune have published this back when he got a divorce 10 years ago? I doubt it this is just a means to run with some gossip they believed they would get from the file and nothing more. That is the thing that should bother people.

[Edited 12/22/16 11:07am]

.

There is a "Go Fund Me" page and they have several private investigators working on the case.

.

Why do you think we should all stop speculating his death? Prince himself said: "There is no justice without peace and no peace without justice."

.

Again, how do you know what Prince's wishes were?

.

So, okay, basically you are saying here that if you suddenly lost a loved one under suspicious circumstances and/or one of your next door neighbors dies under suspicious circumstances, you would be cool with not knowing what happened to them? Interesting.

.

So, there could be a murderer running around your neighborhood and you would still feel safe knowing no one cared to investigate or have justice be served?

.

[Edited 12/23/16 12:46pm]

rogifan said:

I don't think the Star Tribune is looking to profit off his death. As others have said I think they want to know if drugs were a reason they divorced. But that begs the question, why? What are they trying to prove and what is in these divorce files that the public needs to know? That's why I'm hoping this case is incredibly boring with little to no information. Would serve the Strib right for even going after it.

.

Manuela has already stated to the Judge that there is nothing in the divorce papers that have anything to do with his death. Meaning, she didn't divorce him due to his "alleged" drug use.

.

Quote from Manuela: "Ms. Testolini states that the sealed files have nothing to do with Mr. Nelson's death and its subsequent legal issues. If that proves to be true, information disclosed is unlikely to subject her to a higher level of unwanted public attention than she has already received," Fraser wrote.

.

http://www.startribune.co...390211731/

laurarichardson said:

I understand that all businesses have a corporate structure/chain of command. You realize that the Star obtained an attorney which means someone high up in the organization authorized payment for legal services. Someone high up in the organization spent money to obtain these docs and no one in business spends money without expecting to get a return.

No media outlets have done any in depth reporting on Prince’s death investigation. No one in the media is interested in why the case is still open after eight months. I think several have done a great job with tribute issues which are a means to generate revenue since I would bet good money he could not get his face on any of those magazines or newspapers prior to his death. The money that has been made off of those tribute issues is going in the pocket of the corporations or families that own the newspapers.

Right now I cannot seek accurate information from any news source do the proliferation of fake news stories making their way into real newspapers since greed and laziness has caused journalist not to take two minutes to fact check information before publishing. Watch what Denzel Washington said about fake news as he was a victim of it recently and his a former journalism major.

http://mashable.com/2016/...RrunLafiqK

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed," Washington said in response to a question regarding a fake news story about the actor's political leanings before the election.

Washington then asked the reporter what the long-term affects of too much information would be before explaining that one of the problems is the "need to be first, not even to be true anymore." "So what a responsibility you all have to tell the truth—not just to be first, but to tell the truth," Washington told the reporter and other members of the press surrounding him.

"In our society, now it's just first. Who cares? Get it out there," he explained. "We don't care who it hurts. We don't care who we destroy. We don't care if it's true. Just say it and sell it," Washington lamented.

"Just say it, sell it. Anything you practice you'll get good at — including BS." You can watch Washington's full remarks below, beginning at the 17:50 mark.

disch said:

Oh I know CJ's stuff. I also work in media (not related to Strib) and understand how newspapers work. Different sections and departments are not necessarily connected; CJ's columns don't really have anything to do with the reporters on the Prince beat. Nor does she really have anything to do with, say, the Strib staffers who won 2 pulitzer prizes in 2013. Nor does she have anything to do with, say, Jon Bream, their music reporter who has been covering Prince since the 1970s.

-

If the Strib is disgusting and "doesn't care at all" about Prince's death, and if accessing his old divorce files is part of their plot to "profit off his death," what media outlets do you think have done respectable job reporting on Prince's death? Where do you turn for info on his death, estate, etc.? Most media outlets run ads against the stories they publish, so they're "profiting" off those stories (if you can consider the paltry money most journalistic outlets are now making "profit"). Sounds like you seek out media outlets not dependent on an ad-revenue model?

-

.

I saw what Denzel said about "fake news". I love what he said and he's so right!

There is a "Go Fund Me" page and they have several private investigators working on the case.

[Edited 12/23/16 12:46pm]

And they will no doubt suck this fund dry and then some "working" this case. Sounds a lot like what's happening to the estate.

1BillyJackBitch said:

BillieBalloon said:

Manuela said if its released she could be subject to harassment. I think that statement has peaked peoples curiosity more.

Hmm,sounds like financials. Just speculating here...Maybe she received a larger sum than Mayte and she's afraid of her pissing and moaning? Or,maybe Prince gave her a settlement in addition to paying for her to build her IAPW charity and she's afraid fans will accuse her of using him,etc...that type of thing. We also know she was the one who wanted the divorce,not him. He was upset. Most people(no,not all) file "irreconcilable differences." Maybe their records state she wanted a divorce but they show he didn't want one and tried to save their marriage...which would make some feels feel bad for him or angry. In which case she would fear fans harassing her with comments/messages.I'm not saying all fans would do that but let's face it, unfortunately there are people out there who would. Again, just speculating here.

.

I have been saying the same thing all-along; they want to look at her financials. What other reason could there be? Manuela already stated to the judge that their divorce papers have nothing to do with his death. Prince gave her a lot of mula and paid her legal fee's.....she doesn't want it known.

Mumio said:

laurarichardson said:

Mumio said:

And they will no doubt suck this fund dry and then some "working" this case. Sounds a lot like what's happening to the estate.

-Well I do not think any private investigation is going to work as long as the current investigation is open.

Agreed.

I think it's right that they be unsealed. Sorry. Just because someone is famous shouldn't give them special privileges that the rest of us don't have: divorce records are usually public records because it costs the public purse for them to take place / be legal.
.
Now, as to why Manuela didn't want them unsealed - did P pay her a VERY large sum? And if so, why? And if what Funkenberry is saying is true, why did P simultaneously stop speaking to her? I believe P had all close associates (including wives and girlfriends) sign confidentiality agreements - would such a contract have come to an end upon divorce?
.
I am wondering if Manuela was paid an extraordinarily large sum, and is concerned that people might start asking questions as to why that was...I guess we shall soon see.

.

Dibblekins said:

disch said:

But did the strib say their goal is just to verbatim publish his divorce records? I got the impression it was so their reporters could review them for pertinent info (to prince's death, estate, etc.), and their reporters can't access them if they're sealed.

-

The catch-22 is, if there some fans want to know more about his death, it's going to take investigative journalists doing investigation, which means delving into various private documents, among other things. It will kind of necessitate journalists "invading his privacy," so to speak. I mean, if we're concerned about following Prince's wishes, we should all stop speculating about his death entirely, because he clearly didn't want us to know ANYTHING about whatever issues led to that.

laurarichardson said:

I think someone people are getting two issues confused. It is fine to make the docs public but another thing for a major american newspaper to want to publish the information.

Would the Star Tribune have published this back when he got a divorce 10 years ago? I doubt it this is just a means to run with some gossip they believed they would get from the file and nothing more. That is the thing that should bother people.

[Edited 12/22/16 11:07am]

.

disch said:

But did the strib say their goal is just to verbatim publish his divorce records? I got the impression it was so their reporters could review them for pertinent info (to prince's death, estate, etc.), and their reporters can't access them if they're sealed.

.

.

There is NO pertinent information in the divorce papers concerning Prince's death:

.

Manuela has already stated to the Judge that there is nothing in the divorce papers that have anything to do with his death. Meaning, she didn't divorce him due to his "alleged" drug use.

.

Quote from Manuela: "Ms. Testolini states that the sealed files have nothing to do with Mr. Nelson's death and its subsequent legal issues. If that proves to be true, information disclosed is unlikely to subject her to a higher level of unwanted public attention than she has already received," Fraser wrote.

.

http://www.startribune.co...390211731/

Maybe they mean some albums Prince recorded about divorce

Dibblekins said:

I think it's right that they be unsealed. Sorry. Just because someone is famous shouldn't give them special privileges that the rest of us don't have: divorce records are usually public records because it costs the public purse for them to take place / be legal.
.
Now, as to why Manuela didn't want them unsealed - did P pay her a VERY large sum? And if so, why? And if what Funkenberry is saying is true, why did P simultaneously stop speaking to her? I believe P had all close associates (including wives and girlfriends) sign confidentiality agreements - would such a contract have come to an end upon divorce?
.
I am wondering if Manuela was paid an extraordinarily large sum, and is concerned that people might start asking questions as to why that was...I guess we shall soon see.

.

This type of feeding cannibalistic mentality is part of why this planet is so fucked right now. So because YOU are curious and WANT to know things that are NONE OF OUR BUSINESS... his wishes and privacy should be violated? Fuck that.

Dibblekins said:

Musze said:

Dibblekins said:

I think it's right that they be unsealed. Sorry. Just because someone is famous shouldn't give them special privileges that the rest of us don't have: divorce records are usually public records because it costs the public purse for them to take place / be legal.
.
Now, as to why Manuela didn't want them unsealed - did P pay her a VERY large sum? And if so, why? And if what Funkenberry is saying is true, why did P simultaneously stop speaking to her? I believe P had all close associates (including wives and girlfriends) sign confidentiality agreements - would such a contract have come to an end upon divorce?
.
I am wondering if Manuela was paid an extraordinarily large sum, and is concerned that people might start asking questions as to why that was...I guess we shall soon see.

.

This type of feeding cannibalistic mentality is part of why this planet is so fucked right now. So because YOU are curious and WANT to know things that are NONE OF OUR BUSINESS... his wishes and privacy should be violated? Fuck that.

Actually, I don't give a monkey's about the contents, so you're wrong about that. I don't care how much money he gave her: not interested. I am curious as to WHY he'd want them sealed, and why she is so keen to keep it that way, yes - happy to admit it - but the actual contents? Not especially, no.

Dibblekins said:

Why is it that people here just can't accept that we don't all agree on this subject? Not one person here is morally better than the next no matter which stance you take, but it's amazing to see some of the nastiness that's coming out over this If you don't want to read them then don't read them but your choice doesn't mean anyone else's choice is wrong.

laurarichardson said:

Dibblekins said:

Actually, I don't give a monkey's about the contents, so you're wrong about that. I don't care how much money he gave her: not interested. I am curious as to WHY he'd want them sealed, and why she is so keen to keep it that way, yes - happy to admit it - but the actual contents? Not especially, no.

He had them sealed so his entire networth as not out for the world to see 😳

With all due respect, Laura, that's pure speculation...That may or may not be the reason; we just don't know (yet / if ever); it may be that things become clearer at a later date.

laurarichardson said:

paulludvig said:

Dibblekins said:

SoulAlive said:

Prince's net worth was never some big secret,was it? Haven't we always known that he was worth between $200-300 million?