We've gone international.

---
George Kimball of the Irish Times discusses Jamie's indulgent tendencies and pokes fun at her pool-access demands. He then writes:

None of this is likely to go down well with Dodgers fans already disgruntled by the McCourts’ history of penury with respect to the free agent market.

And the truth is, by the time this convoluted case is resolved Jamie may well be as capable of buying out Frank as Frank is of buying out Jamie.

Isn't that just delightful? Kimball, evidently familiar with California divorce law, concludes that the court will ignore the asset-transfer agreement and that the club's value will be split. He also wonders how Jamie can make herself out to be an integral part of the Dodgers while seeking unfettered lap pool access from 8am-2pm daily. 

The first court date, November 5, is to hear Jamie's petition to be reinstated as CEO of the Dodgers. Let's be real here, people: the judge ain't gonna do it. And that's probably fine with Jamie, too. She doesn't want to deal with Frank and Dennis Mannion and the rest. But she absolutely had to ask for it, as painting herself as a key member of the organization might be tremendously valuable to her case.

Well, that and she's been relatively fortunate so far in that the maintenance figure widely discussed now is the if-she's-reinstated $320,967 monthly allowance. What she really wants is $487,634, justified by the loss of income suffered by her firing. 

If Frank's lawyers have any idea what they're doing, however, they'll quickly note that she's already been paid her salary through the end of the year, making the higher maintenance figure Jamie seeks pretty damn ridiculous. I don't know what the timing of all this was--it's very possible Frank didn't pay her salary until after she filed. But I do know that if she asked for money she had already been given once, she'll be off to a tough start with the judge. We'll just have to stay tuned to "As the McCourts Turn." 
---