Search Results for “slow-carb-diet-how-to-avoid-going-bat-crazy/INGDirect/subscribe-by-email/three-alternatives-to-a-budget/how-to-complain-the-squeaky-wheel-gets-the-grease/3-things-you-need-to-know-about-homeowners-insurance/living-the-xbox-life-on-an-atari-income/money-problems-day-3-whats-coming-in/money-problems-day-1-setting-goals/debt-burnout/travel-expenses-why-i-splurge” — Page 112

Nigella Lawson and the High Cost of divorce

Nigella Lawson Eats A Banana (Photo credit: Kaptain Kobold)

Heartache and heartbreak are hard enough to endure but imagine having to go through the loss of a relationship while the world looks on. Such is the high price of celebrity divorce and the latest victim is the beautiful and talented television chef, Nigella Lawson. Shocking photos of Nigella apparently being choked by her husband, Charles Saatchi, surfaced in the media following the June 9th dinner at Scott’s restaurant in Mayfair, London, where the incident occurred. Saatchi’s advisors urged him to humble himself and admit a public apology for the assault. Saatchi denied any wrongdoing, saying he never assaulted her and in fact, was actually removing mucous from his wife’s nose. Nigella was stunned by the admonition of “nose-picking” and his refusal to apologize. She left Saatchi and their family home in Chelsea.

The two sides continued to disagree about the pictures; Saatchi claiming it was just a “playful tiff” and Lawson hurt and humiliated by the public’s assumption of her as victim of domestic violence and her husband as her tormentor. Insult was added to injury on July 7th, when Saatchi announced his intent to divorce his wife in the media instead of directly to her. Lawson, who had been waiting for a public apology, was blind-sided by his cruel divorce announcement. Lawson and Saatchi have been married for 10 years; Saatchi has claimed that the couple had become “estranged” the last few years. Saatchi claims that he had no choice but to act publicly since his wife “failed to defend” him with a statement to the media. In fact, Lawson has remained silent at the advice of her publicist so as not to further affect their children. Lawson (53) and Saatchi (70) have three teenage children from previous marriages that they were raising together.In addition to the “he said, she said” controversy, Lawson and Saatchi will have to fight over $150 million in shared assets, including their $12 million Chelsea, West London home. Both brought substantial assets into the marriage. Charles Saatchi is worth $100 million from the high-profile, highly-successful New York advertising firm, Saatchi and Saatchi. Nigella Lawson is a celebrity chef, bestselling author and television star with a net worth of $15 million. By the time lawyers for both sides duke it out in court and attempt to untangle the shared assets, those net worths will be considerably less.But it’s not just a monetary cost to this celebrity divorce. Saatchi had grown increasingly resentful of his wife’s high-profile career that he helped established. It’s a common theme in celebrity couples; one partner becomes the higher earner or the more recognized celebrity and the other gets bit by that green-eyed monster, jealousy. In Nigella’s case, there is the public humiliation at the hands of someone she loves to endure. It seems that Saatchi is determined to do whatever he can to make her suffer in the media. And then there are the children; children always suffer in a divorce. It can be lessened when parents work together to keep it private and amicable. But it’s incredibly painful to have your lives dragged through the media. In this case, it is Nigella and Saatchi’s children that are paying the ultimate price.

The Secret to Fearless Change

Life, Parenting

Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking cross the floor
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking out the door

You never will get where you’re going
If you never get up on your feet
Come on, there’s a good tail wind blowing
A fast walking man is hard to beat

Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking cross the floor
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking out the door

If you want to change your direction
If your time of life is at hand
Well don’t be the rule be the exception
A good way to start is to stand

Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking cross the floor
Put one foot in front of the other
And soon you’ll be walking out the door

If I want to change the reflection
I see in the mirror each morn
You mean that it’s just my election
To vote for a chance to be reborn

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-07-10

Misc

Happy Independence Day! Be thankful for what you've been given by those who have gone before! #
Waiting for fireworks with the brats. Excitement is high. #
@PhilVillarreal Amazing. I'm really Cringer. That makes me feel creepy. in reply to PhilVillarreal #
Built a public life-maintenance calendar in GCal. https://liverealnow.net/y7ph #
@ericabiz makes webinars fun! Even if her house didn't collapse in the middle of it. #
BOFH + idiot = bad combination #

Resolving Legal Disputes

Misc

Shelby County Courthouse, Memphis, Tennessee, USA (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dispute resolution has to do with the impartial rectification of conflict between individuals or parties. More specifically it is the utilization and execution of methods that are designed to resolve conflicts. In a case in which there is a dispute between people or groups, often times a third, neutral, party is selected to be an impartial representative for the disputing persons. Although dispute resolution can refer to resolutions both in and out of the court, it mainly applies to disputes that are settled outside of the legal framework of the judicial system.

Two of the most common types of dispute resolution are known as adjudicative and consensual. While adjudicative resolution requires a third party to mediate the outcome, such as a judge or jury, and usually involves some form of litigation, consensual resolution is the attempt to solve the issue between the two disputing parties without involving a third party, although at times a neutral arbitrator will be selected to preside over the case, though they will often be there not so much for authoritative purposes but more as a council to keep things fair. There is also a third upcoming type of dispute resolution, online dispute resolution, or ODR, which has become more popular in recent years with the rise of the internet’s prominence in daily life, but it is mainly the application of traditional consensual resolution practices, only adapted to the online environment.

Many disputes can be solved simply through adherence to the law, however, sometimes issues arise that the legal structure isn’t equipped to handle, and so a third party is chosen to resolve the conflict. These types of conflict fall within the jurisdiction of the law and so will be relegated to the political system for arbitration. Judicial resolutions are conflicts that will be, hopefully, settled by the court. In the United States, this is often the case with dispute resolution. This form of resolution usually involves litigation. This is the use of outside individuals to argue for or against the disputing parties. In a courtroom, the lawyers are the litigators, while the judge and jury listen to the arguments in order to come to their decisions.

Extrajudicial resolution is non-court settlement of conflict. Also known as alternative dispute resolution, or ADR, this is what people are usually referring to when discussing dispute resolution. ADR is usually more efficient, cost effective, and less time consuming than judicial resolutions. Extrajudicial resolution concerns various types of ways to settle conflict. These include arbitration and mediation. In arbitration neutral individuals will listen to both sides of an argument and render a decision based on evidence. Unlike the court systems, this proceeding doesn’t necessarily include a binding agreement with the parties.

Mediation is used in extrajudicial resolution as a way to open a dialogue between conflicting parties. The idea is to use a trained neutral third party in order to come up with unique solutions to solve the issue. A mediator is trained to be both an effective negotiator as well as an excellent communicator. A mediator is like a judge in that they cannot take sides, and they do not give legal advice either. Their decisions are not obligatorily followed, though they tend to be followed since the mediators are trained to make decisions that benefit both parties.

The techniques used in dispute resolution can be used both in and outside of the court room. It is often used by individuals who wish to speed up the process by not having to get into the political system. However, they are useful in many cases where individuals wish to come to the most beneficial agreement for all the parties involved.

Peter Capaldi: The New Dr. Who’s Filmography

News

If you’re new to Dr. Who, one of the odder concepts in the program is that The Doctor periodically regenerates. This is a lampshade on the reality that the actors playing the lead character don’t want to be saddled with the role

for the entirety of their careers, and it allows an “in-universe” canonical way for the writers and show-runners to allow this change to happen. In fan circles, Matt Smith, the outgoing doctor, was “The Eleventh Doctor” (because he’s the eleventh actor to take on the role) and is going to be replaced, when the series comes on again, with Peter Capaldi, a Scots veteran of several BBC productions.

Capaldi returns to one of the traditions of the program – in casting an actor who’s a bit older — 55 as of 2013 – to play a 900-year-old time traveling alien. His acting career stretches back to 1983, with a role as Danny Oldsen in Local Hero. His early acting career included bit parts in the British underworld-themed dramaedy Minder, and the horror film The Lair of the White Worm, starring Hugh Grant and Amanda Donohoe.His ambitions with film include work behind the camera – he won an Oscar for Live Action Short Film Subjects with Franz Kafka’s It’s A Wonderful Life in 1995, becoming the only actor to play The Doctor to have an Oscar on his mantel. He has also written films, including Soft Top, Hard Shoulder.Back in front of the camera, his first starring role was as Luke Wakefield, in Mr. Wakefield’s Crusade, where a closeted gay man thinks he’s witnessed a crime. When that series ran its course, he did rolls as a mad mathematician (Psychos), and an angel in the film adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere.

2005 saw Capaldi’s most famous role, before assuming the mantle of a Time Lord: That of spin doctor Malcolm Tucker in the BBC series “The Thick of It,” a role he inhabited through 2012. In that role, he plays a profoundly profane director of communications for the British Government, charged with public relations, cleaning up political gaffes, and ensuring that any dirt about an opposition party member is aired at the most politically advantageous moment. His role was noted for bringing nuance and complexity to a character described as a rabid political hatchetman who didn’t carry grudges – he had them stuffed and mounted on the wall.

Capaldi has previously appeared in Dr. Who as Caecilius in the episode “The Fires of Pompeii,’ which marked the first appearance of Karen Gillan, who went on to play the Doctor’s companion, Amy Pond. Later, he returned to Dr. Who spinoff Torchwood: Children of Earth as John Frobisher, who had a particularly dark turn, killing his own family rather than letting the 456 aliens use them as a human sacrifice.

In the press event where he was announced has having landed the role, Capaldi admitted to having been a fan of the series ever since he was a small boy. For fans of the long running franchise, this promises to be a very enthusiastic incarnation of the Doctor.

Michael Gergenti: Paying for Paternity

Gossip

Model Michael Girgenti, filed paperwork in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that he is the father of Kourtney Kardashian’s son, Mason Disick. According to Kardashian’s lawyer, the three-year old boy is the son of

her boyfriend, Scott Disick, who also fathered her daughter, 13-month old Penelope. Girgenti is requesting DNA testing of Kardashian, Disick and the child, and if it is determined Mason is his son, he is demanding joint custody.

Photo Shoot Meeting

According to the lawsuit, Girgenti met Kardashian during a 2009 photo shoot, where they began a texting relationship. Girgenti claims that Kardashian told him that she and Disick were separated. A report in US Weekly states in a bio of Scott Disick that he and Kardashian split up in February 2009 after two years because of rumours he was cheating. The court documents state that in March 2009 Kardashian and Girgenti had unprotected sex, which is nine months prior to the birth of Mason, who was born in December 2009. Kardashian announced her pregnancy in August 2009, claiming that Disick was the father of the baby.

Kardashian Denial

Lawyers for Kardashian claim that Girgenti’s accusations are “preposterous and an outrageous lie.” Kardashian attorney, Tod Wilson, told E! News that Girgenti has been “selling false and fabricated stories to the tabloids for years about Kourtney Kardashian and her son, Mason. “ Wilson also claims that Girgenti has been seeking payment to publish the court pleading, indicating that Girgenti was more interested in payment for reports of his alleged paternity than actually proving that he was Mason’s father. However, the suit filed in court indicates that Girgenti is seriously seeking proof of the child’s paternity.

Girgenti Claims Resemblance

Court documents also claim that Girgenti tried to reach Kardashian after she announced her pregnancy in August 2009, but she did not return his calls. He claimed he began to consider that he was Mason’s father when he saw photos of the child, stating that the boy resembled him more than he did Scott Disick. Girgenti also stated that Mason looks nothing like his younger sister, Penelope, who is Disick’s child. Months prior to filing the lawsuit, Girgenti wrote to Kardashian, requesting a DNA test, claiming that if there was no response, he would pursue legal action to determine Mason’s paternity. In the letter, Girgenti claimed that his intentions were not to “hurt the family you’ve created,” but that “Mason deserves to know the truth.”

A Los Angeles County judge has set a hearing for the case in late August. At the hearing, the judge could dismiss the case or order DNA tests for Girgenti, Kardashian, Disick and the child. In California, unmarried fathers do not have legal rights or responsibilities until legal paternity is established, and naming a father on a birth certificate may not legally establish who a child’s father is. Since Disick and Kardashian were not married at the time of Mason’s birth, Girgenti may have the legal right to demand a DNA test.

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles