I’m pretty empathetic. Been around people with active addition and firm understanding of what that entails. Even at his lowest he had a billion in the bank and didn’t pay for a drink or meal if he didn’t want to. And women never stopped throwing themselves at him. That’s a pretty cushy rock bottom
I don’t disagree. It would be really hard to find a meaningful relationship as a celebrity imo. But at the same time…if a NDA is needed. I would question how meaningful the relationship really is as there is clearly not a full commitment to trust. But again. I understand it would be hard as a celebrity to get to that full commitment.
It's a short list 1. Oprah 2. McKenzie Scott. 3. JK Rowling 4. A Walton heir, or 5. The widow or scion of an industrialist, candy bar brand or perfume/cosmetic company. But that's about it.
Sadly sometimes you can’t smell the crazy until it’s a bit late. With the TMZ’s of the world happy to pay cash for clicks anyone can make up anything and try a shake down. Almost better off being celibate.
So, ATL - you took the red pill and.......................... "Welcome to the Real World" Sometimes the trappings of wealth do not come with silver linings. Especially in the dating scene. I have no idea of the reality of the situation and frankly don't care nor want to. But this does seem like she is hunting for some "Gold Bricks". Conversely, given his track record, Tiger may not be the most pleasant man for a women to hook up with.
This is kinda confusing to me. I thought oral tenancies that terminate go month to month? Even if the Trust unlawfully evicted her and even assuming some of her property and cash were misappropriated, I wonder how they are calculating the $30,000,000? Sounds like she's claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress for the self help and wrongful eviction? I'm not sure if that passes the test as a matter of law? The article says that the separate NDA case involved a filing that the NDA is unenforceable pursuant to the Ending Forced Arbitration Of Sexual Assault And Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 and the federal Speak Out Act. But then the article says that her lawyer conceded that there are no allegations of sexual abuse. Two things are possible at the same time. He may have acted badly, and she and her lawyers may be really over-reaching. She probably wouldn't want me on the jury seeking that kind of money unless I'm missing something.
They will frame it the same way people go after corporations. Big bad evil powerful rich party needs to be taught a lesson, and a small settlement won’t change their behavior. And then it will be “she invested six years of her life to take care of him with his injuries and he made “X” dollars in that time” blah blah blah.
Typically, in Florida at least, a plaintiff is not permitted to seek financial punishment damages unless and until the Court grants leave to amend to assert a claim for punitive damages. It's not uncommon in personal injury cases, for example, where leave is granted based upon the record evidence. I don't see how they get there unless there's more to the story than what I saw in the article.
Huh? What could be more scientific than eHarmony's 80 Question Compatibilty Test? What could possibly work out better than this?
