Last night I received a message on Facebook from somebody named Bryan Duke (total stranger to me). He called me 'Vampire' and said this:
Pleased to hear the courts put a stake through the heart of your blood sucking rip off. 50% is evil
He was referring to this (riddled with inaccuracies) story that ran in Venturebeat last night, as well as to California's 50/50 community-property law.
(Latest story is here.)
So I wanted to speak a bit openly about this.
(Btw, my response to Bryan was: Wasn't asking for 50. Was/am asking for less than 10.* )
My divorce touches on "the still evolving law" (judge's words) of mediation confidentiality, and whether or not it should trump something called marital fiduciary duty, which is the duty of one spouse to be completely forthright and honest about his or her financial dealings with the other.
A judge who feels hogtied by his interpretation of mediation law could make a ruling that immediately sends the case to appeals court, because appellate law has power to change the law and make new law (as well as send the case back down to lower court for a whole new trial in a different courtroom with a different judge).
The judge himself made it very clear that our case is a long way from over (and that Elon, to his chagrin, still has to pay my legal fees). Our case is headed for appeals court, which means that any questions that were open and unresolved before the trial will remain just as unresolved for at least another year. Maybe two.
Elon knows that anytime he wants to talk settlement, I am happy and willing.
Here's hoping for a fair and amicable conclusion.
* And by that I mean less than ten percent of "community property" as a whole
** Edited to clarify, since Venturebeat 'updated' me incorrectly: I'm not after "half" and would settle for less than ten percent of what is presumed to be community property, as Elon well knows. But the lawsuit itself is about whether a postnup is invalid due to fraud (and if it's invalid, I do get half). By allowing this situation to turn into a lawsuit that's gone up to the appellate court, Elon is taking a risk which, to be utterly frank, no one seems to understand.
Pleased to hear the courts put a stake through the heart of your blood sucking rip off. 50% is evil
He was referring to this (riddled with inaccuracies) story that ran in Venturebeat last night, as well as to California's 50/50 community-property law.
(Latest story is here.)
So I wanted to speak a bit openly about this.
(Btw, my response to Bryan was: Wasn't asking for 50. Was/am asking for less than 10.* )
My divorce touches on "the still evolving law" (judge's words) of mediation confidentiality, and whether or not it should trump something called marital fiduciary duty, which is the duty of one spouse to be completely forthright and honest about his or her financial dealings with the other.
A judge who feels hogtied by his interpretation of mediation law could make a ruling that immediately sends the case to appeals court, because appellate law has power to change the law and make new law (as well as send the case back down to lower court for a whole new trial in a different courtroom with a different judge).
The judge himself made it very clear that our case is a long way from over (and that Elon, to his chagrin, still has to pay my legal fees). Our case is headed for appeals court, which means that any questions that were open and unresolved before the trial will remain just as unresolved for at least another year. Maybe two.
Elon knows that anytime he wants to talk settlement, I am happy and willing.
Here's hoping for a fair and amicable conclusion.
* And by that I mean less than ten percent of "community property" as a whole
** Edited to clarify, since Venturebeat 'updated' me incorrectly: I'm not after "half" and would settle for less than ten percent of what is presumed to be community property, as Elon well knows. But the lawsuit itself is about whether a postnup is invalid due to fraud (and if it's invalid, I do get half). By allowing this situation to turn into a lawsuit that's gone up to the appellate court, Elon is taking a risk which, to be utterly frank, no one seems to understand.

Comments