DON'T TOUCH MY POWERBOOK AND IMAC, ... "dear"
"Plaintiff formally objected to this request on August 17 on the grounds that it was improper, burdensome, overly broad, oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeking private and privileged information."
-motion to compel discovery
THE BEST PARTS ARE NOT YET AVAILABLE
MRS's "Historic spending analysis. ... Appendices "A" "B" and "C" of this report are too voluminous to be attached to this pretrial statement"
-Defendant's pretrial statement
Lawyers have contended that the $725,000/month alimony is too high compared to plaintiff's standard of living, which they peg closer to $141,200 per month (but willing to accept up to $465,432 / per month)
However, they are conscious of their dalliance with the phrase:
"While it may be true that the parties in this elevated income stratum have "unusual needs" in maintaining their accustomed standard of living ..., it must be remembered that "[t]he purpose of an order of spousal support is to assure a reasonable living allowance to the party requiring support." - trial brief of the defendant
checkout, PittGirl with
Oh, it's on
I always thought court filings had to be strictly legal, using terms like wherefortohowever and hereintotherebe. I had no idea a lawyer could just write, “WHAT THE FRICKIN’ HELL!??” if he really wanted to.
NO TAX MAN
With cap gains taxes at 15% since 2003 under Bush, the net tax rate is probably less for Mr. S.:
"Incredibly, this fantasia of monthly distributions is taxed at an aggregate rate of slightly less than 15 percent," they write.
None of Mr. S's filings address the tax rate assertion. although financial documents filed in pleadings over alimony make clear that Mr. S has employed a number of strategies -- notably, a $122 million Charitable Remainder Uni-Trust for which he took a tax write-off and from which he is permitted to draw 8 percent of the principal annually -- to reduce his tax liabilities -article
HOLY MATRIMONY, BATMAN: ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN ... and no more
On December 22nd in the late afternoon, Wife, in an attempt to confirm Husband's ongoing affair, appeared at the home of her Husband, peered in his residence window to confirm" whether the other woman was with Mr. S. "Wife was arrested under an absurd trespass charge, handcuffed and transported to the County Jail, where she was incarcerated overnight in a grim holding cell," Mrs. S's attorneys wrote. The charges were later dismissed but, in the words of Mrs. S's brief, "The marriage was over!"
The marriage may have ended in Mrs. S's view, but not the fighting.
Five months after her first arrest, Mrs. S was again charged, this time after a street fight outside her husband's home when she confronted and physically battled three of Mr. S's employees. -same article as above
