Ann Kelly (Photo/New York Post)
Ann and Arthur Kelly will not be divorcing quietly.
From the New York Post:
Here's a gal who looks like she's been "Blinded by the Light."
Following her husband's shocking accusation that she rode a "Tunnel of Love" with rocker Bruce Springsteen, Ann Kelly appeared stunned yesterday by her sudden entrance into the public eye as she headed to court in her tawdry New Jersey divorce case.
The media's coverage of this divorce is going to be filled with a slew of lame references to Springsteen songs.
Wearing a pantsuit, knee-high suede boots and overcoat, the stunner tried to slink into Ocean County Family Court in Toms River, feebly using an umbrella and a phalanx of court officers as a shield against the media maelstrom.
The 44-year-old hottie housewife -- who's the spitting image of Springsteen's spouse, Patti Scialfa -- argued that all the media attention was causing harm to the couple's two children and was only going to get worse.
Yes, this is going to be a circus. When what Ann Kelly wears to court gets as much attention as what Michelle Obama wears when she's trotting around Europe, you know this story will be followed closely.
Also, I wouldn't say Ann Kelly is the "spitting image of Springsteen's spouse, Patti Scialfa." They share a similar hair color, but that's about it.
"There are going to be some very, very, very private details that will be disclosed," her lawyer, Noel Tonneman, said in a bid to have the judge seal the court record.
"It's the court's obligation to protect the children."
I thought there was nothing going on between Ann Kelly and Springsteen.
There are no "very, very, very private details that will be disclosed" because there is no affair, right?
Are there other affairs? Was Arthur Kelly unfaithful?
In court, Kelly and her husband, Arthur Kelly, a tall, wiry 45-year-old mortgage broker, did not look at each other once.
While Springsteen's name was never mentioned during the half-hour hearing, the spectacle of his fame loomed large.
Following Tonneman's argument for sealing the record, Arthur Kelly's attorney, Edward Fradkin, argued that the cat was already out of the bag.
He said any argument that the bitter divorce was not of public interest was moot.
"By the nature of the allegations, Mrs. Kelly has stepped out of being a private person into the public," he said. "It just so happens that the party is a famous person. That doesn't mean you automatically seal the record."
Tonneman countered that what amounted to a "big blip in their relationship" was making it impossible for the Kellys' children to live normal lives.
What's the "big blip"?
I thought there was no "big blip." What is a "big blip"?
That prompted Judge Patricia Roe to ask, "How is sealing the record going to change that? Hasn't that horse already left the barn?"
The skeptical Roe ultimately ruled that the state's "strong policy" for open public records superseded any effort to avoid public embarrassment -- celebrity notwithstanding.
"The family court is not unique in presiding over cases that involve enormous personal embarrassment.
"Openness is the norm, it is not the exception," she said.
I'm not familiar with normal procedures in family court.
I don't think this case should receive any sort of special treatment or consideration. If openness is the norm, then that's the way it goes.
Obviously, there will be a lot of interest in it. It's the stuff of which tabloid trash is made.
In terms of shielding his children from embarrassment, Arthur Kelly apparently determined that wasn't an issue when he filed the complaint. I hope he at least has very sound evidence of the affair. It would be awful to drag his children's mother through the mud without cause.
Actually, it's awful in any event.
There's a lot of embarrassment to go around here.
If the allegations are true, Ann Kelly has to realize that she's responsible for causing her children this pain.
It's sad that they have to suffer, but that's what happens when parents don't consider the effects of their behavior on their children.
________________
UPDATE, April 17, 2009: BRUCE'S 'LOVER': MY HUSBAND TRYSTED THE FACTS
________________
UPDATE, April 4, 2010: Bruce Springsteen had 'affair' with New Jersey housewife: court papers
In 2008, Ann allegedly opted to be with Springsteen rather than her ailing husband. While Arthur had open-heart surgery in Cleveland, the singer joined her at a table at the Turning Point restaurant in Pier Village in Long Branch.
As part of the divorce settlement, Arthur took the adultery claim out of his petition and both parties agreed not to talk to the media. At her West Long Branch home last week, Ann declined to comment to The Post. In past divorce filings, she has denied a sexual relationship with Springsteen. However, during a deposition over the summer, she declined to answer any questions about the singer, court papers show.
The breaking point in the marriage allegedly came when Arthur told Ann a witness had spotted her kissing Springsteen in the parking lot of their gym. Arthur also claimed that the day before he filed for divorce, Ann admitted to him that her "relationship with Bruce Springsteen was inappropriate."
Arthur did not return calls for comment.
A spokeswoman for Springsteen declined to comment. However, a friend of The Boss said, "Bruce and Patti continue to have a terrific marriage and are very devoted to each other and their children."
Terrific marriage?
Huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment