• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So, Kevin Federline is threatening to release a sex tape...

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: jimbob200521
"Britney, 24, fears the raunchy footage will destroy her wholesome image unless she caves in to his demands for a £16million payoff and custody of their children Sean Preston, one, and Jayden James, eight weeks."

Link to Story
Click to expand...
I really wouldn't want to see his messy overly hairy bits anyway.

 
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Originally posted by: mugs
"They did nothing all day but have sex?and play the odd game of chess. "

I don't believe that for a second.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's the 'chess' where you have to say, "king me."
Click to expand...

I believe it is a typo.

It should read:
"They did nothing all day but have sex?and play the odd game of chest. ".
Click to expand...
 
1. Her prenup was written by $1K/hour attorneys...probably about 23 of them. It will hold up in any court.

2. That's why he's got the tape. He's a scumbag dirtball, but he's not stupid.

3. Of course he's got copies.

4. The OTHER divorce agreement will state "Federline gets $15 million and the tape will never be made public."

Will it leak out afterwards? Maybe. But he'll get paid.
 
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Britney Spears may be the dumbest thing on planet earth, but as said above, she has a great rack, so I'd watch it...

:evil:
Click to expand...

Damn right, pre or post babies I'm watching that video.
 
oh man he played the fvck out of her. man oh man. im sure it wasn't too difficult to the pull the wool over her eyes she isnt the smartest. I say good for him. Finally a man is set to make some financial gain during a divorce.
 
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
oh man he played the fvck out of her. man oh man. im sure it wasn't too difficult to the pull the wool over her eyes she isnt the smartest. I say good for him. Finally a man is set to make some financial gain during a divorce.
Click to expand...

Yea , squeeze her for the loot.....then give her the original , and then secretly sell the copys for millions more.....
Video will be out before this weekend.
 
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: DonVito

This is incorrect. Judges do indeed throw out some pre-nups, but there are many ironclad ones that have been tested in court and survived. I have to assume she would have used a stellar attorney, and that her pre-nup is probably as good as they get.

Also, as to your first point, no, he would not be entitled to half of her "estate" (this term really only applies after she's dead). California is a community-property state, and, absent a pre-nup, he would be entitled to half of the money she made during their marriage. Since, as I recall, she really hasn't toured or released new music during their marriage, this would likely be a fairly small percentage of her net worth.
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity, for what reasons are pre-nups normally tossed out?
Click to expand...

Typically the spouse (usually the wife, here the husband) claims he or she was coerced or subjected to undue influence, or didn't understand what he or she was signing. Some attorneys actually videotape the signing and ask the wife a series of questions on tape to protect against this. I have to imagine she would have had some killer lawyers, and wouldn't be at all surprised if he'd signed it on videotape.
 
Originally posted by: Balt
Why would he even pretend to want the kids? Hoping to bargain for more money if he gives up custody?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's exactly how divorces work. You shoot for the moon hoping you'll get something very specific. Everything else is just a bargaining chip.

Sad.

 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: DonVito

This is incorrect. Judges do indeed throw out some pre-nups, but there are many ironclad ones that have been tested in court and survived. I have to assume she would have used a stellar attorney, and that her pre-nup is probably as good as they get.

Also, as to your first point, no, he would not be entitled to half of her "estate" (this term really only applies after she's dead). California is a community-property state, and, absent a pre-nup, he would be entitled to half of the money she made during their marriage. Since, as I recall, she really hasn't toured or released new music during their marriage, this would likely be a fairly small percentage of her net worth.
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity, for what reasons are pre-nups normally tossed out?
Click to expand...

Typically the spouse (usually the wife, here the husband) claims he or she was coerced or subjected to undue influence, or didn't understand what he or she was signing. Some attorneys actually videotape the signing and ask the wife a series of questions on tape to protect against this. I have to imagine she would have had some killer lawyers, and wouldn't be at all surprised if he'd signed it on videotape.
Click to expand...

Probably even had to go to a councelor to explain what will happen in the event of a divorce to his livelihood.
 
Originally posted by: mpitts
Originally posted by: timosyy
Eh.. They were married. Married people have sex. A lot.
Click to expand...

I'm just guessing that you are not currently and have never been married.. 😀
Click to expand...

Haha... I meant within the first couple weeks or so, ie. when this tape was filmed 😛.
 
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Why should he have to extort money from her? Shouldn't he be entitled to half her estate, plus alimony?

Edit: I should add, I'm pretty sure judges throw out pre-nups all the time. There's no such thing as an iron clad pre-nup.
Click to expand...
He is only entitled to half of what she made while they were married. Also, understand that it's much harder to throw out a pre-nup when the marriage lasted such a short time. Less has changed since they got married than in a marriage where, say, someone suddenly became a multi-millionaire when they were making $30k/yr before.
Originally posted by: Balt
Assuming this source is reliable and not just a tabloid:

Why would he even pretend to want the kids? Hoping to bargain for more money if he gives up custody?
Click to expand...
He wants the kids because that entitles him to alimony payments... he gets none now.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: wicka
I can't believe she is pondering giving up her kids to maintain a non-existent image.
Click to expand...

Who says she is doing any such thing? I'd rather have my children raised by wolves than Kevin Federline.
Click to expand...

Man, I'm sick and tired of all these people saying "I'd rather have my children be raised by wolves than..." Until you've been raised by wolves don't pass judgment. It's not the cakewalk you think it is. Trust me.
 
A mother's maternal instincts always wins out.

KF is just another a$$hole and him trying to extort money and favors is a$$inine too.

His interests has nothing to do with his kids, but himself.

It's sad because Britney will never be what she was, and should only be concerned as to what she is best for her and her kids now.

Those tapes will never be hidden, its worth too much and somehow they will see the light of day, especially with copies appearing out of the thin air.

Federline is a real scvmbag in my book and his kids are better off without him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top