|
In today's ruling, Judge Karen Cassidy ordered McGreevey to pay his ex-wife $108, 000, half of his savings, and awarded Dina no alimony. The former Missus expected Jim to keep her in a First Lady-like lifestyle. Cassidy was not impressed by her sense of "entitlement." Nor was she impressed with the couple overall, writing in her opinion, "The McGreeveys clearly had agendas. As previously addressed, their anger seemed to override any ability to testify credibly or to be reasonable." She went on to describe Mr. McGreevey's conduct and testimony as contradictory. Jim and Dina have wracked up $498,000 and $525,468.66 in legal bills, respectively, while Cassidy concluded neither party was ultimately "successful." Despite all this, Cassidy agreed to let the couple share undisclosed custody of their daughter, who will no doubt wrack up shrink bills in the near future. |
|
» Almost Over.
Final arguments have been made in the McGreevey divorce drama. The judge will issue a ruling in July. And then we can put this long drama behind us… [AP] |
» Haterade.
Things got heated during the McGreevey divorce trial yesterday, when former New Jersey first lady Dina Matos-McGreevey put up a fight with her soon-to-be ex-hubby's attorney, who scoffed, "She doesn't answer any of my questions. She thinks she's Hillary Clinton!" What does that even mean? [Star-Ledger] |
|
|
» The Horror!
Dina Matos-McGreevey played the victim in court yesterday. The former NJ first lady, who's divorcing homo hubby Jim, testified that she spent her $30,000 life savings on her wedding, which her politically hungry husband stacked with political and civic leaders, even though she wanted a small, intimate gathering. Then, as if that's not enough, she had to replace his cabinets that "had food from like 1992." Good god - she had it worse than the slaves! Meanwhile, the trial continues today and is expected to last until the end of time, at least. [NYDN] |
» Unbelievable.
Does former New Jersey first lady Dina Matos-McGreevey, whose husband Jim retired after coming out as a "gay American," really understand the ludicrous nature of her alimony argument? "Matos McGreevey wants child support for the couple's 6-year-old daughter and alimony, including compensation for the 13 months she missed out on the lifestyle perks of the governor's office. Earlier, her accountant testified that the gubernatorial lifestyle of the former first couple is worth $51,000 a month." It's almost as if she expected such a "lifestyle" when they married. And, yes, we're calling her an opportunistic gold digger. [Philly] |
» Breeder.
Big news! Gay disgrace Jim McGreevey's dog had puppies! A lot of them! And, yes, we agree with Alex Pareene's prediction: "…Dina Matos will sell them all to a puppy fur-obsessed heiress and use the money to buy more helicopters." Meanwhile, the former New Jersey governor, who claims to be broke, has been living in luxury: "In his third day of testimony in his divorce trial, McGreevey told a state judge that his boyfriend bought the mansion for $1.4 million in 2006 and that it has four fireplaces and an in-ground pool on nearly two acres in Plainfield." [Gawker and Phil. Inquirer] |
» Still Going…
Former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey and soon-to-be ex-wife Dina Matos-McGreevey return to court this week and will hear testimony from Sharyn Maggio, an accountant who says it will take $11,000 for the couple to continue living as they did while in the Governor's mission. That, of course, is Matos-McGreevey's wish, which helps explain why she has asked the allegedly impoverished and definitely gay Jim for more alimony. [Newsday] |
» Unfortunate.
Dina McGreevey alleges that nearly ex-husband Jim McGreevey committed fraud because he didn't tell her he likes men. It's for that reason that she's requesting more alimony in their divorce trial. Family law lawyer Gary Port, however, says nay: “Punishment for bad behavior is not a factor [in alimony rulings.]" Time to pen another book, Dina! [The Street |
|
|
|
|
» On Hold.
The already tiresome McGreevey divorce trial hit a snag today when opening testimony were postponed because of "illness." No word on who's sick, other than the public. [Fox News] |
» So It Begins…
Testimony begins today in the divorce trial of Jim and Dina McGreevey. The trouble began, of course, when former New Jersey Governor Jim came out, thus stoking Dina's wrath. She alleges that her soon-to-be ex-hubby committed fraud by entering into a straight marriage. He claims, of course, that she knew he liked boys, because the couple had a number of encounters with McGreevey's male driver. Expect loads of finger pointing and salacious testimony over the next few days. [MSNBC] |
|
Despite the fact that these two people can't stand one another, they somehow managed to reach an agreement, although both sides remain mum on the details: The deal regarding their 6-year-old daughter came on the third day of negotiations, which included some closed-door testimony before the judge who is attempting to avoid a divorce trial. You know what won't be confidential? All the hearings on gay Jim McGreevey and wife Dina's alleged threesomes with the former Governor's driver, Teddy Pedersen. That shit's going to be way public - and we're way happy to hear it. Drama continues next Monday. |
|
The majority of the action will revolve around whether or not former NJ Governor Jim McGreevey committed fraud by hiding his homosexuality from wife, Dina. Dina says "yes," but Jimmy Boy reminds her of their mutual trysts with a campaign driver. At stake: the duo's definitely doomed daughter, Jacqueline. As you can see, cartoonist Sean Delonas offered an imagined ending to this drama. Sadly, we fear the McGreeveys won't stop until poor Jacqueline's nothing but tabloid pulp. |
|
Dina Matos-McGreevey alleges that hubby Jim duped her into marriage by lying about being a bit bent. Jim McGreevey's lawyer, Stephen Haller, has already leaked how they'll be contesting Dina's allegations. And it ain't pretty: Plaintiff [Mr. McGreevey] will testify at trial that he needed to have a disrobed male present in the room with them when the parties had sexual relations in order to maintain an erection. Will the day come when we're not fascinated by disgraced politicians' penises? Probably not. Or, at least, we hope not! |
Editor
Andrew Belonsky Editorial Director
David Hauslaib Publisher
Jossip Initiatives
