The Kane Show Discussion Thread

[Anonymous]

yeah, her story is pretty sad. From the outside looking in I think Kane used his radio presence to ruin her image and then used his money to legally silence her from a rebuttal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kane's fake voice of concern for the victims in Manchester is so disgusting...he claims he called Jon as he heard about the explosion..

he is so ridiculous.

Why would he call John....? Was John there or something?

I have no idea why he said that... i think he was just talking to make it seem like he was worried about the victims ..he is downright fake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yeah, her story is pretty sad. From the outside looking in I think Kane used his radio presence to ruin her image and then used his money to legally silence her from a rebuttal.

I totally agree. He is an ass.

[Anonymous]

Are you sure any of this is true? I think she has the kids. She's just off social media. Unless you know what's going on, don't presume or make up what you think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And Peter refused the certified mail? Regarding the case search.

What certified mail? The search for his divorce?

Regarding the $275 he owes. Just looked it up. Wonder if the divorce is final yet. And what happened to Nat? She's living in that house alone (presumably), doesn't have custody of the kids and literally fell off the face of the earth on SM. Her last post was Superbowl Sunday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you sure any of this is true? I think she has the kids. She's just off social media. Unless you know what's going on, don't presume or make up what you think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And Peter refused the certified mail? Regarding the case search.

What certified mail? The search for his divorce?

Regarding the $275 he owes. Just looked it up. Wonder if the divorce is final yet. And what happened to Nat? She's living in that house alone (presumably), doesn't have custody of the kids and literally fell off the face of the earth on SM. Her last post was Superbowl Sunday?

I'm sure she sees the kids but Peter has said he has them full time (and confirmed by John)

[Anonymous]

The only reason I'm suspicious is because he has them full time and she only have visitation (maybe). Why would a court rule for 2 little girls not to be with their mother full time? There has to be a reason right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason I'm suspicious is because he has them full time and she only have visitation (maybe). Why would a court rule for 2 little girls not to be with their mother full time? There has to be a reason right?

Correct, there has to be a reason but in this case that reason could very well be the massive celebrity the husband holds in the area. Peter D. is a doing very well for himself financially if you examine just the real estate holdings we know about (the giant tree house and the luxury condo). As he was the one to file for divorce it is reasonable to believe he had legal counsel assist him in assuring he was at every possible advantage against Natasha that could be leveraged. Personally, I think she never had a chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you sure any of this is true? I think she has the kids. She's just off social media. Unless you know what's going on, don't presume or make up what you think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And Peter refused the certified mail? Regarding the case search.

What certified mail? The search for his divorce?

Regarding the $275 he owes. Just looked it up. Wonder if the divorce is final yet. And what happened to Nat? She's living in that house alone (presumably), doesn't have custody of the kids and literally fell off the face of the earth on SM. Her last post was Superbowl Sunday?

I'm sure she sees the kids but Peter has said he has them full time (and confirmed by John)

LOL. Why would you believe anything John says. Hahahhahahaa. They have an interest in making you think he has the kids. Kane has to look like a stand up family guy to keep his job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reason I'm suspicious is because he has them full time and she only have visitation (maybe). Why would a court rule for 2 little girls not to be with their mother full time? There has to be a reason right?

It's becoming more and more common. It used to be that mother's were automatically the main custodial parent. I know of two women with high-power careers who only have weekends and the husbands both have full time custody. They have no faults or issues other than their careers are very demanding (lawyer & surgeon).

In Natasha's case, I think there was some kind of underlying issue, like drugs/alcohol. I think she probably has visitation (probably supervised) and that's it for now; now weekends or one week on, one week off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason I'm suspicious is because he has them full time and she only have visitation (maybe). Why would a court rule for 2 little girls not to be with their mother full time? There has to be a reason right?

It's becoming more and more common. It used to be that mother's were automatically the main custodial parent. I know of two women with high-power careers who only have weekends and the husbands both have full time custody. They have no faults or issues other than their careers are very demanding (lawyer & surgeon).

In Natasha's case, I think there was some kind of underlying issue, like drugs/alcohol. I think she probably has visitation (probably supervised) and that's it for now; now weekends or one week on, one week off.

You obviously are believing whatever John is feeding you. She has the kids. She didn't go to rehab or have some problem. Stop spreading their lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reason I'm suspicious is because he has them full time and she only have visitation (maybe). Why would a court rule for 2 little girls not to be with their mother full time? There has to be a reason right?

It's becoming more and more common. It used to be that mother's were automatically the main custodial parent. I know of two women with high-power careers who only have weekends and the husbands both have full time custody. They have no faults or issues other than their careers are very demanding (lawyer & surgeon).

In Natasha's case, I think there was some kind of underlying issue, like drugs/alcohol. I think she probably has visitation (probably supervised) and that's it for now; now weekends or one week on, one week off.

You obviously are believing whatever John is feeding you. She has the kids. She didn't go to rehab or have some problem. Stop spreading their lies.

Why do you think that?

[Anonymous]

Jeff, Natashia gets discussed on the Kane show, in fact she called in to the show regularly or Kane called her. So why can't we discuss her again? Is it because she complained?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:yeah, her story is pretty sad. From the outside looking in I think Kane used his radio presence to ruin her image and then used his money to legally silence her from a rebuttal.

Didn't Natashia just disappear with the girls one day and tell him I'm filing for divorce? She doesn't sound so helpless.

[Anonymous]

Is anyone having trouble getting a signal in Waldorf?

[Anonymous]

Is she even still in the area?