A Summary of the Events Leading Up to the Paul McCartney Divorce

In 2008, the Paul McCartney Divorce was finalized, which symbolized the termination of the marriage of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills; the couple had been married since 2002. Paul McCartney was married once before his marriage to Heather Mills; his late wife Linda McCartney had died from breast cancer in 1998. While the couple attempted to refrain from releasing the possible catalysts for the undertaking of the Paul McCartney divorce, various expressions of dissatisfaction surfaced both from Mills, as well as from Paul McCartney:

Paul McCartney is considered to be amongst the most influential musicians in history with regard to his membership in the seminal music group, The Beatles; in addition, Paul McCartney is considered to be amongst the most valuable human being son Earth, with an estimated value ranging from $135 million to $400 million

Heather Mills is a former model who lost one of her legs in the midst of her modeling career; however, she continued to model despite her tragic accident

The couple birthed a daughter in 2003, named Beatrice McCartney; Paul McCartney and his late wife Linda birthed a daughter named Stella

The Paul McCartney Divorce Before the Royal Courts of Justice in the United Kingdom

The Paul McCartney divorce was considered to be amongst one of the most publicized and expensive divorce not only in the history of the United Kingdom, but also within the collective world. Within the Paul McCartney divorce settlement, various statements reflecting the couple’s growing dissatisfaction for one another was made public, in addition to attacks and defaming remarks set forth by Heather Mills:

Within the Paul McCartney divorce, statements released by Heather Mills included such allegations of substance abuse and mania exuded by Paul McCartney; in one report, she referred to him as ‘boring’ and ‘old’

Paul McCartney – upon the finalization of the Paul McCartney divorce – explained that he finally experienced as sense of ‘peace’ subsequent his divorce from Heather Mills

The Prenuptial Agreement in the Paul McCartney Divorce

A prenuptial agreement did not exist within the Paul McCartney divorce, which is a formulated agreement furnished by one or both partners of a marriage that serves as a preemptive, preventative measure with regard to the prospect of the dissolution of the marriage taking place. With regard to the divorce laws enacted within the United Kingdom, the female spouse within a marriage is entitled to half of the entirety of the net worth belonging to the male spouse. This statute exists in contrast of the divorce statutes applicable in the United States, which may include a ‘no-fault’ divorce taking place resulting in the even split of ‘community property’ – a legal classification defined as assets attained subsequent to the marriage in a collective fashion:

The spousal support settlement within the Paul McCartney was considered to be amongst the largest in history, in which Heather Mills walked away with $50 million

There were contrasting claims set forth by the legal teams of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills with regard to Paul McCartney’s net worth – Paul McCartney maintained that his net worth was $125 million, while Mills maintained that his net worth was upwards of $400 million

A Criminal History Fit to Put Lindsay Lohan in Jail

Even prior to her February 9th, 2011 arrest for the alleged theft of jewelry, actress Lindsay Lohan has found herself in a variety of compromising legal situations; in conjunction with a number of criminal charges aimed at Lohan – ranging from driving while intoxicated to the possession of narcotics. The following is a profile of additional crimes charged to Lohan almost resulting in the placement of Lindsay Lohan in Jail:

May 2007

Subsequent to a drunk-driving arrest, the arresting officers find cocaine in the possession of Lindsay Lohan

July 2007

Lindsay Lohan satisfies the required substance abuse counseling mandated by the court in the ‘Promises’ rehabilitation center – the conditions of her release require that she wear a monitoring bracelet regulating the consumption of drugs or alcohol

Late-July 2007

Lindsay Lohan is arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol only a mere 10 days after her completion of her rehabilitation program – upon her arrest, the arresting officers discover cocaine in her possession

August 2007

Prior to an impending trial and the possibility of the placement of Lindsay Lohan in jail, a judge allows Lindsay Lohan to attend another rehabilitation facility in Utah, which is called ‘Cirque Lodge’

November 2007

The hearing for Lindsay Lohan’s drunk-driving and drug possession charges takes place in Los Angeles, California – the judge orders a ruling placing Lindsay Lohan in jail for 24-hours, 10 days of court-ordered community service, court-ordered probation for 3-years’ time, and the mandatory wearing of an alcohol and substance monitoring system

Late-November 2007

Due to overcrowding in the Los Angeles County prison, all non-violent offenders are allowed relocation or conditional release – in conjunction with the verdict, upwards of 80 minutes were considered to amount to the time spent by Lindsay Lohan in jail

January 2008

While in attendance at a private function hosted by 22-year old socialite Masha Markova, Markova’s prized fur coat was discovered to have gone missing; the fur coat was valued at an estimated $11,000. Markova, along with many of her guests, had suspected Lindsay Lohan to be the perpetrator of this theft; days later, the fur coat was returned anonymously to Markova – charges were never filed.

June 2009

While participating in photography shoot for the cover of ‘Elle UK’, one of the United Kingdom’s most prominent fashion magazines, Lindsay Lohan was allowed the opportunity to wear almost $400k worth of jewelry from fashion designer Christian Dior. After the shoot, the set director had noticed that two diamond earrings worn by Lindsay Lohan had gone missing; rumors and allegations alleging that Lindsay Lohan was responsible for this left were set forth, but Lindsay Lohan was never formally charged

May 2010

Upon a mandatory bench warrant set forth by the Los Angeles County Court with regard to the review Lindsay Lohan’s past criminal convictions, Lohan’s presence was required in the hearing; however, at the time of the hearing, Lindsay Lohan was not present – investigations revealed that Lindsay Lohan was in Cannes, France at the Internationally-renowned film festival:

Reports and rumors expressing that Lindsay Lohan was indulging in alcohol and parties began to surface; upon question by the court as to why she had failed to report to her hearing, Lohan alleged that her passport had been stolen and she was unable to board a flight back to California

Upon her failure to appear before the court, an arrest warrant was set forth that would mandate the placement of Lindsay Lohan in jail; however, she obtained a temporary passport – and upon her return to California – she posted $100k bond in lieu of incarceration

At her second trial resulting from the bench warrant issued by the Los Angeles Court, Lindsay Lohan was mandated by the court to wear an alcohol monitoring device regulating her consumption of alcohol; the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) alerts authorities if any trace of alcohol appears in the wearers bodily system

June 2010

While at a party following the ‘MTV Movie Awards’, Lindsay Lohan’s SCRAM monitor was triggered and she was subsequently issued an additional bench warrant for arrest by the court; although this warrant would have placed Lindsay Lohan in jail, she furnished a $200k bond in order to avoid incarceration.

July 2010

Upon her appearance before Judge Marsha Revel and the Los Angeles Superior Court, Lohan is mandated to attend a rehabilitation facility.

September 2010

Lindsay Lohan fails a drug test and is ordered to attend another rehabilitation facility until the close of October 2010

Overview of the Marie Osmond Divorce

The Marie Osmond Divorce marked the dissolution of the marriage between Marie Osmond and Brian Blosil; the Marie Osmond Divorce was finalized in 2007, which ended the 20-yearlong marriage, which took place in 1986:

Although the case of the Marie Osmond Divorce, which was considered by various media outlets as a celebrity, the impact of the dissolution of a union is thought to be universal; amongst the events and undertakings within a divorce proceeding, a divorce has the potential to elicit heightened emotions, such as sadness and loss

Furthermore, the reasoning for the breakdown of a marriage – regardless of the degree of celebrity status – will typically provide a legal framework for the terms and conditions latent within a divorce settlement.

Background of the Marie Osmond Divorce

Marie Osmond is perhaps most commonly recognized for her participation in the eponymously-named television shows in which and her family – the Osmonds – were featured as stars. While the television program ‘The Osmonds’ propelled Marie Osmond into the realm of celebrity, her 1976 variety show – ‘Donny and Marie’ starring both herself and her brother Donny Osmond solidified her status as a celebrity. In addition, Marie Osmond also enjoyed a career as a country music singer spanning from the 1970s to the 1980s:

Following a prior divorce taking place in 1985, Marie Osmond and Brian Blosil married in 1986; the couple shares 2 natural children and 5 adopted children

Although the couple separated within 1998, both Marie Osmond and Brian Blosil had managed to reconcile their difference and preserve their respective union in lieu of a Marie Osmond divorce

The Plea of ‘No Contest’ within the Marie Osmond Divorce

The Marie Osmond divorce settlement was publicized as an amicable one; both Marie Osmond and Brian Blosil maintained that although they felt the utmost respect for one another, the couple’s marriage had reached a point of irreconcilable differences – as a result, the couple underwent the filing for the Marie Osmond divorce under within an uncontested nature:

An uncontested divorce is one in which both parties have reached a mutual agreement with regard to the reasons behind filing for divorce, as well as the placement of fault in conjunction to the breakdown of the marriage

In the case of the Marie Osmond Divorce, both Marie Osmond and Brian Blosil opted to file for a divorce uncontested – or unchallenged – in nature, which retained the classification of the reason for the Marie Osmond Divorce as a result, a bulk of celebrity couples undertaking divorce proceedings opt to either settle outside of court or file for divorce in an uncontested fashion in order to avoid potential media coverage and publicity

The Terms of the Marie Osmond Divorce Settlement

A divorce settlement will typically include 3 primary facets with regard to the terms and conditions set forth by the presiding court official who was responsible for determining spousal support – in the form of alimony, child custody – and subsequent child support payments, and the division of assets. However, the Marie Osmond divorce settlement was kept under wraps and the details were not released to the public.

Background of the Martha Stewart Insider Trading Arrest

Taking place in 2004, the Martha Stewart Insider trading hearing was one of the most prominent and notorious of its kind within the realm of celebrity involvement with securities fraud, in which the beloved television personality and home décor expert was made aware of unauthorized and privileged information with regards to an investment in which she had made under the counsel of her friend Sam Waskal – Sam Waskal was the owner of the company whose shares Martha Stweart had purchased.

The Details of the Martha Stewart Insider Trading Charges

Sam Waskal owned the ‘ImClone pharmaceutical company who had been planning on releasing a revolutionary drug to treat cancer; due to the fact that the drug was considered to be highly-anticipated, Martha Stewart – who was in ownership of 4,000 shares – anticipated a large return. However, Sam Waskal had discovered that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – the regulatory body maintained by the Federal Government – was not going to allow for the release of the drug:

Presumably, the drug did not meet the FDA’s regulatory standards for medication. Subsequent to learning this, Sam Waskal conveyed this information to Martha Stewart, who quickly sold her ImClone shares in the fear of a huge financial loss as a result of the rejection being released

However, the information furnished to Martha Stewart was considered to be not only unavailable to the general public, but is indicative of potential increases or decreases with regard to that company’s stocks – insider trading is classified as privileged individuals party to information involving the trade and exchange of stocks outside of the knowledge of the general populace

Martha Stewart Insider Trading Sentencing

Subsequent to her trial, the following punitive recourse was sentenced with regard to Martha Stewart and her criminal activity:

Martha Stewart was incarcerated from October of 2008 to March of 2005

She was mandated to undergo a 2-year probationary period within which she would be subject to supervision

Martha Stewart would be unable to serve as either Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of any publically-traded company for a period of 5-years’ time

The Notion of Celebrity within the Martha Stewart Insider Trading Arrest

The Martha Stewart Insider Trading trial – akin to the vast expanse of celebrity hearings – run the risk for heightened notoriety for both the presiding judge – as well as for the legal venue – there exists supplemental considerations that are undertaken within any celebrity trial. Due to the fact that the public eye will be fixated on a celebrity trial, much like that public was during the Martha Stewart Insider Trading, the legal obligation of a judge is to exact justice in accordance to the precepts upon which the United States’ legal system was founded – in an unbiased and objective fashion:

Due to the fact that celebrities typically possess higher earnings and greater fortunes than individuals considered to account for the median members of society, the implementation of financial recourse – in the form of fines or fees – is considered by many legal professionals to be subject to inefficiency with regard to punitive recourse; within the Martha Stewart Insider Trading trial, many individuals suspected that the enforcement of a median monetary payment furnished by Martha Stewart would neither affect her finances nor serve as an effective punishment

However, since justice must be exacted in an objective fashion, other individuals claimed that prejudiced enacted with regard to the sentencing of celebrities – in the form of fines or fees that exceed those that would be exacted onto the median citizen of the United States – would be equally ineffective

The Origins of the Mel Gibson Divorce Case

Actor Mel Gibson has been considered to be amongst the most recognized and sought-after talents in Hollywood; oftentimes credited with dashing good looks in conjunction with his inspirational character portrayals, the Mel Gibson divorce hearings involving the actor and wife Oksana Grigorieva – a Russian model and aspiring singer – have been classified as anything but attractive. From harassing and abusive phone calls to alleged bouts of domestic violence, the Mel Gibson divorce case has allowed concerned and curious spectators the opportunity to witness the complete and utter dissolution of a marriage.

Mel Gibson Divorce Telephone Calls

In July of 2010 Oksana Grigorieva released the audio of multiple telephone calls that she had taped, which involved her conversing with Mel Gibson; the audio of these telephone calls are considered to be extremely vulgar, abusive, cruel, racist, violent, and defamatory – many resources offering the audio of these telephone calls for visitors to access express a variety of warning s with regard to the nature of the content. Oksana Grigorieva, whose release of these telephone calls has allowed her to enter them as evidence and testimony with regard to the Mel Gibson divorce hearing.

Possible Entrapment in the Melgibson Divorce Case

Oksana Grigorieva has been criticized by Mel Gibson, as well as various individuals advocating for Gibson in the Mel Gibson divorce case, as baiting him to respond angrily and harshly:

Many reports surfacing with regard to the Mel Gibson divorce have revealed that Gibson displays signs of both rage and substance abuse; advocates for Gibson accuse Oksana Grigorieva of exploiting the aforementioned ailments

However, upon listening to the telephone calls, many individuals – including the Judge of the Mel Gibson divorce case – have mandated that regardless of the nature of the release of the audio, the sentiments expressed by Gibson cannot be excused

Domestic Violence and the Mel Gibson Divorce Case

Within the Mel Gibson divorce case, Oksana Grigorieva maintained that Gibson struck her on various occasions; amongst the most shocking accusations with in the Mel Gibson divorce case, Oksana Grigorieva expressed that Gibson had physically abused her while she was holding their child. Although the claim of Gibson striking Oksana Grigorieva while holding their child was never substantiated, the recorded telephone calls show Gibson admitting to striking Oksana Grigorieva with little to remorse with regard to his actions.

The Plea Agreement for the Mel Gibson Divorce Case

The terms of the Mel Gibson Divorce Case have allowed for Oksana Grigorieva to remain in custody of the couple’s child; Gibson is allowed supervised visits conditional upon his behavior by Court officers. Furthermore, the following stipulations are required of Gibson within the Mel Gibson Divorce Case:

Gibson is permitted to enter a ‘West Plea’ for domestic abuse; the terms of a West Plea allow Gibson to enter a guilty plea in tandem with allowing him to maintain his innocence

Gibson is required to engage in 16 hours of court-mandated community service, as well as a year-long program of anger management and substance abuse counseling

Gibson was placed on probation for a year and half, as well; in the event that he and Oksana Grigorieva are required to interact over the telephone – due to the fact that he is not permitted near her – she is legally-allowed to record the telephone conversations

The Background of the Melissa Etheridge Divorce

On April 15th, 2010, same-sex couple Melissa Etheridge and Tammy Lynn Michael announced a separation, in addition to a prospective Melissa Etheridge divorce settlement in the event that a divorce is finalized; due to the fact that same-sex marriage was not considered to be legal at the time of the couple’s union, both Melissa Etheridge and Tammy Lynn Michaels undertook a commitment ceremony in the State of California. A finalized Melissa Etheridge divorce would end a 7 year marriage between the couple who wed on April of 2003; in 2006, Melissa Etheridge announced that Tammy Lynne Michaels was pregnant with the couple’s child – subsequent to undertaking an artificial insemination procedure:

With regard to the Melissa Etheridge divorce, she has stated that the couple had undergone irreconcilable differences; legislation addressing domestic partnerships – akin to those enacted by same-sex couples – mandate the determination of 3 primary facets with regard to the terms and conditions set forth by the presiding court

These facts are the determination of spousal support – in the form of alimony, child custody – and subsequent child support payments, and the division of assets; since the fact that the Melissa Etheridge divorce has been filed recently, the associated pleas – with regard to the determination of fault and challenge within the filing – have yet to be named

The only details that have surfaced include Tammy Lynn Michaels requested spousal support from a potential Melissa Etheridge divorce settlement, as well as joint custody of the couple’s twins

Who Was Involved in the Melissa Etheridge Divorce Filing?

Singer Melissa Etheridge has been responsible for both the composition and performance of such massive hits including ‘Come to My Window’, I’m the Only One’, and ‘The Weakness in Me’; in addition to her prolific musical career, Melissa Etheridge has served as a public advocate and staunch lobbyist for gay rights – Melissa Etheridge is an openly-gay performer and icon who has served as an inspiration for countless activist groups.

The Plea within the Melissa Etheridge Divorce Settlement

The following are some potential outcomes upon the determination of the plea within the Melissa Etheridge divorce petition:

The Plea of ‘No Contest’ within the Melissa Etheridge Divorce

An uncontested divorce is one in which both parties have reached a mutual agreement with regard to the reasons behind filing for divorce, as well as the placement of fault in conjunction to the breakdown of the marriage. In the case of the Melissa Etheridge Divorce, if both Melissa Etheridge and Tammy Lynn Michaels opt to file for a divorce uncontested – or unchallenged – in nature, they may have the opportunity to settle outside of court or file for divorce in an uncontested fashion in order to avoid potential media coverage and publicity.

The Plea of ‘Contest’ and Challenge within the Melissa Etheridge Divorce

An uncontested divorce is one in which both parties have reached a mutual agreement with regard to the reasons behind filing for divorce, as well as the placement of fault in conjunction to the breakdown of the marriage. In the event that both Melissa Etheridge and Tammy Lynn Michaels seem unable or unwilling to negotiate mutual terms of the divorce or reach an agreement upon the identification of fault, the release of certain details of the divorce settlement may be released into public record.

Facts about the Michael Douglas Divorce

Michael Douglas is an American actor who met Diandra Luker at an inauguration ceremony for the upcoming presidential elect Jimmy Carter in March of 1977; at the time of their meeting Michael Douglas was 33 years old and Diandra Luker was 19 years old – the Michael Douglas divorce took place in 1998. While at the time of their marriage, Michael Douglas was not considered to have reached the height of celebrity that he would experience within forthcoming years; over the course of the marriage – prior to the Michael Douglas divorce – Michael Douglas became one of the highest-paid and most sought-after actors of his time:

Michael Douglas has graced the screen in a multitude of films; amongst the films for which he considered to be the renowned include Wall Street, Fatal Attraction, The War of the Roses, The Jewel of the Nile, Wonderboys, and Traffic

Michael Douglas and Diandra Douglas share one child named Cameron, who was born in 1978; due to his age at the time of the Michael Douglas divorce, the need to establish custody for Cameron was unnecessary

Throughout the marriage of Michael Douglas and Diandra Douglas, the couple was not without their share of domestic difficulty; in 1992, Michael Douglas confessed to an addiction to both drugs and alcohol and underwent treatment in a rehabilitation facility

Michael Douglas was also rumored to have undertaken extramarital partners; however, his alleged infidelity was never substantiated

The Terms and Conditions of the Michael Douglas Divorce

The Michael Douglas divorce – in conjunction with the respective calculations of alimony payments, the division of assets, and supplementary spousal support offered to Diandra Douglas from Michael Douglas – is considered to be amongst the most expensive in history. Although the terms of the Michael Douglas divorce settlement were kept highly-private, the following details were released:

Diandra Douglas walked away with an alleged sum of $45 million subsequent to the Michael Douglas divorce

Diandra Douglas was also awarded the couple’s formerly-shared homes in Beverley Hills, California and the island of Majorca

The Determination of Contest within the Michael Douglas Divorce

In many cases, the celebrity status enjoyed by both Michael Douglas and Diandra Douglas would be viewed as a gift and a privilege; however, in the case of the Michael Douglas Divorce, the media coverage latent within the Michael Douglas Divorce proceedings thrust the legal undertakings into the spotlight – a dynamic that was considered to threaten the privacy of the couple facing dissolution:

In the event that a couple mutually decides to file for divorce in an uncontested fashion, which means that the couple has both agreed to the terms of the divorce settlement, as well as to the reasoning for the ultimate dissolution of the marriage, the specific details of the divorce settlement are not released to the public record

In an attempt to maintain privacy with regard to not only the monetary terms and conditions of the Michael Douglas Divorce settlement, but also with regard to the alleged reasons for the Michael Douglas Divorce taking place, the respective legal teams belonging to Michael Douglas and Diandra Douglas determined that the Michael Douglas Divorce would be filed as uncontested in nature

A Summary of the Michael Jordan Divorce

Basketball icon Michael Jordan and his wife Juanita Jordan filed for divorce in 2006 after 17 years of marriage; the couple was married in 1989. Prior to this particular Michael Jordan divorce, the couple underwent a close-call with a divorce in 2002 subsequent to rumors of infidelity surfacing with regard to Michael Jordan; yet, both Michael Jordan and Juanita Jordan managed to stay together until 2006. The couple shares 3 children. In an attempt to maintain privacy with regard to not only the monetary terms and conditions of the Michael Jordan Divorce settlement, but also with regard to the alleged reasons for the Michael Jordan Divorce taking place, the respective legal teams belonging to Michael Jordan and Juanita Jordan determined that the Michael Jordan Divorce would be filed as uncontested in nature. However, the allegations of Jordan’s infidelity became a reality during the Michael Jordan divorce; reports stated that Michael Jordan had paid extramarital partners for their respective silence in conjunc
tion with affairs he had undertaken.

Why Was the Michael Jordan Divorce the Most Expensive?

Basketball superstar Michael Jordan earned his fame and notoriety both within the realm of athletics, as well as within the realm of marketing, entertainment, and endorsements. Both prior and subsequent to the Michael Jordan divorce, the basketball icon has been the face of Gatorade, Nike, and Hanes; Jordan’s value is reported to exceed an estimated $500 million.

The Terms and Conditions of the Michael Jordan Divorce

Although the filing of an uncontested divorce was ideal with regard to the privacy of the celebrity couple, both Michael Jordan and Juanita Jordan were required to adhere to both preexisting terms and conditions, as well as adhere to any subsequent petitions filed, which included the award of spousal support through alimony, child custody of the couple’s 3 children, and the division of the couple’s shared assets:

The Terms of Alimony in the Michael Jordan Divorce

Alimony – in the form of spousal support – expressed the agreements; Juanita Jordan petitioned for alimony payments from Michael Jordan upon the finalization of the Michael Jordan Divorce. The following provision of spousal support was reported to have taken place within the Michael Jordan Divorce:

Juanita Jordan received a sum of $168 million in spousal support

Due to the fact the couple’s 3 children exceeded 18 years of age, the determination of custody within the Michael Jordan divorce was not applicable

The Division of Assets in the Michael Jordan Divorce

The division of ‘community property’ is defined as any assets that were attained subsequent to the marriage of Michael Jordan and Juanita Jordan. However, in certain cases, additional agreements will have been set forth in supplementary agreements with regard to assets and monies. With regard to the Michael Jordan Divorce, the following division of assets is reported to have taken place:

In addition to the $168 million payment furnished to Juanita Jordan following the Michael Jordan settlement, she was also given ownership of the couple’s luxury home in Chicago, Illinois

Overview of the Neil Diamond Divorce

The Neil Diamond Divorce marked the dissolution of the marriage between Neil Diamond and Marsha Murphy; the Neil Diamond Divorce was finalized in 1994, which ended the 33-year long marriage. Although the case of the Neil Diamond Divorce, which was considered by various media outlets as a celebrity, the impact of the dissolution of a union is thought to be universal; amongst the events and undertakings within a divorce proceeding, a divorce has the potential to elicit heightened emotions, such as sadness and loss:

Although many celebrity divorces may tend to retain hostility or anger, such was not the case in the Neil Diamond divorce; despite the suspicion of extramarital affairs undertaken by Neil Diamond, which resulted in Marsha Murphy petitioning for half of his fortune, Neil Diamond responded that his former wife deserved the settlement amount and ‘was worth every penny’

Neil Diamond continued to thank Marsha Murphy for what he had described as unwavering and undying support undertaken by her throughout the couple’s marriage; he maintains this claim long after the finalization of the Neil Diamond divorce took place

The Parties Involved in the Neil Diamond Divorce

Neil Diamond is considered to be amongst the most successful singers and songwriters in world history; prior to the Neil Diamond divorce, he was valued at an estimated $300 million – Diamond is responsible for the composition of seminal songs, such as ‘I Write the Songs’ and ‘Sweet Caroline’. He met Marsha Murphy in 1965, where at the time, Murphy was employed as a production assistant; the couple shares 2 children.

The Plea of ‘No Contest’ within the Neil Diamond Divorce

An uncontested divorce is one in which both parties have reached a mutual agreement with regard to the reasons behind filing for divorce, as well as the placement of fault in conjunction to the breakdown of the marriage. In the case of the Neil Diamond Divorce, both Neil Diamond and Marcia Murphy opted to file for a divorce uncontested – or unchallenged – in nature, which retained the classification of the reason for the Neil Diamond Divorce as a result, a bulk of celebrity couples undertaking divorce proceedings opt to either settle outside of court or file for divorce in an uncontested fashion in order to avoid potential media coverage and publicity:

The nature of the Neil Diamond divorce resulting in an uncontested settlement has been presumed to have taken place as a result of the couple’s desire to keep the details of the Neil Diamond divorce secretive; prior to the Neil Diamond divorce, Marsha Murphy discovered that he had undertaken various extramarital affairs – in many cases, these events of infidelity were highly-publicized by the media

Neil Diamond and Marsha Murphy cited irreconcilable differences as the reasoning behind the dissolution of their marriage

The Terms of the Neil Diamond Divorce Settlement

A divorce settlement will typically include 3 primary facets with regard to the terms and conditions set forth by the presiding court official who was responsible for determining spousal support – in the form of alimony, child custody – and subsequent child support payments, and the division of assets. However, subsequent to the ruling of the presiding judge, the following judicial review was set forth with regard to the terms of the Neil Diamond Divorce settlement:

Marsha Murphy walked away from the Neil Diamond divorce settlement with an estimated $150 million, which was reported to be half of Neil Diamond’s fortune; the Neil Diamond divorce settlement has been cited as one of the most expensive in history

Why Was Lawrence Taylor Arrested?

On March 22nd, 2011, American Football legend Lawrence Taylor was convicted of both patronizing a prostitute, as well as engaging in sexual activity with an individual classified as a minor; the sentencing was in response to Lawrence Taylor arrested in May of 2010 upon apprehension by law enforcement agents:

Lawrence Taylor arrested came as a shock for a multitude of his fans; this American Football great was most-widely known for his position of Linebacker on the New York Giants football team in the National Football League

Donning the number ‘56’, Lawrence Taylor – or ‘L.T.’ as he was most times referred – was a domineering force on the football field, earning himself a number of accolades including nominations to attend the ‘Pro Bowl’, as well as a Super Bowl Victory

Upon the news of Lawrence Taylor arrested, both his fans – as well as the New York Giants Football Team – expressed sadness and regret

Lawrence Taylor Arrested and the Case Details

In May of 2010, Lawrence Taylor solicited the services of a female prostitute who was discovered to be 16 years age; almost 2 years below the age of consent in the State of New York – the location in which the events took place. The events of Lawrence Taylor arrested involved his association with known facilitators of prostitution rings known colloquially as ‘Pimps’. The uncle of the prostitute in question alerted law enforcement agents upon the notice of both Taylor’s car – as well as the ‘pimp’s’ car at the Holiday Inn, where the events in question took place.

Lawrence Taylor Arrested for Statutory Rape

Statutory Rape is defined as a sexual act involving a legally-defined minor and a legally-defined adult. Typically, a minor can be classified as an individual who is below the age of consent, which is applicable to the participation in sexual activity. Regardless of any expressed consent or acknowledgement on the part of the 16-year old in question, the legal classification as a minor prevented the individual from being legally-able to make such a decision; this resulted in Lawrence Taylor arrested for illegal sexual conduct with a minor.

Lawrence Taylor Arrested and Applicable Repercussions

Lawrence Taylor arrested resulted in the mandating of 6-years’ probation, which is a legal institution that can be utilized in lieu of a prison sentence; the details of Taylor’s probation include a period of 6-years within which he will be required to remain in the most favorable legal standing with regard to his societal membership – in addition, Lawrence Taylor will be required to furnish a fine for an undisclosed amount, as well as register himself within the Nationwide and Statewide Sex Offender Registry for the State of New Jersey:

Lawrence Taylor arrested for engaging in illegal sexual with a minor activity recognizes him as a sex offender; Taylor will be forced to register himself in the nationwide database revealing himself as a convicted sex offenders to neighbors and individuals living within his vicinity