Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CHILD SUPPORT As Theft (Disguised Alimony): The Feminist Idea Of Independence Is She Takes His Money
World Net Daily ^ | Debbie Schlussel

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-194 next last
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
He could have broken up with her if she was scheming.

Scheming (depending on how good the scheme) by its very definition often times precludes one knowing it is going on.

81 posted on 07/06/2002 8:17:37 AM PDT by krb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: krb
#3 son had a messy divorce from a schemer. One little girl involved, with 60/40 custody, with "mom" getting 60%, naturally. The daddy was barely making $25,000 a year, but MOM was making almost $100,000 in her daycare business. Guess who is paying child support?


82 posted on 07/06/2002 10:06:11 AM PDT by redhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: redhead
Man that sux.
83 posted on 07/06/2002 10:25:05 AM PDT by krb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: DNA Rules
What do you call a self supported established male , looking for marrage?? A SAP!!!
84 posted on 07/06/2002 10:33:50 AM PDT by TJFLSTRAT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
Wow.. that's pretty harsh all around.
I guess I should consider myself blessed, my psycho exwife
has never soaked me for a cent, let's me see the kids when
it is mutually convenient, and oddly enough we have become
pretty good friends. She's still a nut, of course...
85 posted on 07/06/2002 10:56:09 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
She gets free rent, food stamps, free medical, child support and whatever else the govt hands out.

\ Has anybody figured out what each Democratic vote costs us?

86 posted on 07/06/2002 12:58:33 PM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
You married her and produced a child you should be financially supporting them...
87 posted on 07/06/2002 1:03:18 PM PDT by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Men can fight as to who gets custody...
88 posted on 07/06/2002 1:04:04 PM PDT by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Well if they had stayed married they wouldn't have to mooch off the government.
89 posted on 07/06/2002 1:06:54 PM PDT by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Then, in most states, the only child support you can be assessed is an equitable division of the child's costs based on income.

Don't know what state you are talking about, but let me tell you my experience in CA. Divorced with infant children. Joint custody with me primary, kids live with me. Still, required to pay child support. She won't work, too lazy. I make money so the court in it's infinite wisdom thinks me taking care of her is better than her being on welfare. Think it sounds crazy? It is. Think I need a new lawyer? I have the best money can buy, that's why I get to live with my kids. The bottom line is, spend the rest of my time, energy and money fighting in court while both attorneys cash in or just pay her.

90 posted on 07/06/2002 1:46:09 PM PDT by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pbmaltzman
"she does deserve some help "

I'll see that and raise it to,

she deserves to live the life she WAS living. A husband has no right to throw out his old wife and be free of all ties to her. That is not a burden he should be allowed to shake off at whim. I don't know what it is people want here, but I suspect it is the right to go on with their lives as if the marriage never happened, never existed.

Only annulments are like that.
"I want OUT" (of my boring 25 year marriage) Well, you can get out. FOR A PRICE.
91 posted on 07/06/2002 2:05:24 PM PDT by SarahW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: paul51
Who dredged this up after six months in the cooler?

In Nebraska, child support is calculated according to a formula. I don't recall it exactly, but it is basically a fixed cost for the child based on a percentage of total income, then assessed against the parents in proportion to their share of the income. That only applies in joint custody, mind you, and in cases where the wife is a total deadbeat or working some worthless job, you better believe the father still gets stuck plenty hard.

But if incomes are roughly comparable, there may be little or no child support ordered from either party.

92 posted on 07/06/2002 2:31:18 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Men can fight as to who gets custody...

Yes, they can. But everbody knows that men are all inveterate slobs who can't take care of a house or a child, and that women are always the superior parent. Even those women who spend all their time and money at the casino or the beer joint, booting crack or turning tricks, who live in filth and eat Little Friskies because they spent their last dime on lotto tickets.

The worst woman on earth is better than the best man as a parent. Or so the courts apparently believe.

Add to that the fact that Junior is Mom's lunch ticket, and yes, men can fight that mentality for custody. Wanna bet on their chances?

93 posted on 07/06/2002 2:36:19 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

Comment #94 Removed by Moderator

To: J.W. Collier
Why would you marry and impregnate such a horrible person?

Sheer stupidity. Literally the day of the wedding, some of my friends and family were telling me not to do it. I thought I knew better.I tell people I will probably never recover financially or emotionally from the experience but I do have a couple of great kids that make it ok. Was reading with interest another thread today regarding men never getting married because of the devastating repercussions of divorce. I can relate

95 posted on 07/06/2002 6:10:21 PM PDT by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: marajade
I am supporting my worthless son and his deadbeat mom and I don't need a whiney liberal (You)to tell me.
96 posted on 07/07/2002 6:15:28 PM PDT by n.y.muggs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
Please explain how supporting your own child is a "liberal" concept...
97 posted on 07/07/2002 6:17:52 PM PDT by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Again, if you don't know what you are talking about, mind your own business.
98 posted on 07/07/2002 6:19:25 PM PDT by n.y.muggs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: n.y.muggs
I notice you didn't bother to substantially address my question... rather you personally criticized me by assessing a label that isn't in the least true...
99 posted on 07/07/2002 6:21:31 PM PDT by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: marajade
How about Busy-Body? Does that label fit?
100 posted on 07/07/2002 6:23:26 PM PDT by n.y.muggs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-194 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson