September 28th, 2005

Previous Entry Next Entry
08:48 am - and this is what all the trouble is for?

(22 comments | Leave a comment)

and this is what all the trouble is for? - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at


From: ludimagist Date: September 28th, 2005 - 03:29 pm (Link)
What is this country coming to when Anna Nicole is being denied her basic rights as a successful golddigger?

What happened to the American Way? Let the damn kids go make their own money.

I look forward to the media circus.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: September 28th, 2005 - 03:37 pm (Link)
exactly, as far as I am concerned, she earned every penny. And she's not even trying to take the majority of the cash. She want's a third. She married the guy, as far as I'm concerned she's got more right to dick his kids out of the money than vice versa, but she's not even trying to do that. I'm no Anna Nicole fan. But really, in this case I think she's behaving much more intelligently than the son is. And I think what she's proposing is WAY more than fair.

Its not like the guy wrote a will that said "I want my son to have everything and my wife to have nothing." He has a will that says "I'm not currently married, so I guess I'll leave everything to my kids."

If we're gonna deal with all of this defense of marriage bullshit, (both on the pro and anti homosexual marriage camps) and we're not going to go through with my recommendation of abolishing the legal concept altogether anyway, then at the very least a marriage should mean implicit property ownership.

For the year that she was married to the guy, she was the reigining PMOY. Which means she had a bunch of modelling gigs and personal appearances and stuff, probably. So she made an income of her own. And while smaller than his, I would imagine that they had to file joint income taxes. Probably his tax owed was hire than her entire contribution to the income. So if they are a single leagal tax entity, then as far as I'm concerned, when one half of that partnership died, she should have inherited the other half.

Why am I not king, dammit!

• Go to Top