Overview of the Troy Aikman Divorce Filing

Reports emerging on January 24th, 2011 alleged that Troy Aikman and Rhonda Aikman had filed for divorce; shortly after the reports surface, the former-couple affirmed the rumors. A finalization of a Troy Aikman Divorce would mark the end of a 10-year marriage between American football legend – and famed Dallas Cowboys’ quarterback – Troy Aikman and former-Dallas Cowboys’ publicist Rhonda Aikman; the couple met while employed by the National Football League (NFL) franchise – Troy Aikman and Rhonda Aikman were married on April 8th, 2000 in the State of Texas:

The reasons behind the Troy Aikman have not since been disclosed; both Troy Aikman and Rhonda Aikman have released statements explaining that the decision to file for divorce was a difficult one, and the couple retains the highest degree(s) of respect and admiration for one another; in addition, Troy Aikman has requested that both the media – as well as the general public – respect the privacy of the couple during what he described as a ‘period of adjustment’]

At the time of the Troy Aikman divorce filing, the couple shares 2 daughters – Jordan and Alexa

The Plea within the Troy Aikman 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. As per the divorce hearing and settlement associated with the Troy Aikman Divorce – which can range from an out-of-court settlement to a divorce hearing – the reasoning behind 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:

The Plea of ‘No Contest’ within the Troy Aikman 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 Troy Aikman Divorce, if both Troy Aikman and Rhonda Aikman 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 Troy Aikman 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 Troy Aikman and Rhonda Aikman 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.

JonBenét Ramsey

The murder of child pageant star JonBenét Ramsey was one of the most high-profile criminal cases of its kind in the 1990s. The prominence accorded to the case and the media coverage has not entirely ended to this day, since the case of JonBenét Ramsey has never been formally closed.

The basic facts in the case of JonBenét Ramsey are not greatly disputed. JonBenét Ramsey was a 6-year-old child pageant participant at the time of her death in 1996, which occurred on Christmas Day.The following day, Patsy, the mother of JonBenét Ramsey, called the police to report that she had found a ransom note in her house demanding payment of $118,000 for the return of her daughter. That day, her husband John began searching the house when they discovered the body of JonBenét Ramsey in the basement, heavily bound with a number of restraints.

An autopsy was inconclusive as to whether sexual assault had been an element of her death. At the time of the initial police investigation, the Ramsays advanced their theory that the death of JonBenét Ramsey had come about as the result of a break-in by someone in the internet. However, both public and police suspicion regarding the death of JonBenét Ramsey concentrated heavily upon her parents. The evidence tying the parents to the case was never more than circumstantial. For example, in 1997 several handwriting experts issued analyses concluding that the ransom note seemed to have been written by Patsy.

In light of the inconclusive nature of the investigation, independent investigation efforts intended to either condemn or exonerate the family of JonBenét Ramsey continued. The family maintained that they believed an intruder had been responsible for the death of JonBenét Ramsey and hired former FBI behavioral scientist John E. Douglas to conduct an investigation. Douglas published the results of his investigation in 2001, concluding that the death of JonBenét Ramsey was in all probability the result of a kidnapping which had been mishandled.

In 2008, a major new development occurred when new DNA tests were performed. The results were obtained from clothing worn by JonBenét Ramsey at the time of her murder and showed that none of the DNA could be traced to any family member. The results led to an apology from the Boulder County District Attorney, documented in a letter that announced the family's complete exoneration.

Despite the official dismissal of any suspicion against the surviving family members of JonBenét Ramsey, public opinion in the case still is open to a number of interpretations and theories. For example, in 2012 detective Jim Kolar publicly asserted that key evidence ignored at the time of the initial investigation made the theory of assault and murder by an intruder possible. As part of his evidence, Kolar cited a basement cobweb that should have been brushed away by any intruder entering the house. The investigation into the death of JonBenét Ramsey remains technically ongoing.

Randy Lanier

Race car driver Randy Lanier was awarded a prize for being "Rookie Of The Year" at the Indianapolis 500 race in 1986 after finishing 10th in the race. However, by January of the following year he had entered the court system of Illinois on charges of being the head of a marijuana smuggling ring. Prosecutors charged that Randy Lanier had been involved in drug smuggling since 1978.

Randy Lanier began his racing career on a regional basis in 1982 alongside brothers Don and Bill Whittington, who would later be indicted alongside him on drug smuggling charges. In 1987, a federal grand jury in Illinois ruled that Randy Lanier was guilty of being part of an enterprise directed at distributing over 1,000 pounds of marijuana over a period stretching back six years. Additionally, Randy Lanier was soon after charged in federal court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida with similar offenses of participating in a marijuana smuggling ring. When he failed to appear in that court in February 1987, a search was launched. Randy Lanier was located in Antigua on October 26, 1987, along with his girlfriend Maria D. Maggi.

After being brought back to the United States, Randy Lanier was detained. During this time, a later court ruling by the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Randy Lanier had prepared for his court appearance by directing Maggi on how to distribute and manage his assets in such a way that they could not be located by the US government.

Randy Lanier finally appeared in court in 1988, when his case was heard in Illinois. The case of Randy Lanier was heard alongside that of two other defendants and took fourteen weeks to reach a resolution, including five jury deadlocks during the course of deliberation. Although he was a non-violent offender, the charges at this time had increased to charges that he had organized the import of over 600,000 pounds of marijuana from Columbia. As such, the mandatory minimum guidelines for drug offenders dictated that he receive a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Government prosecutors requested that he be assessed a criminal forfeiture of $68 million in funds, but the jury ruled that he was only liable for $60 million in criminal forfeiture.

Following the imprisonment of Randy Lanier, his girlfriend Maria D. Maggi encountered her own legal problems. In November of 1991, she was indicted by a grand jury on charges of money laundering and obstruction of justice and sentenced to a total of nine years (108 months) in prison. An appeal to overturn the verdict in 1994 was unsuccessful. In 1995, her sentence was reduced to 97 months.

Since his indictment, Randy Lanier has turned his attention towards both attempting to overturn his sentence and towards various prison activities in his current Florida prison unit, including teaching yoga in a voluntary incarceration unit known as "The Challenge Program."

Overview of the Steve Harvey Divorce:
Born January 17, 1957, Steve Harvey is an American actor, entertainer, comedian and television personality, best known for his starring role in the hit WB sitcom The Steve Harvey Show. Currently, the comedian is the host of the nationally syndicated radio program, The Steve Harvey Morning Show and the current host of the popular television game show Family Feud.

Harvey first performed stand-up comedy in the early 1980s in various nightclubs in Ohio. As his act got more popular, Harvey garnered the attention of television and film executives throughout the country. In 1997, Harvey got his big break, when he was asked to tour with the Kings of Comedy, along with other notable comedic stars such as, Bernie Mac, Cedric the Entertainer and D.L. Hughley.  

Steve Harvey has been married three times; he has four biological children, all from his first marriage, including twin daughters. Of the two previous divorces (Harvey is currently married) the drama and subsequent settlement was the most scrutinized with former wife and the mother of Steve’s children, Mary Lee Harvey.

In January of 1989, Steve Harvey, while in Arlington, Texas for a comedy show met Mary Lee Shackelford, a young woman who was working for Fashion Fair Cosmetics. The couple, after falling in love at first sight, married later that year.

The Steve Harvey Divorce marked the dissolution of the marriage between Steve Harvey and Mary Lee Harvey; the Steve Harvey Divorce was finalized in 2005, which ended the 17-yearlong marriage between Steve and Mary Lee Harvey. Although the case of the Steve Harvey 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:

This particular divorce garnered media attention as a result of Mary Lee’s settlement demands: Mary Lee claimed that she deserved a large percentage of Steve’s assets as well as claims to his future revenues from comedy. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Steve: the Steve Harvey Divorce Settlement offered Mary Lee $1,000 dollars per month for child support and disallowed her from retaining all property and business owned by Steve.

The Plea of ‘Contest’ and Challenge within the Steve Harvey 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 Steve Harvey Divorce, both Steve Harvey and Mary Lee Harvey seemed unable or unwilling to negotiate mutual terms of the divorce or reach an agreement upon the identification of fault. Mary Lee was enraged over the settlement; she sued her former husband in the Harris County District Court for swindling her during the divorce settlement. Mary Lee alleged that Steve and his lawyer cheated her into settling quickly and hid the fact that Steve was guilty of adultery, poor and neglectful parenting as well delivering physical and mental abuse. Mary added that during the Steve Harvey divorce she was not made aware of her rights to hire an independent lawyer—Mary used the same attorney as her husband who convinced Mary to settle on the $1,000 per month deal.

As a result of these claims and the fact that Steve has amassed a fortune of over $20 million dollars, Mary Lee’s case was ultimately settled out of court, where it was expected that the ex-wife received somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million dollars.

A Brief Summary of Michael Jackson’s Career:

Michael Jackson, born on August 28, 1958, was an American recording artist, singer, dancer, philanthropist and pop-icon. Often referred to as the King of Pop, Michael Jackson is recognized as the most successful entertainer of all time; Jackson’s contribution to music and dance, along with a highly-publicized personal life, transformed the singer into a global figure in popular culture for over four decades.

Michael Jackson became a dominant figure in the music scene throughout the 1980s when the pop icon released legendary videos for his songs, including “Beat It”, “Thriller”, and “Billie Jean.” These videos were ultimately credited for transforming the medium into a tangible art form and a promotional tool; the popularity of these hit videos helped bring music television to fame. In addition to his videos, Jackon’s music albums are among the most successful efforts in music history; Jackson’s 1982 album Thriller is the best-selling album of all time. In total, Michael Jackson has won 13 Grammy Awards, 26 American Music Awards, held 13 number-one singles in the United States and has sold an estimated 750 million records worldwide.

Although Jackson transformed music, aspects of the pop icon’s personal life, including his egregious appearance change his personal relationships and general behavior generated controversy. In 1993, Jackson was accused of child sexual abuse—this case was settled out of court and no formal charges were filed—and in 2005 the pop icon was tried and acquitted of further sexual abuse allegations and various other charges after the jury ruled the musician not guilty on all counts.

The Death of an Icon: Details regarding the Death of Michael Jackson:

On June 25, 2009 Michael Jackson died in his bed at his mansion located at 100 North Carolwood Drive in the Holmby Hills district of Los Angeles. When Jackson’s body was first discovered, attempts at resurrection were applied by Conrad Murray, Jackson’s personal physician. These efforts ultimately proved unsuccessful, as Los Angeles Fire Department paramedics found Jackson’s body unresponsive and not breathing at roughly 12:22 local time. Reseruection efforts continued en route to the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center; Jackson was pronounced dead at 2:26 local time.

It was initially reported that Michael Jackson died from a sudden cardiac death, which according to the American College of Cardiology, is labeled as, “the sudden cessation of cardiac activity so that the victim becomes unresponsive, with no normal breathing and no signs of circulation.” The cause of Jackson’s cardiac arrest was reported as a combination of the potent drugs lorazepam, midazolam and propofol. The death, which has been formally ruled as a homicide, is currently being investigated; law enforcement officials are currently investigating Jackson’s physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, regarding his recommendations that Jackson combine these drugs to help him deal with stress and sleep.

Jessica Dubroff

Jessica Dubroff was a 7-year-old media sensation who gained attention when she began taking flying lessons at the age of six. After receiving in excess of 66 hours of flight training, her father Lloyd and flight instructor Joe Reid decided to make an attempt to have Jessica Dubroff become the youngest pilot to ever complete a flight from coast to coast. On the last leg of the flight in Appril of 1996, the plane crashed while being piloted by Reid, killing him, Jessica Dubroff and her father Lloyd.

In the wake of the crash, an investigation into its cause was conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board. The completed report, issued in 1997, concluded that responsibility for the crash lay with Reid, who had taken off under unsafe weather conditions in a plane that was 96 pounds heavier than permitted. As a response to the events, Congress passed legislation designed to prevent similar attempts by making it illegal for a pilot younger than 16 years of age to be in direct control of a flight in all attempts to set a record.

In 1997, civil litigation relating to insurance commenced in San Mateo. The two parties in the dispute were the stepmother of Jessica Dubroff, Lisa Blair Hathaway, and Melinda Anne Hurst Dubroff, who had been married to Lloyd Dubroff at the time of the plane crash. After the crash, it was discovered that Lloyd Dubroff had purchased four separate life insurance policies, each valued at $75,000 a piece. Two apiece were in the names of Hathaway and Dubroff.

The first to file suit was Melinda Dubroff, who argued that she was entitled to not just the two policies in her name, but for one of the two policies in Lisa Hathaway's name. She argued she was entitled to half of the payments made on life insurance purchased for Hathaway under communal property laws. Dubroff also sued for half of $150,000 worth of gifts and property Lloyd Dubroff gave to Hathaway after their divorce.

Lisa Hathaway filed a countersuit seeking a minimum of $3 million from the estate of Lloyd Dubroff, citing child care expenses for another two children she had from her former husband. She also claimed that Dubroff had promised to provide for her fiscally for the rest of her life. The case was heard in December of 1997.

Melinda Dubroff's attorneys were the first to present their case and did so over the course of three days. Once they had completed, the attorneys representing Lisa Hathaway filed a motion requesting a dismissal of the case, which was granted by the judge. As a result, Lisa Hathaway was granted the right to receive all $1.5 million of the life insurance proceeds due to her. Dubroff's claim regarding her right to repayment of gifts and property given by Lloyd Dubroff to Hathaway following their divorce was also dismissed.

Vincent Kaminski

Vincent Kaminski served for years as the head of risk and research at Enron, a Houston energy company. During his time in this capacity, his job was to perform mathematical analyses quantifying the potential risks and benefits of various business transactions. In this capacity, Vincent Kaminski became concerned in 1999 by a plan proposed to create a partnership with a company run by Enron’s Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow which would be backed by Enron stock.

In response to his analysis, Enron Chief Executive Jeffrey Skilling removed Vincent Kaminski from his work performing risk assessment. In making this decision, Skilling cited complaints that the work performed by Vincent Kaminski and his employees impeded rather than aided the firm in completing transactions. Vincent Kaminski and his employees subsequently were moved to the trading division of the company.

In 2001, Vincent Kaminski’s team was tasked with evaluating a type of financial transaction the company had created under Fastow’s supervision, called “the Raptor,” which in essence would commit the company to paying back certain bank loans if their credit ratings was downgraded, leading to a decrease in stock value. Vincent Kaminski concluded that this proposed transaction committed Enron to excessive risk and reported his findings to the Chief Risk Officer.

In an October 2001 meeting, Vincent Kaminski reiterated his concerns and voiced his concern that Fastow was acting in an unethical fashion. He remained at the company, refusing to sign documents authorizing these risky transactions, until he left the company in 2002.

While Enron ignored the warnings of Vincent Kaminski, in March of 2001 “Fortune” magazine published article stating that Enron’s earnings could not be explained, since the company’s sources of revenue were unknown. A series of increasingly public business difficulties led the price of the stock to decline significantly throughout the year, culminating in bankruptcy proceedings. One of the first Enron executives to be arrested and tried for criminal offenses was Andrew Fastow, who agreed to cooperate in exchange for a plea bargain limiting him to a 10 year prison sentence.

Fastow agreed to testify at the 2006 trial of executives Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay. Vincent Kaminski also appeared as a witness at this trial, explaining the actions he had taken to warn the company of the risks being taken. During cross-examination by Lay’s attorney, Vincent Kaminski conceded that he was a trained economist rather than an accountant but said that he felt he had taken sufficient steps to warn the company of the dangers of its transactions. He also conceded that he had not been fired in retaliation.

The trial of Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay resulted in convictions against both on counts of securities and wire fraud. Jeffrey Skilling was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years and 4 months in prison, while Kenneth Lay passed away before he could be sentenced. Vincent Kaminski is currently a faculty member at Houston’s Rice University.

Bela Lugosi was a Hungarian-born actor most associated with his role as Count Dracula in the 1931 film "Dracula." Ten years after his death in 1956, the heirs of Bela Lugosi filed a lawsuit against Universal Pictures, the company which made "Dracula." The lawsuit alleged that Universal was profiting from and exploiting the image and likeness of Bela Lugosi for profits which should have been inherited and shared with theirs. The resolution of the lawsuit hinged upon the question of whether or not the contracts which Bela Lugosi had signed with Universal Pictures granted the corporation the right to use his likeness and portrayal of Dracula for profit without the involvement of his heirs.

The lawsuit did not receive a hearing and resolution until 1979. At this time, the lawsuit had developed into a request for an injunction against Universal Pictures to force the company to cease manufacturing 70 different product which made use of imagery of Bela Lugosi as Dracula. The lawsuit also called on the court to order Universal Pictures to share the profits from sales of such merchandise with the heirs of Bela Lugosi. Their lawsuit argued that such imagery constituted inheritable property. In response, Universal Pictures alleged in their response that barring them from manufacturing products bearing the likeness of Bela Lugosi as Dracula would constitute a violation of the First Amendment right to free expression.

The judge hearing the case ruled in favor of the heirs of Bela Lugosi, granting them $70,000 as well as the injunction ordering Universal to desist from further manufacture of products bearing the actor's likeness. Universal petitioned this decision, which was reversed by the Second Appellate District court. In its ruling, the appeals court declared that the right to exploit a name or likeness is not inheritable. Furthermore, the court ruled that for Bela Lugosi or any other person with an exploitable name or likeness to do so, they must take such steps to profit during their lifetime. The heirs of Bela Lugosi appealed this decision to the California Supreme Court, which upheld the ruling and reasoning of the appellate court.

A similar case that was heard in 1979 concerned a biographical drama made about the silent film actor Rudolph Valentino. The actor's nephew and legal heir filed suit against the production company on the same grounds as the heirs of Bela Lugosi. This case too ended in a ruling against the plaintiff, since the court found that since Valentino had not exploited his likeness in such a fashion while alive, such a right could not be inherited by his heirs.

In response to this ruling, in 1988 the California legislature passed the Celebrities Rights Act. This act stated that the right to exploit a name and likeness for profit was inheritable and could be claimed by the heirs of the person in question for up to 70 years after their death. To date, twelve other states have passed similar legislation.

Harry Gale Nye Jr. was an American businessman who is primarily remembered for his achievements as a champion yachter. In the legal field, Harry Gale Nye Jr. is primarily remembered as president of the Nye Tool & Machine Works company established by his father. This company was the subject of an important 1923 Supreme Court case, Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works. This trial took place before Harry Gale Nye Jr. assumed control of the company.

The case concerned a dispute over the manufacture of a machine which made screw-thread cutting devices. The basis of the lawsuit occurred when Nye Tool alleged that its patent was being infringed upon by Crown Die & Tool Co. and sought to receive both an infringement against Crown Die and damages for lost revenue. In considering the case, the main issue to be resolved by the Supreme Court concerned whether a suit over patent infringement could not be separated from the right to exclude specific parties from manufacture within the patent.

This reasoning meant that the Supreme Court was not concerned with the merits of the case filed by the Nye Tool company owned by the father of Harry Gale Nye Jr. in particular. Rather, the Supreme Court was interested in determining whether an infringement lawsuit could be brought forth by anyone other than an exclusive licensee of a patent without the involvement of the patent owner. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not possible, a verdict which reversed the appeal filed by the Nye Tool company.

As a result, Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works became an important case in the history of patent infringement litigation. As a result, the rights of a patent owner to exclude specific manufacturers from making use of their work were affirmed. These issues were resolved by the time that Harry Gale Nye Jr. assumed control of the company.

Under the leadership of Harry Gale Nye Jr., the Nye Tool & Machine Works company experienced financial difficulties due to the Great Depression. However, the company managed to survive. Concurrent with its primary functions, Harry Gale Nye Jr. became interested in manufacturing sails. The company expanded in this direction and continued its activities throughout World War II until canvas became unavailable. This alternate company was sold in the late 1950s. This company subsequently transitioned in manufacturing fashion apparel.

Nye Tool & Machine Works was sold by Harry Gale Nye Jr. to an Indiana company in 1964. However, Harry Gale Nye Jr. remained best known for his many victories as a yachter. Later in his career, he began developing hydrofoil vessels. Harry Gale Nye Jr. passed away in 1987. After his death, the International Star Class Yachting Association named an award in his memory, which is conferred upon those the organization feels have contributed significantly to the development of the sport of yachting. 

Charice

Charice is a pop singer from the Philippines. In the legal field, she is primarily associated the death of her father, Ricky Pempengco, which occurred on October 31, 2011.

During initial reports of the death of the father of Charice, it was reported that he had been stabbed by a man with an ice pick outside of a convenience store from which he had just purchased cigarettes. The person with the ice pick then fled the scene of the crime. An investigation subsequently pointed to Angel Capilli Jr. as the perpetrator of the murder.

After several days, Angel Capilli Jr. turned himself in to the mayor of Gen. Trias, where the killing took place. Under initial questioning by the authorities, Angel Capilli Jr. claimed that the murder of the father of Charice had its roots in a confrontation that had occurred earlier in the evening. At that time, Angel Capilli Jr. stated that he had met the father of Charice prior to the murder and gotten involved in an altercation that resulted in him being punched in the face. Angel Capilli Jr. claimed that at the time, rather than punching back, he ran away and reported the incident to the authorities.

Angel Capilli Jr. went on to say that later in the evening, when he had encountered the father of Charice again, he had no intention of retaliating for the events that occurred earlier in the evening. Instead, Angel Capilli Jr. claimed that when he saw the father of Charice, he began retreating to avoid further conflict. Angel Capilli Jr. stated that he was still being pursued by the father of Charice, so he had no choice but to defend himself. In some statements, he said that he had grabbed a screwdriver and used it to stab the father of Charice. In other statements, he said that the ice pick which he had used to kill the father of Charice was something he regularly carried on his person when visiting the city. He also claimed that in retreating from the scene of the crime, he had lost the ice pick.

After turning himself in for the murder of the father of Charice, Angel Capilli Jr. requested that the charges against him be lowered from murder (meaning he had been the aggressor) to homicide (meaning that the death had occurred as a result of self-defense). The police filed a preliminary charge of murder at the time of his surrender and then conducted a ten-day investigation to determine whether the request was reasonable.

After questioning witnesses to the murder of the father of Charice, the Filipino police investigating the matter concluded that Angel Capilli Jr. had not acted in self-defense and therefore was liable for murder. As of October 2012, the case has not reached a publicly disclosed resolution or verdict. Charice rejected all statements made by Angel Capilli Jr. seeking forgiveness.