4 ms·

This annoys the hell out of me... someone with the net economic value of a "cruise ship photographer" wants to get half(or more?) of their spouse's assets. Old

This annoys the hell out of me... someone with the net economic value of a "cruise ship photographer" wants to get half(or more?) of their spouse's assets. Old news...people sleep with you and live in your home, and demand half of what you worked to create.

chockZ 10y ago
Did you even bother to read past the first few paragraphs?
- module0000 10y ago
  I read the entire article. She was so involved...that she had no idea about the companies, bank accounts, or professionals involved. She sounds really integral to the business. I'm not defending the guy(I hate malware and the people that make it as much as the next person), but get yourself through a nasty divorce and you might change your tune. The real failure was the husband trying to "keep going" so to speak - he should have cashed out and disappeared as step #1. If the husband has/had any integrity, he demonstrated it by fighting this in court, instead of handing someone a picture of his wife and $250,000 in cash.
hluska 10y ago
Someone with the net economic value of a cruise ship photographer??? Before they got married, Oesterlund ran a struggling flower importer. Is it really so hard to believe that Pursglove was fairly heavily involved in his post-marriage success? Particularly in light of quotes like: "Pursglove hired the employees, trained them and helped manage the offices."
- module0000 10y ago
  > "Pursglove hired the employees, trained them and helped manage the offices." And yet she had no idea about where the money went, the people paid to manage it, or really anything else. She was scorned, I get that, and she wanted half of what was his...not hers.
  - hluska 10y ago
    Again though, is that really so hard to believe? Oesterlund funded one of the relevant trusts (to the tune of $48 million) the day that Pursglove found his new girlfriend. Give this quote a read: "Another bank statement they handed over showed that on a single day in 2014, Oesterlund transferred $48 million into one of the Cook trusts. It was the same day, Fisher quickly realized, that Pursglove discovered Oesterlund with his new girlfriend. Fisher believed this would be strong evidence in court that the trust had been set up in anticipation of owing his wife money, which even in most offshore jurisdictions is against the law." Or, consider this quote: "It turned out that in early 2013, after Pursglove asked Xacti’s executives to inform her of any large cash transfers or major business decisions, Oesterlund ordered Middleton to cut her off. Over email, he told Middleton to ban her from their Boca Raton offices and to remove Pursglove as a signatory to the company bank accounts." Oesterlund went out of his way to freeze Pursglove out of the bank accounts and even funded a $48 million trust when she found out that he had a girlfriend. How could anyone reasonably conclude that she should have an idea where the money went? It seems way more reasonable to conclude that he conducted an organized campaign to keep her from knowing that information. A less charitable interpretation would be that Oesterlund and Pursglove knew they were involved in an illegal operation and wanted to give Pursglove the chance to say, "I don't know" if she were under investigation by the Secret Service, etc.

chockZ 10y ago

Did you even bother to read past the first few paragraphs?

module0000 10y ago
I read the entire article. She was so involved...that she had no idea about the companies, bank accounts, or professionals involved. She sounds really integral to the business. I'm not defending the guy(I hate malware and the people that make it as much as the next person), but get yourself through a nasty divorce and you might change your tune. The real failure was the husband trying to "keep going" so to speak - he should have cashed out and disappeared as step #1. If the husband has/had any integrity, he demonstrated it by fighting this in court, instead of handing someone a picture of his wife and $250,000 in cash.

hluska 10y ago

Someone with the net economic value of a cruise ship photographer??? Before they got married, Oesterlund ran a struggling flower importer. Is it really so hard to believe that Pursglove was fairly heavily involved in his post-marriage success? Particularly in light of quotes like: "Pursglove hired the employees, trained them and helped manage the offices."

module0000 10y ago
> "Pursglove hired the employees, trained them and helped manage the offices." And yet she had no idea about where the money went, the people paid to manage it, or really anything else. She was scorned, I get that, and she wanted half of what was his...not hers.
- hluska 10y ago
  Again though, is that really so hard to believe? Oesterlund funded one of the relevant trusts (to the tune of $48 million) the day that Pursglove found his new girlfriend. Give this quote a read: "Another bank statement they handed over showed that on a single day in 2014, Oesterlund transferred $48 million into one of the Cook trusts. It was the same day, Fisher quickly realized, that Pursglove discovered Oesterlund with his new girlfriend. Fisher believed this would be strong evidence in court that the trust had been set up in anticipation of owing his wife money, which even in most offshore jurisdictions is against the law." Or, consider this quote: "It turned out that in early 2013, after Pursglove asked Xacti’s executives to inform her of any large cash transfers or major business decisions, Oesterlund ordered Middleton to cut her off. Over email, he told Middleton to ban her from their Boca Raton offices and to remove Pursglove as a signatory to the company bank accounts." Oesterlund went out of his way to freeze Pursglove out of the bank accounts and even funded a $48 million trust when she found out that he had a girlfriend. How could anyone reasonably conclude that she should have an idea where the money went? It seems way more reasonable to conclude that he conducted an organized campaign to keep her from knowing that information. A less charitable interpretation would be that Oesterlund and Pursglove knew they were involved in an illegal operation and wanted to give Pursglove the chance to say, "I don't know" if she were under investigation by the Secret Service, etc.