Guys, be careful, it's a jungle out there! Jagger is paying this broad $72,000 a year (higher than the average American household income) to take care of one kid and she wants $420,000 a year. To take care of ONE kid?? Gimme a break!! Looks like her sleazebag lawyer got his nose busted in a courtroom brawl. Lol!!
New York Court Told Jagger Should Pay More Support
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Brazilian model who is mother to rock legend Mick Jagger's love
child told New York Family Court officials on Tuesday that she wants $35,000 a month in
child support from the 56-year-old Rolling Stones lead singer.
But Jagger, who has admitted to being the father, said he wants to limit support for 1-year-old
Lucas to $5,600 a month. Brazilian model Luciana Morad, 29, gave birth to the couple's son in
May 1999.
Jagger, who was not in the New York courtroom, also requested through his lawyer that his
financial information be kept secret and that he not have to testify about how much he is worth.
Court officials put off a decision until June 19.
At a court hearing in March, Jagger, who has six other children and two grandchildren, was ordered to pay $10,000
a month in temporary support for Lucas until the court can decide on a final figure.
Jagger's lawyer said he sent Morad $48,000 in child support between July 1999 and March 2000.
``Obviously he's trying to avoid show and tell but he's going to have to,'' Morad's
lawyer Raoul Felder said outside court.
``I just want what is in the best interest of my child. I have faith in the American justice
system,'' Morad said.
Despite the on-going litigation between the couple, Morad said she and Jagger were still friends.
``We disagree on how to bring up the child but we are civilized people. I think we'll work it out,'' she said.
Jagger's marriage to model Jerry Hall was declared null and void in 1999 after Hall filed for divorce and he
questioned the legality of their 1991 wedding ceremony in Bali. The couple had four children during more than 20
years together.
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 10, 2000
Answers
Jagger had one of the most beautiful women in the world on his arm
for many years and fathered several children with her. When he got
tired of her and decided to chase after this little love muffin, he
tried to pretend like he'd never been married to Jerry at all. What a
wicked asshole! He should learn to keep his fly closed. Raoul Felder
is a shark. I'm sure this young lady will get everything she's asked
for. Bravo for her!
-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.
Ah, well, what can you say. My medical friends refer to such persons
as Mr. Jagger as "free roaming inseminators." Generally, however,
such persons cannot pay big time child support. Mr. Jagger's income
is such that he is the exception to the rule.
It's hard to sympathize with Jagger on this issue. Two thoughts: (1)
a vasectomy, or (2) condoms.
-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 10, 2000.
"he tried to pretend like he'd never been married to Jerry at all."
How can you pretend that you're not married when you are the most
famous rocker in the world? You mean to tell me this girl didn't even
know that? Well, that sounds about right. Like Paula Jones, most
gold-diggers not only lack morals, they lack brains as well.
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 10, 2000.
No Hawk- He tried to pretend with his lawyers and the court that the
marriage wasn't valid. His argument had something to do with the
country they were married in. Can't remember what it was. Anyway, at
least in British law, after 7 years they would have had a "commonlaw"
marriage. This confers the same legal status as a "normal" marriage.
Also, it is a fact that Jerry and Mick's fourth child was conceived
after his daliance with model Carla Bruni. At the time he offered
profuse apologies and promises to "never do it again". HA! I take it
you also know this girl well, so you have the ability to judge her as
a bimbo? I guess you haven't heard that Jagger actually encouraged
her to have this child, huh? Yeah, definately a serial fertilizer.
-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.
Hawk -
Look at it from the eyes of the child. He is just as much an
offspring of Jagger's as the other children. It is HIS right to be
provided with the same level of comfort as the others. As parents,
we cannot say I will provide more for some children than for others.
Morad is a mother fighting for her child's rights. Please don't fall
into the trap of thinking that all women in her position are gold-
diggers.
Jagger is a big boy. This is something he should have taken into
consideration before he had a baby with Morad.
Lucas will grow up knowing Mick Jagger is his father and that he has
half-brothers and sisters. I hope the Court orders that Mr. Jagger
has the responsibility to provide for all his children equally so
Lucas will not have to "question" his own worth in his father's eyes
as he grows up.
Jagger will not be legally bound to support Lucas after his 18th
birthday or leave Lucas anything after his death. It will be up to
Morad to responsibly manage the large sums now so as to assure her
son's future. I don't imagine Jerry Hall needs to worry about her
children's future.
Jagger want's to "limit" the support for Lucas to $5,600 a month?
That's a joke, no?
-- Debra (forthe@children.com), May 10, 2000.
If Ms. Morad had shacked up with a good-looking but broke street
bankling yodler, what would she use for child-support? It all sounds
like: "If someone says it's the principle, not the money, then it's
the money." Some ladies just very quickly learn their way around an
honest dollar. And isn't a father more important for the child than
thousands of $$$ a month? Why doesn't she go after the Mick for weekly
time spent with the offspring? Perhaps the kid could learn to sing for
a living. D'come in handy once the Jaggster hangs up the vocals.
-- mahkel (why@me.com), May 10, 2000.
Sounds to me like Hawk is a little too testy and judgmental here.
You get what you give, Hawk! (No wonder you don't have a girlfriend.)
-- (Women @abused by Hawk. 2), May 10, 2000.
"It is HIS right to be provided with the same level of comfort as the
others. As parents, we cannot say I will provide more for some
children than for others."
The child is entitled to be provided for at a level appropriate for
the locale in which he lives. Anything above that should be
voluntary.
"Morad is a mother fighting for her child's rights. Please don't fall
into the trap of thinking that all women in her position are gold-
diggers."
She's nothing but a gold-digger. She's entitled to reasonable child
support for the area in which she lives. If she isn't satisfied with
that, she can always turn the child over to the father to be
raised by him. Anything else is nothing but extortion, legal or not.
Any woman who tries to get more is a gold-digging parasite.
-- Danny (is@Manny's.cousin), May 10, 2000.
I am surprised at the apparent misogeny of some of these responses.
Sad.
-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 10, 2000.
FS,
You wouldn't be so judgemental if you had ever had a woman try to keep
her hand in your pocket when you decide to split up. It happens all
the time. Men and women are equal, except that men are supposed to
support women in "style" even after they divorce.
Consider yourself lucky that you can afford to hold such an attitude.
-- Danny (is@Manny's.cousin), May 10, 2000.
mahkel and Danny... nailed it!
How many kids do you know that need a half a $mill a year to survive?
Just because Jagger has the money doesn't mean he should have to
shell it out. $5600 a month is more than enough to spoil any kid and
still send him to the best college. The problem here is that tramp
wants to spend all of it on herself.
Where's Ra? We could use a limerick for this bimbo! :-)
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 10, 2000.
Women @abused by Hawk. 2,
I suspect that Hawk has and has had pleanty of girlfriends. That's
precisely why he has the opinions that he does.
-- Danny (is@Manny's.cousin), May 10, 2000.
She's a babe
-- bug-eyed (lookey@those.legs), May 10, 2000.
"Any woman who tries to get more is a gold-digging parasite."
Isn't it fitting in this case that a man who is a "roaming
inseminator" be plagued by such "parasites"? A clichi comes to mind;
you reap what you sow...
"I suspect that Hawk has and has had pleanty of girlfriends. That's
precisely why he has the opinions that he does."
Good point there Danny. I wouldn't be surprised that Hawk with this
attitude attracks and is attracted to such "parasites". But that's
speculation on your speculation.
There are the immoral in both genders. Luciana Morad at 29 was old
enough to know what she was getting into when she slept with Jagger
and got pregnant. And so did Jagger. Let them sort it out for
themselves. If Morad gets what she wants, she's the winner of those
two of the same kind. The kid reaps some of the benefit. Maybe.
-- (y@x.x), May 10, 2000.
This Bimbo got humped by a Stone,
She gladly got up on his bone.
From a well-known Mick,
She wants more than his dick,
Give MO money shes been heard to moan!
-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 10, 2000.
Hawk,
How is Paula Jones like this woman?
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000.
except that men are supposed to support women in "style" even
after they divorce.
I'm sure this is difficult for you to understand, "Danny", but there
is a child to support in "style" also.
The court gave her $10,000 and, as customary, she asked more than
what she expects ($35,000) which is probably not much more than she
would have made as a model anyway. Why would some of you men complain
so bitterly about what's fair?
I would also ask you to consider that Morad will not only be giving
up her career, but she will be giving up any education she might have
acquired while she raises his baby. Generally the courts are fair, so
if she spends that money on frivilous things like nannys while she
goes out and parties, Jagger can take her back to court to reduce the
judgment.
Please, have a heart, and give women a break. Otherwise keep it in
your pants.
-- (Women @bused by Hawk .2), May 10, 2000.
"except that men are supposed to support women in "style" even after
they divorce."
"I'm sure this is difficult for you to understand, "Danny", but there
is a child to support in "style" also."
I'm sure that this is difficult for you to understand, "Women @bused
by Hawk .2", but support for the child is not the issue. The issue is
"style" and the amount of support. Mandated support should be at a
level reflecting the mother's economic status at the time of
conception. If the mother's situation is especially dire, the court
should mandate a "humanitarian" increase in the amount of support.
Neither she nor the child are morally entitled to a more expensive
lifestyle just because the father is affluent. If the mother presses
for this, the court should award custody to the father. I thought
slavery was outlawed back in the 1800's.
"I would also ask you to consider that Morad will not only be giving
up her career, but she will be giving up any education she might have
acquired while she raises his baby."
No problem. Just let the father have custody and her problems will
vanish. She will then be free to pursue either an education, or
another wealthy man in a juristiction which permits financial
exploitation of males.
-- Danny (is@Manny's.cousin), May 10, 2000.
Women abused,
She didn't say she was giving up modeling,did she? Does it also follow
that she can't continue with her education?
Here's the way I see it.They both danced the horizontal bop and now
they gotta pay the band.I don't think ol' Mick is gonna miss one red
cent and should be more than happy to provide very well for his
youngin,to act so miserly does not help his image one iota.
Between Micks money and her money I don't think that child will want
for much,ever.Why do we waste our time worrying about the domestic
problems of the jet-set? Do ya think they give a flyin' rats petute
about us?
-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 10, 2000.
They both danced the horizontal bop and now they gotta pay the
band.I don't think ol' Mick is gonna miss one red cent and should be
more than happy to provide very well for his youngin,...
Agreed. Arguing with Danny, who is obviously PWT, with a hollow soul,
and has no affection for anyone but himself, is a waste of time.
Danny, people are more important than money, jerk.
-- (Women @bused by Hawk .2), May 10, 2000.
Danny:
I purposely did not name names when I posted. Why did you react to my
comment about misogeny. Dost though protest too much? Anyone who
draws a conclusion about the whole from a small portion of the parts
is exercising faulty logic. Hell hath no fury like a women scorned,
eh Danny?
Ra;
That one was hilarious.
-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 10, 2000.
FS,
Just be thankful that it hasn't happened to you, and that it doesn't.
Life is full of surprises, and many of them aren't pleasant.
Abused,
"Agreed. Arguing with Danny, who is obviously PWT, with a hollow soul,
and has no affection for anyone but himself, is a waste of time."
Rather accusatory and judgemental for someone who hasn't had to "walk
the walk." I'd say this comment says a lot about yourself. What you
don't seem to get is that the issue is involuntary servitude above and
beyond what is morally right. It's accepted in our society that the
woman gets the child and a hand in the old man's pocket. Adequate and
equitable child support has never been a problem for me. Men's rights
and gender equity is.
-- Danny (no@more.parasites), May 10, 2000.
All right, I don't care. YOU take the child and raise it. And even
though I'm rich, DON'T DARE ask me for much money to support my
child.
YOU change the diapers. You blow her/his nose. YOU stay awake all
night the first year. YOU worry about money for cars and school while
I go party like Jagger, OK?
Good; it's settled. We're both happy and you can quit your
complaining now.
-- (Women @bused by Hawk .2), May 10, 2000.
Danny and Hawk make good mates. They both hate women and like to use
demeaning words like "whore" and "bitch" to describe them. Their
sexist and demeaning language is offensive to the women who read this
board.
-- A Woman (not@home.com), May 10, 2000.
Dear Woman not@home,
"Danny and Hawk make good mates. They both hate women and like to use
demeaning words like "whore" and "bitch" to describe them. Their
sexist and demeaning language is offensive to the women who read this
board."
I don't recall using either of these words anywhere. If I'm
incorrect, please show me where? You are also totally wrong in
accusing me of hating women. If anything, I have loved overmuch. I
also have many women friends. You are apparently blinded by emotion.
What I don't approve of is people who live off of other peoples labors
and earnings without deserving to do so, or through coercion without
the person's voluntary permission.
Jagger is a stupid jerk and deserves what he gets. Unfortunately it
is not right, just because it may be legal.
-- Danny (no@more.parasites), May 10, 2000.
By "Danny"
BACK TO WOMEN " BITCHES AIN'T SH*T BUT HOES AND TRICKS
Most women and I don't speak for all of them, because their is
certainly nice ladies out there. The point is it's all a big money
game and I have retired myself from it. With the economy red hot I
have noticed in the last couple years it gets harder and more
difficult to please them. Their eyes are always wondering to see
whats better and the bigger bill fold. SO TO ALL THOSE BITCHES OUT
THERE: KISS MY BOOTIE AND you can't have my money either.
-- DANNY (danny@aol.com), April 17, 2000
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002zLf
-- A Woman (not@home.com), May 10, 2000.
Danny, you are partly correct.....BUT.....it applies to
many men as well. And just because it may have happened to you (that
is your implication, is it not?), doesn't mean every woman in the
world is out to get your money (or anyone else's for that matter).
Fair is fair; there have been more than a few "gold-digging men"
in our time. Funny thing about it is that you don't hear much about
them. But you hear about the women all the time.
Kinda says alot about who's running the "news business", dontcha
think?
Oh and BTW, that comment by "Woman Abused..." is 100% dead-on. I
don't see nearly as many single dads out there as I see single moms.
How interesting. Don't for a minute expect me to feel sorry for Poor
Ol' Mick. Yeah, sure, he's gonna take care of the child all by
himself, right? Uh huh. If you believe that, I have a bridge to
sell ya -- CHEAP. Maybe if he could keep it in his pants once in a
freaking while he wouldn't be in this mess (again! if memory serves
me, this isn't the first time). He is who he is; you mean to tell me
he can't figure out he's gonna get slapped with YET ANOTHER paternity
suit? Guy must be a real dolt. BUT.....that's not to say that she's
100% right either.
I think capnfun has it nailed too -- who really gives a damn? I
simply cannot find it in myself to feel sorry for these people.
Freaking publicity-hounds is all they are. (Except the kid -- I
definitely feel sorry for the kid.)
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 10, 2000.
All;
I'm only a lurker (long-time) and not very good at debate... but I
feel compelled to chime in here...
I've been on three sides of this fence... 1) single mom no child
support 2) non-custodial mom paying child support to the man who
refused to pay child support for our son and 3) my (current) husband
and I pay child support for a child whose mother refuses to tell
their son that my husband is his father, but continues to demand
child support. She took him to court for dna testing so she could get
child support. He "passed" and we pay but mother's husband
was "official" father and still is...) We do not have visitation,
acknowledgement of parental status, or our money we pay for child
support. (This third situation is by far the worst).
Sorry, just spouting steam..
In any event, it takes TWO consenting adults to have sex. But a
woman can decide unbeknowst to the man to get pregnant. Yes, he has
responsibility for birth control, but ultimately the woman will
decide. As a matter of fact, fathers have NO (real) say so in
whether or not the child will be conceived and/or ab@rted.
I don't believe in abortion, I believe that two people who knowingly
or otherwise make a child need to accept their responsibilities
regardless of the inconveniences they both must endure.
Tough, she has to give some of her time otherwise spent to the
child. Tough, tough, tough... No one compensated me for the
sacrifices I have made in my personal and professional life for the
betterment of my son. It's part of it.
The non-custodial parent has an obligation to pay to support HALF of
the CHILD's expenses; more if desired.
In Florida we have a book that clearly outlines, according to the
income of both parents, what child support amount is fair. This is
the amount we pay. I couldn't say what this means for the rich
folks, but us poor folks get our incomes combined, and the designated
amount of support for the child is split percentage wise to the
parents.
If the maximum amount for one child is $2000, the combined income is
$100,000, the custodial parent contributes 25% to the $100,000, then
the non-custodial will pay the other 75% of the $2000.
Anything else is gravy... at the discretion of the parents and the
lawy@rs.
Can you spell G-R-E-E-D ??? Pure and Simple... greed.
Can you spell G-R-A-V-Y-T-R-A-I-N ???
Can you spell E-N-T-R-A-P-M-E-N-T?
Down here in the back woods, girls get pregnant so their boyfriends
will marry them. I know you don't believe it but it happens all the
time. Then, their boyfriends still won't marry them so they live off
the state; or sometimes the couple decides NOT to get married so she
can get state benefits. This is small time money. But the attitude
prevails (probably more so if a large purse is at stake!!)
I wish Mr. Jagger luck in not having to succumb to this type of
extortion. She made the child too and she has a responsibility to
contribute financially as well. This girl wants in a month what it
takes me over 2000 hours per YEAR to earn... and my husband and I
have paid and continue to pay and will pay child support for the next
twelve or more years. It may be a pittance compared to $10,000 a
month, but it's all relative...
Support or greed?
JMHO...
-- keep the faith... (booann77@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.
Dear A Woman (not@home.com,
please let me clear up some confusion. The DANNY who made this post
"BACK TO WOMEN BITCHES AIN'T SH*T BUT HOES AND TRICKS"
IS NOT ME! If you wasn't proof, just ask OTFR.
If thinking that I am
this other DANNY character is why you have gotten so upset, then I can
understand a little better. Please re-examine my previous posts on
this thread for consistency. I also note that he used an AOL.COM
address, although I suspect it is fake. He also capitalizes his name
and I do not. To avoid confusion I will henceforth call myself
Danny2.
That being said, after thinking about things since my last
contribution, I suspect that you somehow believe that I am against all
women getting a fair amount of child support. This is simply not
true. Firstly, all children are entitled to adequate support, and
secondly, any woman who has been a real wife and who earns less than
her husband and needs financial help is entitled to support until she
is able to earn her own
living at a fair standard. The female in question is in no way a
wife, and I believe that
she doesn't deserve anything from a man beyond what is truly necessary
to support her son. What really riles me is that she is asking for an
amount that far exceeds the gross pay of most of the working people in
America, let alone the rest of the world. This is truly
unconscinable! It's an insult to all honest, hard-working people.
Anyone with the gall to demand such extortion based on a
one-night-stand IS a prostitute.
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002zLf
-- A Woman (not@home.com), May 10, 2000.
-- Danny2 (no@more.parasites), May 10, 2000.
Patricia,
I absolutely agree with you that every woman isn't out there trying to
get your money. Most women I know are pretty nice people. However,
if and when divorce rears it's ugly head, people's darker side often
begins to emerge.
IMHO the main reason why you see so many single moms and not single
dads is the simple fact that (until recently) courts almost always
awarded custody to the mother. A single dad without the kid is a lot
harder to identify, and not at all newsworthy.
Of course ole Mick is not going to take care of the child himself.
He'd hire a nanny. But, he'd have a lot more contact with, and
enjoyment of his child that way. It probably would cost a lot less
than his Brazilian floozy is demanding. Makes a lot of sense to me.
As far as keeping it in his pants, I recently saw a good explanation,
maybe from someone on this forum. It essentially said that "God made
man with enough blood for either his brain or his dick, but not both
at the same time."
Let's face it. Because women control access to sex in this country
and in Europe, at least, most men are horny all the time (assuming
they have a reasonably high testosterone level). When women run
around showing enticing cleavage and with short skirts that often
amount to very little, what do they expect? They know exactly what
they are doing.
Regards...
-- Danny2 (one@who.knows), May 10, 2000.
Keep the Faith,
Thanks for de-lurking. You are obviously an experienced and wise
lady. I'm sorry to hear about what you have to go through, but you
are obviously a true and faithful partner, something many of us
would or should envy. I guess hearing stories like yours can help
some of the rest of us to not feel so bad, after all.
Best wishes...
-- Danny2 (one@who.knows), May 10, 2000.
Uh, Danny2, would you like an opportunity to revise this little
gem?
Let's face it. Because women control access to sex in this
country and in Europe, at least, most men are horny all the time
(assuming they have a reasonably high testosterone level). When women
run around showing enticing cleavage and with short skirts that often
amount to very little, what do they expect? They know exactly what
they are doing.
Let me see if I understand what you're implying here. It's a
woman's fault if men are attracted to her. It's a
woman's fault if men can't keep it in their pants. It's a
woman's fault if men are horny all the time.
Did I miss something? Please tell me you're not
serious.....please.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 10, 2000.
If I was the judge, I'd try and reach a compromise. Award the model
the 420K as Jagger has more than enough cash, but put *all* of it but
the 72k she's getting now into a trust fund for the kid (that is
administered by the court) that he can have upon turning 21.
That way, he gets his fair share as an heir (like mom's concerned
about ;-) ) and no-one can accuse her of being a gold-digger as she
personally gains nothing from it...
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 10, 2000.
Patricia,
You did miss something. I never said that all women do this. Only
that some of them do it some of the time, like when they are trying to
get their hooks into someone like Jagger. My exact words were "When
women run around showing enticing cleavage and with short skirts that
often amount to very little, what do they expect? They know exactly
what they are doing." This is not a blanket statement about all
women or about all of the time. The man is also supposed to
have enough brains to figure this out and not bite, but a few too many
beers sometimes does cloud judgement.
Best...
-- Danny2 (getting@deeper.and.deeper), May 10, 2000.
Frank,
What a great idea! As long as it is court administered and used
solely for the benefit of the child, I think that almost anyone would
agree. Is your middle name Solomon?
-- Danny2 (time@to.disengage), May 10, 2000.
If anyone is a whore in this case, it's Mick Jagger.
A man that doesn't have any control over his penis, disgusts me to no
end.
-- cin (cin@cin.cin), May 10, 2000.
Your right Danny. Women do own all the pussy. Do you think you
should own it?
Keep it zipped or get "them" cliped.
I would bet your very loud on personal responsibility in other
areas?
-- ownership (----@--.com), May 10, 2000.
My older brother told me at the age of 21 "girl, you are sitting on a
gold-mine and dont even know it."
-----glancing around looking for da gold while LMAO.....
ps, gerbil free tushie...
pardon the humor, i be in a good mood tonite....
PS, Mick should keep Dick in Condom.....???????
It would save him a helluva lota money...imho
-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 10, 2000.
Interesting all the verbage relating to a man having self control...
I really don't understand... other than rape, both parties are
consenting. What's with the double standard?
Additionally, both parties knew this was sex out of marriage. She is
not his wife and is not entitled to half of his pot (nor are her
children for that matter).
There are enough "accidental" pregancies. This is quite different
from negligence. Obviously, she did not insist on a condom, or maybe
it broke... (he has a lot of energy you know!)...
No one knows for sure (except her) but the bottom line is she knew
what she was doing when she had sex (protected or not) and the
possibility of pregnancy exists even by accident. I've always said
about abortion that the real choice is made BEFORE sex... after is
too late. The choice has been made. Think about before and after a
trigger is pulled and someone is killed. Does the shooter have a
choice to take it back?
Women need to take responsibility for their actions and quit yelling
about abortion and child support when they have made the choice to
engage in pregnancy causing actions without regard for the
consequences. Men too. There are plenty of men on the gravy train
as well. The difference is they are not baby makers. Women have the
greater responsibility in these matters, always have, always will by
design.
Also, earlier someone commented about people being more important
than money. If this is the case, why is she asking for more money?
I'm sure I've pissed many women off who read this so let me make it
clear that my objections do not extend to adults who are responsible
in these matters. I believe this to be a majority of adults in this
country. There will always be whiners who want something for
nothing. These are the behaviors I dislike. Hey, I want something
for nothing too, but who do I have to take advantage of to get it???
Not for me... But if anyone would like to contribute $72,000 a
year... the email is real!!
-- keep the faith... (booann77@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.
Wheeeew!! A battle of the sexes!
Woman (abused@by.hawk),
You are nothing but a troll. Here is what you said to me on an
earlier thread...
"You're a sick manipulative control-freak fuckwad, Hawk. It's funny
watching you turn to sugary words when you think you've finaly got
your way.
-- Woman (abused@by.hawk), April 24, 2000."
And this was my reply....
"Oooooooooooh, dem's fightin words, bitch!! LOL!!!
I don't think you are even a woman, probably just one of the
assholes from sleazy. But hey, I'm a fair guy, let's get to the bottom
of this and
see who the manipulative one really is. Show us you real name,
there's no need to hide if "I" abused "YOU" is there? We'll dig up the
posts
in question and do a little critiquing. How about it? I doubt
that you will because you're just a lying sack o' shit, aren't you? :)
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 24, 2000."
I'm still waiting... either put up or shut up.
J said...
"Hawk,
How is Paula Jones like this woman?
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 10, 2000."
I thought I had already spelled that out...
"Like Paula Jones, most gold-diggers not only lack morals, they
lack brains as well."
What part don't you understand? Perhaps this will help.
As for the rest of this story, I've made my point clear, and I think
"mahkel", "Danny2", and "keep the faith" are also able to see this
objectively. Of course some women have such an insecurity problem
that when anyone says anything negative about any one female, they
automatoically conclude that this is your opinion of ALL women. Not
so. I love women, but I don't like greedy vultures. When Jagger says
he wants to "limit" the kid to $5600 a month, it sure as hell isn't
because he is too cheap, it's because he doesn't want to spoil him.
When he is 18 he will inherit tens of millions, but until then it is
important that he learns how to make a living for himself. $35,000 a
month, if spent ONLY on the child, will produce one VERY rotten child.
This woman is a gold-digger, plain and simple. She was a consenting
adult, and chose to have the child. If she is a victim like some of
you say, then how come she isn't suing for rape? Surely she could get
a LOT more money if Jagger raped her.
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 10, 2000.
Keep the Faith,
"Women have the greater responsibility in these matters, always have,
always will by design"
Gee, I didn't know I was asexual?
Oh! Oh! I seemed to have lost my penis.
-- ownership (----@--.com), May 10, 2000.
Well, I can hardly resist this, being a child of divorce.
Future Shock: Misogeny? CHILD SUPPORT for 17 years at $420,000 per year = $7,140,000. Resisting this is hatred of women? This child was the result of consensal sex between two adults. If you think the birth was involuntary, check the "womans right to control her body" debates on any abortion thread.
Women@AbusedByHawk.2: "($35,000) (per month) which is probably not much more than she would have made as a model anyway." You're assuming she is going to be a supermodel just because she had some obscure modeling jobs? She's giving up her career? She's giving up any future education? (How much "education" does it take to model?) At $72,00 per year (now) she wouldn't even have to see the kid if she wanted to persue her career. (That's a lot of full time child care!)
Cin: "A man that doesn't have control over his penis digusts me to no end." I trust that a woman who doesn't control her body in the presence of a sexy man (or a man with great wealth) evokes equal disgust. Or is she a helpless "victim", who isn't intelligent enough to understand the consequences of sex without birth control? A womans right to control her body (abortion) and rights in general, also involve responsibilties. (Sorry, in my world, you accept responsibility for your "rights".)
Frank: Precisely, put the majority of the funds in a trust fund that goes to the child when reaching the age on twenty-one. Who wants to bet that the suit would be pursued if that was a stipulation? (And the legal fees were appropriately reduced.)
At $420 K per year, a 15 year mortgage, using 35% of gross pay, would purchase a $1,281,800 home. I don't think the child understands the significance of this. I'm sure the lawyer and the plaintiff fully compehend the significance of the monetary debate.
Through all this nonsense, the welfare of the child is not the debate, legally or here. The debate is how much money the father has, and how much should be taken from him because he is ONE of the parents.
It strikes me (as a child of a divorce), that other than Frank, the whole debate here is HOW MUCH MONEY does she get? The debate over $72,000 a year or $420,000 a year is totally based on how much he has that should be confiscated for fathering this child. (As an aside, what is her punishment, other than having a healthy child that she will be able to raise without any financial concern?)
I don't think either biological parent is fit to raise a child. Let's put the child up for a blind adoption, $3,000 a month living expenses after adoption, and a $5,000,000 trust fund to the child after the 18th birthday. (With a legal battle over how much each parent has to contribute!) Maybe this would give the kid a chance to grow up in a loving family with a realistic outlook on the world.
Just my opinion.
JCC
-- Greybeard7 (Wolverine_in_NC@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.
Good points Greybeard. I'd like to add something for those who think
she will be "giving up" her career. She isn't sacrificing anything,
she is doing it intentionally, in fact that is I'm sure the reason why
she was happy to have the kid and is now going after Jagger's wallet.
You see, lingerie models do not get paid nearly as much as the
"supermodels", and at 29, I think it's safe to say that her career is
over (remember gravity?).
MOTHER OF JAGGER CHILD WON'T
TESTIFY
NEW YORK (AP) . The lawyer for a Brazilian
model
who bore Mick Jagger's child refused to
allow her to
testify Tuesday on her request for an
increase in child
support from $10,000 to $35,000 a month.
Raoul Felder, lawyer for Luciana Morad,
said he
wouldn't let her take the stand until
Jagger's lawyer, John
Vassallo, first submits papers explaining
why they
oppose the request.
The Family Court hearing examiner allowed
the delay
and scheduled another hearing for June 19,
so Morad
can testify after the papers are
submitted.
Jagger, 56, lead singer for the Rolling
Stones,
acknowledged in March that he is the
father of the baby,
Lucas, born in New York last May to the
29-year-old
lingerie model.
Lucas is Jagger's seventh child.
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 11, 2000.
Ole Mick the Stick I see,
Likes them girls from big Rio D.
Before he retires,
Im betting he squires,
Enough kids to spend his money!
-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 11, 2000.
Greybeard...
Mick Jagger has the biggest reputation for cheating on his wife and
making children with other women. It seems to me that HE is the one
most lacking in self-control.
Absolutely the woman is responsible as well. But why can't a man say
NO to sex once in a friggin while? Since the beginning of time...
A guy who sleeps around is considered merely being a guy. But a woman
who sleeps around is considered a slut and a whore. Why is that?
-- cin (cin@cin.cin), May 11, 2000.
Lol Ra!
Don't think ol' Mick will be needing any Viagra for a while!
-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), May 11, 2000.
I'm gonna have to ask this again! Why are we focusing on the domestic
disputes of the jet-set? Does anyone think that they care about us?
Lucas has more money and access to a great life than most of us will
ever imagine,ok his family life might be a little tumultuos right now,
but so what,it could be a hell of a lot worse.
The mother,despite her "Dorthy" look in the above pic is quite the
vixen,just check the media rags out.
Lets worry about the kid down the street.
-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 11, 2000.
Capn, I agree, I could care less how much she gits!!!!!!
As for her media rags, right on, supr models usually dress, no?
FWIW, I do agree (even as a woman) she is a friggin Gold Digger, but
hey she is in the right MINE.....
It takes two, and he has da money, so regardless what any of us
think/say/feel, the courts will decide.
Kinda like 'us' trying to decide on what she'll do w/it...who cares?
----looking around for way out
-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 11, 2000.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ