The first is the one filed by Debbie Rowe against her former husband, Michael Jackson. Apparently, as part of their disolution agreement in 1999, Mr. Jackson agreed to pay her 1 million dollars per year for the first three years and then $750,000 a year for the next six years. Apparently, Mr. Jackson is about $245,000.00 behind in his payments. The money, she claims, is so that she can continue her fight to regain custody of Prince Michael and Paris Michael, the two children she bore for him during their marriage.
Apparently, the 1999 deal included terms the Rowe was only allowed to see her children once every forty-five days. In return for essentially abandoning her children, she received a house, a 1998 Ford Explorer, and the monetary payments.
In 2003, when the child-molestation case against Mr. Jackson started, Ms. Rowe sued to regain custody of her children. According to news reports, when that happened, Mr. Jackson stopped making the payments to her.
Does anyone else wonder if maybe the courts should get the kids away from their parents? If the state can open a child welfare case against Brittney Spears for driving with her kid on her lap, where have they been with this situation? One seems to like sleeping with little kids in his bed. The other is willing to let them go for a house, a car, and some cash.
The other case is the one which Valerie Plame, of kerfluffle fame, and her husband have filed against Vice-President Cheney, Karl Rove, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Anthony Sebok has an interesting look at options open to Plame and defenses open to the defendants, apparently written before the complaint was filed.
I wonder if this will end up with Clinton-esque questions at the deposition.