“Hannah Lee Fowler refiled for divorce from Sam Hunt in the right jurisdiction” links

Hannah Lee Fowler refiled for divorce against Sam Hunt. Her first divorce filing was withdrawn because she filed in the wrong county. [Dlisted]
I don’t think the Duke & Duchess of Sussex had anything to do with the timing of TMZ’s publication of those dinner photos. [LaineyGossip]
Updates on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. [Buzzfeed]
Tom Holland plays with puppies for Buzzfeed. [OMG Blog]
Colin Farrell is getting his own Penguin-spinoff series for HBO Max? [JustJared]
I’ll say it: Kenneth Branagh will never be MY Poirot. [Pajiba]
Erdem’s new collection feels very goth. [GFY]
US truckers are trying to do the same thing as Candian truckers. [Towleroad]
Ugh, there’s an Adults Adopting Adults show? [Starcasm]
I love this Christopher John Rogers dress on Mandy Moore as well. [Tom & Lorenzo]
Again, it was never solely about abortion. Republicans want to take away women’s access to birth control as well. [Jezebel]

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

25 Responses to ““Hannah Lee Fowler refiled for divorce from Sam Hunt in the right jurisdiction” links”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Léna says:

    HAHAHA well good for her !! I didn’t expect that

  2. Becks1 says:

    re: the pap pictures of H&M….i don’t think there’s any conspiracy there. They may not like that they were published, but they know that those kinds of pics are part of the game – they go out to eat in public, they may get papped.

    As I see it, the lines they have drawn with the paps are with their children, with invasive/illegal tactics like drones, and when personal or private information could be leaked (like the pics of Meghan leaving a medical center in 2020.) I don’t even know if they filed a complaint about the last one, I can’t remember. But I don’t think they said anything when Meghan was papped shopping this past winter in Montecito, or when someone got a pic of Harry at the beach.

    Leaving the kids alone seems to be their hard and fast rule.

  3. bettyrose says:

    Why do republican men hate sex so much? I’ve done my share of research in this area and so far 100% percent of the men I’ve known who like sex are in favor of safe sex and reproductive choice. I’m pretty sure that would stand up to peer review.

    • MaryMae says:

      They don’t actually hate sex. They actually want people to procreate to ensure a labor force that’s too busy trying to make ends meet to pay attention to whatever it is they’re wanting to do. And if they can stoke infighting to ensure we’re not looking at them and their agenda, even better.

    • goofpuff says:

      Republican men don’t hate sex. They have a ton of it with their affairs. They are only interested in controlling sex so only they benefit. If their mistress gets pregnant, abortion is ok for her. Contraception is ok for anyone they have an affair with. I mean look how mad they get when their side piece gets pregnant, like its her fault for trapping them.

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        This! It’s only about control. And sex is just another place they are trying to exert their control.

        I’d also like to draw the distinction here. No matter what political affiliation or banner they express their opinions under… they’re AHoles. They are not just republicans.

      • bettyrose says:

        @Wiglet – It’s definitely not just republicans who do gross things, but other parties generally aren’t actively working to strip women of basic human rights at the same time. We knew Clinton was having affairs before he was even elected, but as a politician he supported women’s rights in a number of ways, including reproductive rights; the rage-inducing levels of hypocrisy are different. – Of course we know many more things about Clinton now, including covered up rape allegations and a close friendship with Epstein. So just to be clear that I’m not defending Clinton, just making the point that a politician and be totally greasy and still support choice.

    • Emma says:

      I’m convinced they’re all in bed (so to speak) with far-right-wing evangelical Christians who find controlling women’s bodies very important to god, and of course they want other people’s free labor basically. Ugh. Medieval to its core in the worst way. Nearly my whole extended family has drunk that Kool-Aid. Meanwhile I’m as far from that as one could get although never really can escape that voice in my head that says I should be guilty or scared for having sex…

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Republicans talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk. They have affairs, get their mistresses pregnant, pressure their mistress to have an abortion, have secret gay sex, etc. But PUBLICLY, they cater to religious fanatics and their ever-increasing extremism. The next logical step would be to ban IVF because not every fertilized egg is used or carried to term. But do you think that would stop THEM from using IVF? NOPE! The hypocrites will just outlaw it for everyone else, while they use their wealth to make sure they have continued access via democratic “blue” states. Republicans are truly p.o.s.

      • T3PO says:

        They’re so dumb and vile that if Dump told them to boycott air they would all hold their breath, but probably not inside because they’d think it’s different air.

    • whatWHAT? says:

      yeah, as noted, they don’t hate sex. they hate the idea of women having “consequence-free sex”, like THEY can have every time. (never mind those pesky STDs, it’s only the pregnancy they care about.) they hate the idea of women having body-autonomy. they hate the idea of women having control of ANYTHING that relates to their own lives or well-being.

      it’s all about control. keep ’em barefoot and pregnant and you can do whatever the F you want while they’re busy “keeping house”.

      ETA it’s also about “punishing” women for having sex and daring to enjoy it, because that belongs to them and HOW DARE a woman think she can have sex, get pregnant and NOT have to bear the child.

      • Mathom says:

        This is why certain demographics are “pro-life,” but also anti- birth control of any sort. Logically, if you were pro-life, you would want to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but that’s not their point at all. They’re still salty that Eve was the catalyst for free choice and her punishment for that was expulsion from Eden and labor pains. So if you have sex, the correct punishment is pregnancy and children. (As we all know, if it had been Adam, he’d be hailed as the hero who freed us all from the shackles of superstition and religion.) Sorry for the Sunday school lesson, recovering evangelical here.

      • bettyrose says:

        @Mathom – You could take this logic so far, though. If you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies (as most of us do), address the factors that make a pregnancy unwanted. The simplest, of course, is an unplanned pregnancy. But plenty of unplanned pregnancies become wanted pregnancies (lets face it, many of us exist for that reason). Why would a pregnancy be both planned and unwanted? 1. lack of access to reliable birth control. 2. rape (rape culture and so on and so forth). 3. economic circumstances. 4. health concerns. 5. Plenty more, I’m sure.

        1 & 2 at least shouldn’t happen at all in a developed, civilized nation.

      • Otaku fairy says:

        “…they don’t hate sex. they hate the idea of women having ‘consequence-free sex’, like THEY can have every time.”
        This. So many people are still convinced that whenever they see “fast girls/sexually immoral women” fighting for their wellbeing and receiving social protection, they (the prudes) are actually losing something. To them, girls and women aren’t supposed to work to get around their values without getting hurt in some way. Whether the ‘consequence’ is a child they’re unable to take care of, violence, poverty, discrimination from employers, being bullied and dehumanized to the point of PTSD and self-harm, or physical health problems. It’s sick, but they don’t want to admit that. They’d rather point to those situations and pat themselves on the dicks & hymens for heroically standing in the way.

    • Ry says:

      They don’t hate sex, they have it all the time and, once in a while, with their wives, too. It’s a power play and appeasing constituents.
      But if any of this goes through, a bunch of Republicans sons and daughters are going to get their birth control and/or abortions directly from their parents doctors now. Shhh.

  4. girl_ninja says:

    Good for Hannah. She should only have to concern herself with her health, a safe and successful labor and delivery and happy future with her child. That dude is not to be trusted I can just smell it and he can go to hell.

  5. Nicegirl says:

    David Suchet will always be Poirot to me

    • Emma says:

      He was perfection!

    • Christine says:


    • Agreatreckoning says:

      My introduction to Poirot (outside of reading AG’s books as a teenager) on film was Ustinov. He was my Poirot. We record the PBS series and it took me about a month for Suchet to become my Poirot. An adjustment period. Suchet imparts the completely anal perfectionism of Hercule. His facial expressions nail the AHA moments so well. Brannagh will never be my Poirot.

      The Sussexes had nothing to do with TMZ’s timing.

      Tom Holland being interviewed while playing with puppies was adorable. Love the ‘what did you ask’ I’m a little distracted. might be remembering the exact words incorrectly. Very cute.

  6. K says:

    Erdem is amazing , Sam Hunt is an ahole and Branagh will never be my Poirot either. Ugh

  7. Realjennyrev says:

    It’s a venue issue, not a jurisdiction issue

  8. SpankyB says:

    I would assume that the delay in posting the photos of H&M was TMZ themselves. Dude is a lawyer, he was going to make sure he wasn’t doing anything that could possibly cause H&M to sue TMZ since they have put that fear in publications lately. They may also have been negotiating prices with whomever took the pics, they were worth a lot of money, I’m sure.

    • Anne says:

      I was at Lucky’s last Friday night and saw a women that had cameras slung all over her go to the front entrance and then disappear. I wondered at the time if she was paparazzi. Never see those types in Montecito. Also wonder if that was the night H&M were there.