The Background of the Mick Jagger Divorce

Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall began their romantic relationship in 1977 subsequent to their initial meeting in London, England in 1976. The couple ended their marriage in 1999; Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall share 4 children – Elizabeth, James, Georgia May, and Gabriel.

The Annulment of Marriage

After nearly 2 decades without being married, the 2 underwent a marriage ceremony in in Bali that was enacted in Hindu fashion; as a result, the marriage between Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall permitted to be annulled in lieu of a divorce. Upon discovering that Mick Jagger had engaged in an extramarital affair that resulted in him fathering the child of another woman, she petitioned for a divorce.

Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall

Michael Philip Jagger – more commonly known as ‘Mick Jagger’ – is considered to be one of the most prolific and prominent musicians of the 20th and 21st centuries; as the singer of the seminal rock and roll group ‘The Rolling Stones’, Mick Jagger has been responsible for the performance and composition of some of the most widely-recognized and profitable songs in history. As if Mick Jagger’s fame would not cause any news relating to him to be thrust into public consumption, his former wife Jerry Hall was an American supermodel – it was certainly no surprise that that Mick Jagger divorce was both one of the most highly publicized and expensive in history.

The Terms and Conditions of the Mick Jagger Divorce Settlement

Due to the annulment of the couple’s marriage in lieu of a divorce, the proceeding inherent within the Mick Jagger divorce settlement, which is legally defined as an annulment settlement, the following illustrates the manner in which the dissolution of the couple’s marriage took place:

The estimated net worth of Mick Jagger at the time of the Mick Jagger divorce was alleged to be $325 million

Due in part to both the nature of allegations of infidelity in tandem with Mick Jagger’s dispute with regard to the viability of the marriage ceremony, Jerry Hall was given an alimony payment ranging between $15 million and $25 million – the details of the Mick Jagger divorce settlement were kept secret

The Determination of Legality within the Mick Jagger Divorce

In many cases, the celebrity status enjoyed by both Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall would be viewed as a gift and a privilege; however, in the case of the Mick Jagger Divorce, the media coverage latent within the Mick Jagger 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 the case of the Mick Jagger divorce – or annulment, the couple was able to be privy to extenuating circumstances due to the disputable nature of their initial marriage

A Summary of the Mike Tyson Divorce

The Mike Tyson Divorce was finalized in February of 1989, which ended the yearlong marriage between Mike Tyson and Robin Givens – the couple was wed in February of 1988. Speculation surrounding the Mike Tyson Divorce suggests that the events leading up to the Mike Tyson Divorce included Givens explaining on Barbara Walter’s television program ‘20/20’ that she was both sexually and physically abused by Tyson; perhaps the most famous sentiment expressed by Givens was her description of her marriage to Mike Tyson as a “Living  Hell”. For those unfamiliar with the Mike Tyson Divorce, the celebrity status of Mike Tyson and Robin Givens thrust the dissolution of the couple’s marriage into media headlines making it a highly-publicized event in the time that the Mike Tyson Divorce had taken place:

Mike Tyson’s celebrity fame earned as a result of his notoriety as a professional boxer was only furthered in the public eye as a result of his electrifying and oftentimes bizarre personality

Robin Givens was amongst one of the most widely-recognized television actors, resulting from her role on the television show ‘Head of the Class’

The Terms and Conditions of the Mike Tyson Divorce

Although the filing of an uncontested divorce was ideal with regard to the privacy of the celebrity couple, both Mike Tyson and Robin Givens were required to adhere to both preexisting terms and conditions, as well as adhere to any subsequent petitions filed, which included the following:

The Terms of Alimony in the Mike Tyson Divorce

Alimony – in the form of spousal support – expressed the agreements; Robin Givens had petitioned for alimony payments from Mike Tyson upon the finalization of the Mike Tyson Divorce. The following provision of spousal support was reported to have taken place within the Mike Tyson Divorce:

Prior to the dissolution of the marriage, reports were released stating that Tyson had accused Givens of stealing his money and lying to him; subsequent to the Mike Tyson Divorce, Givens sued Tyson for libel to the tune of $125 million – however, she shortly recanted the lawsuit and expressed that she did not wish to receive spousal support from him

The Determination of Contest within the Mike Tyson Divorce

In many cases, the celebrity status enjoyed by both Mike Tyson and Robin Givens would be viewed as a gift and a privilege; however, in the case of the Mike Tyson Divorce, the media coverage latent within the Mike Tyson 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 Mike Tyson Divorce settlement, but also with regard to the alleged reasons for the Mike Tyson Divorce taking place, the respective legal teams belonging to Mike Tyson and Robin Givens determined that the Mike Tyson Divorce would be filed as uncontested in nature

The Mike Tyson Divorce and the Public Record

The respective celebrity status shared by both Mike Tyson and Robin Givens – within the Mike Tyson Divorce settlement – would allow for personal and privileged details latent within the personal relationship shared by Mike Tyson and Robin Givens to be released into public record:

The legal stipulations undertaken within a celebrity divorce – akin to those inherent within traditional divorces – express strict parameters with regard to the release of the specific divorce settlement to public record

The realm of public record allows the terms of a divorce settlement to be accessed within the realm of common law – a primary tenet of common law allows past cases to serve as legislative parameters taken into consideration by specific judicial review.

Background of the Natasha Lyonne Drug Arrest

The following details took place during the Natasha Lyonne Drug arrest:

Who is Natasha Lyonne?

Natasha Lyonne is an American actor; she has been featured in feature films including:

American Pie

Party Monster

Scary Movie 2

Blade: Trinity

Date of the Natasha Lyonne Drug Arrest: The Natasha Lyonne Drug arrest took place in December of 2004

The Location of the Natasha Lyonne Drug Arrest: The criminal activity charged to Natasha Lyonne took place in Los Angeles, California

Criminal Charges Associated with the Natasha Lyonne Drug Arrest

Subsequent to the police apprehension of Natasha Lyonne, the following criminal charges were furnished by the arresting officers:

Although her crimes were believed to be fueled by drug abuse, Natasha Lyonne was never formally charged with a drug offense; however, within the sentencing, she was required to complete a drug rehabilitation program

Natasha Lyonne was charged with aggravated threats, in which she had threatened to sexually-abuse the dog belonging to her neighbor

The destruction of property, in which she had been reported as rushing into the apartment belonging to a neighbor; during this time, her neighbor reported furniture broken upon Lyonne’s entry

Upon the date of her trial, Natasha Lyonne failed to appear; as a result, the presiding judge issued a bench warrant for her mandatory appearance to her hearing

The Punitive Recourse of the Natasha Lyonne Drug

Subsequent to the findings by the presiding judge with regard to the Natasha Lyonne Drug trial, the sentencing of Natasha Lyonne involved Natasha Lyonne to undergo the following:

The furnishing of a mandatory $2,000 court-imposed fee

The serving of 6-months’ probation time within which she must be free from arrests

The satisfaction of a court-imposed drug rehabilitation program

The Notion of Celebrity within the Natasha Lyonne Drug Arrest

Due to the fact that Natasha Lyonne was widely recognized a celebrity at the time of the arrest, the media scrutiny was exponentially higher with regard to the coverage of the details of the event described as the Natasha Lyonne Drug:

Uniform Sentencing with the Natasha Lyonne Drug Trial

The Natasha Lyonne Drug 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 Natasha Lyonne Drug, 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

The Natasha Lyonne Drug Trial within the Common Law System

The judicial system within the United States is considered to be a Common Law jurisdiction, which results in pertinent details latent within trials to be made available to public record; the notion of public record allows findings, sentencing, and judicial review to be both accessible within legal archives, as well as eligible for access by forthcoming trials similar in nature to the findings placed within public record – such was the case within the Natasha Lyonne Drug sentencing