Posted on 01/20/2002 12:47:53 PM PST by DNA Rules
Tennis Lolita Anna Kournikova soaks her billionaire ex-husband for millions.
Not the real Anna Kournikova. But Lisa Bonder, who was Anna Kournikova before there was Anna Kournikova – 20 years ago.
If you've read about Bonder's child-support fight with her husband-for-a-month – billionaire Kirk Kerkorian – and before her, Anna Nicole Smith's continuing travails over her deceased Methuselah of a husband – you've been introduced to litigation's latest overcompensated victims: scorned women.
The current specimens all have ties to pro sports. But they're stark examples of a clogged legal system turning relationships into lifelong ATM machines for women. They're also excellent examples of the failure of feminism. In the end, these women achieve "independence" by using courts to mooch off men and the rest of society.
Whether it's Bonder-Kerkorian, Kelci Stringer, or even Juanita Jordan (soon to be ex-wife of Michael), these "disadvantaged" women are out for an unearned payday bigger than winning the lottery.
Tennis fans likely remember Lisa Kerkorian as Lisa Bonder, the '80s' sexy, tall blonde from Michigan, who hit pro tennis' top-10 rankings and dabbled in modeling and posters. Unlike Kournikova, she never achieved the crossover appeal outside the tennis world that garners the Russian tennis starlet an estimated $15 million per year in endorsement income. But Bonder did garner enough lucrative endorsements and tournament winnings to keep her in comfort.
She should be set for life, rather than seeking out, shacking up with, and shaking down a senior-citizen billionaire, Kerkorian.
Instead, Bonder, 36, had a multi-year affair with Kerkorian, 84, beginning in 1991. Does anyone believe a 26-year-old was truly interested in a 74-year-old? She was likely more interested in his billions. Kerkorian, the MGM studio and casino mogul worth over $6 billion, is so wealthy that he was the single-largest non-institutional stockholder in Chrysler and threatened a hostile takeover in the '90s.
But while he easily fought Chrysler's then-Chairman Lee Iaccoca, Kerkorian met his match in the scheming Bonder. He refused her constant begging for marriage so, in 1997, she got pregnant with his daughter. In a move to legitimize the child's birth, they married on the condition that she waive all spousal support and divorce a month later.
But Bonder found a way to get paid for this high-class prostitution act: child-support, perhaps the only reason she had this child with an 80-year-old. The prenuptial pact set per month support at $35,000, the divorce agreement specified $50,000 monthly, and Kerkorian has been voluntarily paying $75,000 per month for a 3-year-old! Not enough, says Bonder, who sued for $320,000 per month, claiming the young child needs $144,000 monthly for travel, $7,000 monthly for charity, and $102,000 monthly for food.
Bonder lives in three estates, worth a combined $26 million. Yet, she's using the legal system – and her daughter – to play the victim. That's the legacy of feminism: Even rich, "independent" women's sports stars resort to shacking up with octogenarians and suing them for a big payday.
Kelci Stringer is another "victim." It's lamentable her pro-football player husband, Korey Stringer, died in Minnesota Vikings training camp on a hot day. But, as a first-round draft pick and starter, he was well compensated and insured for risk of injury. Stringer was also paid his multi-million dollar salary to stay in shape. But he didn't – getting fat over the off-season, dangerously trying to lose it and get in shape just a few days before camp.
But is that his fault? Not according to Mrs. Stringer's lawyers (and Jesse Jackson, who has – surprise! – interjected himself in this shakedown). They've filed a $100 million lawsuit against the Vikings. No matter that out-of-shape Stringer was up to a bloated 335-pounds. Newspaper photos showed him doubling over, gasping for breath during drills that in-shape athletes finessed.
Mrs. Stringer is a "victim," and instead of quietly dealing with her grief, everyone else must pay for this woman "scorned" by the Vikings. Costs of the suit will be passed on to Vikings' ticket-buying fans who, unlike wealthy Mrs. Stringer, are mostly working-class stiffs.
Don't feel sorry for Juanita Jordan – divorcing wife of basketball great, Michael – either. According to the New York Post, she put up with his affairs for years, tailing him with a private investigator.
What did she expect? Her own marriage was the result of a tawdry, litigious affair. She met Michael at Bennigan's restaurant in Chicago in 1988, got pregnant, gave birth and slapped him with a paternity suit. To avoid the suit, Michael whisked her off to a tacky Vegas quickie-wedding at the Little White Wedding Chapel in 1989. What an omen for the kind of smarmy marriage she'd have with a philandering sports star.
But even though she had prior warning and was an operative from the beginning in this questionable partnership, she could win 90 percent of the Jordans' property under Illinois law. Illinois is not a community-property state. Rather than splitting property 50-50, fault is a factor in deciding property division. Totally immoral, should Jordan's philandering, of which former groupie Juanita was well aware, entitle her to 90 percent of his worth? Is she really a victim? Under the law, yes.
The song, "The Sisters Are Doing it For Themselves," is bogus. Just look on the sports pages and the overburdened courthouses. For these newest Anna Nicole Smiths, The Sisters Are Suing it For Themselves. The litigation Lolitas will get their big payday in court.
I have several friends who have come to this arrangement. The difference between their situations and mine? In their divorces both parties were mature enough to put the child first. My wife failed Maturity 101.
Sounds like she killed the kids from the fathers who couldn't support them and kept them if there was money in it for herself.
Yep I went through that one. And they will lock you up for not paying child support (which is interesting since how are you going to pay child support in prison). However the reverse is not true. Years later when I got full custody of the children, the ex paid not a dime of child support even though she was ordered to do so.
Well, as a female living in Washington state, it's the opposite. They have charts that set out the prescribed amount of child support based on total combined income, then they give each person a percent they are responsible for- based on their percent of that income. It makes it more fair for the husband when the woman works and makes good money, but it rewards women who don't take initiative to support themselves.
For instance, my brother in-law pays his ex-wife double what my husband would pay me, although they make close to the same amount- all because I stay employed.
My brother once said, " You don't pay hookers for the party, you pay 'em to leave afterwards!"
Kind of like ex-wives, we pay them to leave us alone...
BTW, while I was standing around in a crowd of soon-to-be-single guys at the courthouse, I asked if any of them had filed for the divorce.
They all said the wife did it.
Mind you, we're not talking about paying for a child here. We're just talking about some women who think they can retire on the extorted largesse of some boob who was stupid enough to marry them. If they want out, let them out. But they take half the bills and half the assets. Nothing more.
In fact, this paternalism (ironic, isn't it?) does women a disservice. If their "independence" from men comes at the price of dependence on the government, they've just traded one master for another. The truly FREE woman is one can stand on her own, without a husband OR a handout. She is also the woman who can then decide if she wants to be married at all, and under what conditions, instead of being forced into a dysfunctional relationship for economic (or biological) reasons.
So easy to find fault with an ex-wife when it comes to money going out of their pockets. All of a sudden all that money goes to the wife not the children.
IMHO a real man would demand to help support his children - they are his no matter what an ex does or does not do. They need him no matter what an ex does or does not do. He should be there for them no matter what an ex does or does not do.
How great to come to the end of your life and remember that you were a great father UNTIL the divorce - then the children suddenly were supported, comforted and raised by others, or not.
My ex was getting close to $1000/out of me for child support, partially due to my having an idiot for my first attorney. I faithfully paid to keep things smooth even when it got to the point where the kids were about 50/50 at each house (live near each other).
Long story short, she did something stupid that put herself in a postion where I had to pay her only 1/10 of the original amount.
Hell hath no fury like a woman who loses her child support. She spent thousands trying to get me to pay her more and ended up only getting an additional $40/mo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.