YOKO ONO not that bad of a person
MBall99551
and definatley didnt need john lennons money but was protecting it although i
dont know how much julian lennon got out of the deal maybe his fathers guitar
yeah yeah yeah
Radnoti
much money to you and me. In light of the 150 million John had, it's not
too generous. And what about John's family? She would like to forget their
existence, and yet, there they go, working and struggling in Liverpool. In
all fairness, John should have specified for their security, but in light he
didn't, Yoko really should step up to the plate for someone so in love with
the downtrodden as she claims. Take care everyone--just me bloomin opinion.
:-)
MBall99551 wrote in message <19990505162729...@ng65.aol.com>...
Amaranth56
>and definatley didnt need john lennons money but was protecting it although i
>dont know how much julian lennon got out of the deal maybe his fathers
>guitar
True, Yoko came from a wealthy family. Yoko was determined to make it on her
own and refused to take any money from them (though she did live in their Tokyo
partment for several months). At the time Yoko met John, she'd been flat-broke
for years. She had sold all her furs and jewelry, and was working as a
waitress and tutor to make ends meet. She and Tony (?) changed apartments
every few months because they couldn't afford the rent.
I give Yoko great credit. It would have been so easy for her to just ask her
parents for money, but she wanted to make it on her own. Her financial
situation is typical of many artists.
In his Howard Stern interview, after being badgered by Stern, Julian
reluctantly said that $1 million might not be too far off.
Tom
>In his Howard Stern interview, after being badgered by Stern, Julian
>reluctantly said that $1 million might not be too far off.
Also the copyrights to some of John's songs and two guitars.
JonQPublix
Radnoti
JonQPublix wrote in message
<19990506015750...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
the junkie
<drad...@earthlink.com> writes
>Not that good of a person either, ha ha. Yes, Julian's million (approx) is
>much money to you and me. In light of the 150 million John had, it's not
>too generous. And what about John's family? She would like to forget their
>existence, and yet, there they go, working and struggling in Liverpool. In
>all fairness, John should have specified for their security, but in light he
>didn't, Yoko really should step up to the plate for someone so in love with
>the downtrodden as she claims. Take care everyone--just me bloomin opinion.
John was rich for nearly two decades before he died. He had plenty of
time to see his relatives right when he was alive, surely? Why is Yoko
getting blamed now that he's dead?
~ma=t
|
Deirdre
> John was rich for nearly two decades before he died. He had plenty of
> time to see his relatives right when he was alive, surely? Why is Yoko
> getting blamed now that he's dead?
if it's any consolation, I always blamed her when she was alive too 8)
Dee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I said "BuT mIsTeR, yOu JuSt DoN't *ReAliZe* WhAt ThEsE pEgGeRs MEAN TO ME!"
I *gotta* have 'em!! Yeah, well, yeah, Man, I need 'em for this cat!
Well, Well how can I go cattin' without ThEm *CrAzY* pInK pEgGeD sLaCkS!
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~powersd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Radnoti
Peace and love should make things right if it's not all lip service anyway.
:-)
Deirdre wrote in message ...
the junkie
<drad...@earthlink.com> writes
>But Yoko was "countin" out the money" all along. John's guilty too, but Ms.
>Peace and love should make things right if it's not all lip service anyway.
>:-)
Yoko is now in the same position that John was, and is behaving in
exactly the same way. John should cop a lot more flak than Yoko -
they're _John's_ relatives, not Yoko's. If John doesn't give a shit, why
should Yoko?
~ma=t
|
Amaranth56
>exactly the same way. John should cop a lot more flak than Yoko -
>they're _John's_ relatives, not Yoko's. If John doesn't give a shit, why
>should Yoko?
John loved his relatives. There are many guesses as to why he never returned
to England, which I will not go into. But he loved his family. He even
treated Yoko's family as his own (as is right as it was his family).
I can't do this well. Taffy? Carol?
the junkie
<amara...@aol.com> writes
I'm not trying to get at John... I don't have a fixed view or
anything... but I think people criticizing Yoko for this should be
asking themselves this rather than simply blaming Yoko for everything
bad in John's life.
~ma=t
|
D 28IF
>I'm not trying to get at John... I don't have a fixed view or
>anything... but I think people criticizing Yoko for this should be
>asking themselves this rather than simply blaming Yoko for everything
>bad in John's life.
I don't think people are blaming Yoko for everything bad in John's life. Just
questioning some of her reasoning and actions.
I also don't think anyone blames Yoko for John forgetting people in his will.
Although, if you believe the theory that Yoko and their lawyers drew it up and
John just blindly signed it (which isn't completely far-fetched, IMO, since
John wanted nothing to do with anything business-wise), then you actually could
blame Yoko for that, as well.
the junkie
<d2...@aol.com> writes
>>From: the junkie <Ma...@akooka.demon.co.uk>
>>I'm not trying to get at John... I don't have a fixed view or
>>anything... but I think people criticizing Yoko for this should be
>>asking themselves this rather than simply blaming Yoko for everything
>>bad in John's life.
>
>I don't think people are blaming Yoko for everything bad in John's life. Just
>questioning some of her reasoning and actions.
On the contrary, I suspect that people have demonised Yoko so that they
might carry on believing that John is whiter than white.
>I also don't think anyone blames Yoko for John forgetting people in his will.
Some people blame Yoko for not giving John's relatives her money.
>Although, if you believe the theory that Yoko and their lawyers drew it up and
>John just blindly signed it (which isn't completely far-fetched, IMO, since
>John wanted nothing to do with anything business-wise), then you actually could
>blame Yoko for that, as well.
You could blame Yoko for anything - that's the beauty of it.
~ma=t
|
D 28IF
>>I don't think people are blaming Yoko for everything bad in John's life.
>Just
>>questioning some of her reasoning and actions.
>
>On the contrary, I suspect that people have demonised Yoko so that they
>might carry on believing that John is whiter than white.
Well, I know of many who don't buy that. They base their opinion on her
actions, her interviews, her press releases, etc.
Just as Yoko supporters didn't want to be characterized as accusing detractors
of being racist and misogynistic, please don't lump people who question some of
Yoko's actions as a group who villifies Yoko and believes John to be free from
"sin."
>>Although, if you believe the theory that Yoko and their lawyers drew it up
>and
>>John just blindly signed it (which isn't completely far-fetched, IMO, since
>>John wanted nothing to do with anything business-wise), then you actually
>could
>>blame Yoko for that, as well.
>
>You could blame Yoko for anything - that's the beauty of it.
>
>~ma=t
> |
No, the beauty of what I wrote is, if the scenerio is true, then Yoko would be
to blame. That's all I was saying.
If you want to bring it down to that level, please, by all means, enjoy
yourself.
Jeff
All that matters is that THEY loved each other
and it was John's CHOICE to marry her. She
isn't doing Julian right though, and that's all I
have against the woman.
marcu...@webtv.net
Yoko Ono Lennon, knowing the reaction my thoughts may invoke. I have
personally known people who despise her. These are normal every day
people, who live their lives responsibly and use sober judgement.
However, just mention the name, "Yoko Ono" to them and they become
raving lunatics accusing her of everything from breaking up the
Beatles to the kidnapping of the Lindburgh baby!
Yoko Ono is one of the most maligned women of the 20th Century. She is
no angel, but she is not the terrible plotting vindictive person that
many people make her out to be. She has said and done things that have
caused me to wonder why she said and did them, but I realize how the
media takes things out of context and how people who hate her put their
own spin on all things Yoko. I don't always give her my approval, but
I do give her the benefit of the doubt.. as I would any woman who saw
the brutal slaying of her husband right before her eyes.
marcus1950
Jay Jay
his wife to make a will for him denying his family any of his wealth.
OR
and unfeeling bastard who didn't give a damn whether they were taken care of
or not.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Jay Jay
the junkie
<d2...@aol.com> writes
>>On the contrary, I suspect that people have demonised Yoko so that they
>>might carry on believing that John is whiter than white.
>please don't lump people who question some of
>Yoko's actions as a group who villifies Yoko and believes John to be free from
>"sin."
I wasn't lumping anyone with anyone.
>>>Although, if you believe the theory that Yoko and their lawyers drew it up
>>and
>>>John just blindly signed it (which isn't completely far-fetched, IMO, since
>>>John wanted nothing to do with anything business-wise), then you actually
>>could
>>>blame Yoko for that, as well.
>>
>>You could blame Yoko for anything - that's the beauty of it.
>No, the beauty of what I wrote is, if the scenerio is true, then Yoko would be
>to blame. That's all I was saying.
If Burt Bacharach shot Kennedy, then he would be to blame for Kennedy's
assasination. But it's not relevant :-)
I feel the need to point out that the "you" mentioned in the quote above
really meant "one". I wasn't getting personal, and I wasn't accusing you
of anything. Frankly, I'm a little bemused as to why you are upset.
>If you want to bring it down to that level, please, by all means, enjoy
>yourself.
I'm curious as to why people bear a grudge against Yoko. I *suspect*
that in most people it is saying something about human nature, rather
than her actual behaviour. So I'm checking it out and asking for your
opinions.
To clarify, you don't have the right to patronise me - but if you want
to bring it down to that level, please, by all means, enjoy yourself.
:-)
~ma=t
|
CaroJ11
>>exactly the same way. John should cop a lot more flak than Yoko -
>>they're _John's_ relatives, not Yoko's. If John doesn't give a shit, why
>>should Yoko?
You're speaking a little from ignorance here. John loved and took excellent
financial care of many relatives --especially his Aunt Mimi. That might be one
reason to suspect he didn't actually write his will. He would certainly have
made particular provision for Mimi, and probably for the girls as well. I'm
sure you're aware that Yoko's sold off houses John assured several relatives
would be theirs for a lifetime, but there was no love lost between them even
before this. ---CarolJ
Amaranth56
>and
>John just blindly signed it (which isn't completely far-fetched, IMO, since
>John wanted nothing to do with anything business-wise), then you
>actually could blame Yoko for that, as well.
But we don't know that John forgot his family in his will. He even remembered
Yoko's family. Aside from Sean and Yoko, everyone else was taken care of in
the Trust Agreement which is not a public document. Just because, say, John's
Aunt Mimi wasn't mentioned in the 2-page will doesn't mean he forgot her!
Surely her inheritance was described in the Trust Agreement, to which Yoko was
the Trustee.
Amaranth56
I get the impression that you're aware only of Yoko's most recent actions. If
you think what she's done to Julian is wrong, you might not think much of
Yoko's attempt to evict John's elderly uncle, Norman Birch, from the home John
bought him so he'd always have a roof over his head.
Yoko lies constantly. She either can't keep track of her own lies or thinks
we're too dumb to notice. You may feel differently, of course, but I'm highly
suspicious of habitual liars.
I don't subscribe to the belief that because John married Yoko we shouldn't say
anything against her. Yoko is a person in her own right, and IMO may be
discussed as such.
unki...@my-dejanews.com
"Jay Jay" <jac...@acay.com.au> wrote:
> What you're implying is that John Lennon was as weak as water for allowing
> his wife to make a will for him denying his family any of his wealth.
> an unfeeling bastard who didn't give a damn whether they were taken care of
> or not.
> Jay Jay
>
One million dollars in 1979 or 1980 was a nice chunk of change. In 1999, for
the first son of John Lennon, I don't think it's so good, and I don't think
John would think so either....This is the problem with corporate Amerika.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tom
>If
>you think what she's done to Julian is wrong, you might not think much of
>Yoko's attempt to evict John's elderly uncle, Norman Birch, from the home
John
>bought him so he'd always have a roof over his head.
>
to sell her own property? (The lyrics for With A Little Help From My
Friends) Yes, there was more to the story than that, but from reading the
press reports, you'd have never known that. I just find it interesting that
when Yoko is involved, the worst version is accepted as the truth, but when
it's someone else, people are willing to look for the whole story.
>Yoko lies constantly. She either can't keep track of her own lies or
thinks
>we're too dumb to notice. You may feel differently, of course, but I'm
highly
>suspicious of habitual liars.
>
There's some difference between lies to create a public persona with lying
as a part of her personal life. Many rock musicians are equally guilty of
the first. As I asked before, why is it worse when Yoko does it? (or do you
feel the same way about Dylan, Bowie, and the Beatles?)
Amaranth56
>his wife to make a will for him denying his family any of his wealth.
No, he trusted his wife.
Plus, we have Fred Seaman's statement in an earlier post that Mimi, Cyn, Julian
and other of John's Liverpool relatives *were* in the Trust Agreement. John
*did* provide for them, and it was in the Trust Agreement, to which Yoko was
the Trustee.
Amaranth56
>>you think what she's done to Julian is wrong, you might not think much of
>>Yoko's attempt to evict John's elderly uncle, Norman Birch, from the home
>John
>>bought him so he'd always have a roof over his head.
>>
>Have you forgiven Paul McCartney for preventing Mal Evan's widow from trying
>to sell her own property? (The lyrics for With A Little Help From My
>Friends)
True. But that's not exactly the same thing as doing your darndest to leave an
old man homeless; taking the roof from over his head.
>Yes, there was more to the story than that, but from reading the
>press reports, you'd have never known that. I just find it interesting that
>when Yoko is involved, the worst version is accepted as the truth, but when
>it's someone else, people are willing to look for the whole story.
I read all the information I could find; I couldn't find the original artices.
Yoko never made any statement about Birch. Birch said much, as did Julia Baird
and others. I have it on good authority that Birch's home wasn't the only one
John bought for a relative that Yoko tried to take possession of. A few times
she succeeded. ("And what do you say, Tiny Tim?" "God bless us, every one.")
>>Yoko lies constantly......
>>
>There's some difference between lies to create a public persona with lying
>as a part of her personal life. Many rock musicians are equally guilty of
>the first. As I asked before, why is it worse when Yoko does it? (or do you
>feel the same way about Dylan, Bowie, and the Beatles?)
I understand what you're getting at, and certainly I do NOT believe that
celebrities are required to reveal every truth about themselves! However...
One recent example: In an interview last year, Yoko said that she didn't like
what they gallery people had done in coloring in John's lithographs, so she did
the coloring herself as she would know what John would want (see
www.eskimo.com/~abbyrd/yoko). In a recent article, Yoko said that she hired a
graphic artist who has been "enhancing" John's artwork for the past 15 years.
Which is it? Does Yoko color in John's work, or does her employee, whom she
hired for that very purpose, do it?
Yoko told Julian that everything of John's had to be saved to be given to Sean,
so she could give Julian nothing. Next thing Julian knows, John's possessions
are up for auction. Yoko has never denied this.
I started a list a couple of years ago. That's all I remember offhand.
Tom
>>Have you forgiven Paul McCartney for preventing Mal Evan's widow from
trying
>>to sell her own property? (The lyrics for With A Little Help From My
>>Friends)
>
>True. But that's not exactly the same thing as doing your darndest to
leave an
>old man homeless; taking the roof from over his head.
>
Perhaps the results aren't the same, but it's a similar act.
>>Yes, there was more to the story than that, but from reading the
>>press reports, you'd have never known that. I just find it interesting
that
>>when Yoko is involved, the worst version is accepted as the truth, but
when
>>it's someone else, people are willing to look for the whole story.
>
>I read all the information I could find; I couldn't find the original
artices.
>Yoko never made any statement about Birch.
That means you don't have the full story, not that there isn't anything more
to know.
tup...@seaside.net
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >If
> >you think what she's done to Julian is wrong, you might not think much of
> >Yoko's attempt to evict John's elderly uncle, Norman Birch, from the home
> John
> >bought him so he'd always have a roof over his head.
> >
> to sell her own property? (The lyrics for With A Little Help From My
> press reports, you'd have never known that. I just find it interesting that
> when Yoko is involved, the worst version is accepted as the truth, but when
> it's someone else, people are willing to look for the whole story.
Bet Uncle Norman would have liked the $100g's Paul gave Mrs. Evans.
Tom
>Bet Uncle Norman would have liked the $100g's Paul gave Mrs. Evans.
>
You mean the money Paul gave her because he was afraid of bad publicity? (If
it's a valid argument there, it's valid here.)
Tom
Oh yes, and thank you for supporting my point, that you don't necessarily
get the entire story in news reports. (To spell it out, I'm not attacking
Paul. I'm pointing out that this was a comprable situation where the truth
wasn't what it appeared to be)
Amaranth56
>a
>>graphic artist who has been "enhancing" John's artwork for the past 15
>years.
>
It was in the Publisher's Weekly Online, dated May 3, 1999, under the title
'John Lennon's Drawings For His Son Sean.' (I'm having major problems with AOL
and can't access websites; no URL was given.)
Here's that sentence:
> The decision, Ono said, was "artistic," adding that she has been employing
> the same graphic artist for the past 15 years to help "enhance" the extant
> Lennon material, but "not to overwhelm the drawing itself."
Tom
>> The decision, Ono said, was "artistic," adding that she has been
employing
>> the same graphic artist for the past 15 years to help "enhance" the
extant
>> Lennon material, but "not to overwhelm the drawing itself."
A few points that may or may not be pertinent. This isn't a direct quote, we
don't know what this artist is doing to what material, and she hasn't been
colorizing John's drawings for 15 years.
JonQPublix
for profit because she currently held on to them for no other reason then her
hubby perloined them .....is this the old possession is 9/10's of the law
arguement? Yoko reaps the profits from possessions that are not of her own
origin [or did you think that "Grapefruit" was a national best seller and only
YOU didn't know} throws an old man out in the streets because you know shes
only living week to week without the money from the rent on that house! Funny
how Fred Seamon stole boxes of stuff from the Lennons and is generally
disfavored, and although she probably had no hand in stealing the lyrics Mrs
Evans was not in legal possession of the items but of course shes a widow so
it must be mean old Paul trying to make her life hell with that 100,000.
Ain't Life a Bitch??
afr
> arguement? Yoko reaps the profits from possessions that are not of her own
> origin [or did you think that "Grapefruit" was a national best seller and only
> YOU didn't know} throws an old man out in the streets because you know shes
> only living week to week without the money from the rent on that house! Funny
Up until this thread, I hadn't realized she evicted some of John's family.
I remember reading that she didn't want to be a landlord because she
thought it was bad karma. I guess she was able to foresee that she would
make a decision based on a business ethinc alone.
afr
afr
> Never having been a trustee, I'd appreciate it if any lawyers in the
> newsgroup would come forward and tell us exactly how much leeway a trustee
> has in executing their duties according to the trust agreement. I'd like to
> know if a trustee has any power to alter the trust agreement. I'd also like
> to know if it is common practice for people other than the attorney(s) and
> the trustee to have access to the trust agreement.
I'm not a lawyer, but I observed a friend of mine grapple with her family
over a trust agreement. Her sister was the executrix of their parents'
will and never sent my friend any financial statements. My friend didn't
want to make waves, but finally at the age of _83_ (20 years down the
line), she threatened to sue if the partnership that had been set up by
the parents wasn't dissolved. She got what she wanted because the sister
(executrix) had been doing her own thing wrt the parents wishes for 2
decades. So, in short, an executrix can get away with a lot.
--afr
Tom
>Oh I see, Paul doesn't want her to sell lyrics, WRITTEN IN HIS OWN
HANDWRITING
>for profit because she currently held on to them for no other reason then
her
>hubby perloined them .....is this the old possession is 9/10's of the law
>arguement?
Beatles.
>Yoko reaps the profits from possessions that are not of her own
>origin [or did you think that "Grapefruit" was a national best seller and
only
>YOU didn't know}
>throws an old man out in the streets because you know shes
>only living week to week without the money from the rent on that house!
He wasn't actually thrown out.
Usenet Troll
Susan A. Juliano
news:19990508191631...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> Plus, we have Fred Seaman's statement in an earlier post that Mimi, Cyn,
Julian
> and other of John's Liverpool relatives *were* in the Trust Agreement.
John
> *did* provide for them, and it was in the Trust Agreement, to which Yoko
was
> the Trustee.
Never having been a trustee, I'd appreciate it if any lawyers in the