Julia Nasty
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Julia Nasty
This website no longer supports Internet Explorer, which is now an outdated browser. For the best experience and your security, please visit
us using a different browser.
Enlarge Image Julia Haart, star of “My Unorthodox Life,” has lost her bid to prove that her ex, Silvio Scaglia abused her. Getty Images
Filed under
celebrity divorces
,
julia haart
,
netflix
,
8/12/22
Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.
Julia Haart has lost her bid to prove that her estranged husband abused her, a court has ruled.
The star of Netflix reality show “My Unorthodox Life,” fought to get an order of protection against Silvio Scaglia shortly after she filed for divorce from the Italian billionaire in February.
The 51-year-old — who is embroiled in a bitter divorce with Scaglia — claimed he had left her weeping in fear at their $65 million Tribeca apartment and had been rude to her children, while also making anti-semitic slurs.
However, Judge Douglas Hoffman of the Supreme Court of the State of New York this week ruled, “There was no fear exhibited by either party and no intimidation, certainly not of Wife.”
Despite this, Judge Hoffman has allowed Haart to have “exclusive use” of the couple’s penthouse for the foreseeable future.
Haart’s attorney Michael F. Beyda told Page Six, “Silvio saying that he would kill Julia in the press was not sufficient for a criminal restraining order. But Judge Hoffman did grant Ms. Haart the relief she was seeking, which was exclusive use and occupancy.”
In the ruling, seen by Page Six, the judge wrote, “The court does not find that Mr. Scaglia exerted physical or emotional control over Ms. Haart. Each party strongly and ably argued with the other and there was not a credible showing of any physical or emotional intimidation.”
He continued, “Here, while the discourse became acrimonious, there was no credible showing of physical, emotional or psychological control by either spouse over the other that would rise to the level of an enumerated family offense.”
In February, Page Six revealed that Haart had accused Scaglia, 63, of threatening to kill her. She petitioned a court to prohibit her estranged husband from coming near or contacting her, accusing him of hostility toward her son’s Judaism — and claiming he told her, “I will kill you in the public eye.”
She filed for the order a day after she was fired as CEO of Elite World Group, which she argued she co-owned with Scaglia.
The document alleged, “Respondent has become increasingly volatile, abusive and unhinged.”
Haart claimed in the petition that she was “scared for my safety and the safety of my children, some of whom reside with me,” adding, “Over the past several weeks, Respondent [Scaglia] has become increasingly volatile, abusive and unhinged.”
Her daughter Miriam Haart also claimed in the petition that in January 2021, she found her mom “crying hysterically” in her bathroom and heard Scaglia screaming at her.
“I was afraid for her safety and I seriously considered calling the police. I was terrified that he was hurting her … I ran into the room and found my mother on the bathroom floor, naked, curled up on the floor and sobbing.”
However, Judge Hoffman — who heard testimony from both Julia and Scaglia as well as Miriam, reviewed pages of WhatsApp messages between the pair and listened to recordings and voice messages — found the abuse allegations to be false and Miriam’s testimony to be “not credible.”
“During her testimony, the daughter stated that shortly after the parties were married, Husband made clear that he hated the children and wanted nothing to do with them. The WhatsApp messages during the pertinent time frame directly contradict this testimony. The messages are replete with mutual expressions of love and affection,” the filing read.
The judge concluded that Julia filed her petition and publicized her allegations in retaliation for having been fired, and in a bid to gain exclusive occupancy of the penthouse where she had lived with her ex.
He also noted that Scaglia “accurately points out that Wife’s family offense claims changed in a meaningful manner from pleading to pleading and affidavit to affidavit,” and that her allegations included in her family offense petition were “simply false both substantively and temporally.”
The filing did state, “The court had serious concerns with each party’s credibility, to varying degrees.
The Court further determined that Julia “was a strong, independent, forceful person who exhibited no fear whatsoever of Husband, and who dominated the conversation/argument with Husband.”
Scaglia’s lawyer Robert Wallack told Page Six, “This is a resounding and complete victory for Silvio Scaglia.
“All of Julia Haart’s false allegations of abuse were rejected by the Court, and both Ms. Haart and her daughter Miriam were found to be not credible.”
The couple’s apartment was put up for rent in July for $125,000 a month .
“We are very pleased the judge granted Ms. Haart’s request to have full use of her home, which she shares, at times, with her supportive children,” Beyda added.
This story has been shared 99,343 times.
99,343
This story has been shared 32,682 times.
32,682
This story has been shared 30,610 times.
30,610
This story has been shared 28,798 times.
28,798
© 2022 NYP Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Terms of Use
Privacy Notice
Your Ad Choices
Sitemap
Your California Privacy Rights
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Your California Privacy Rights
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
This website no longer supports Internet Explorer, which is now an outdated browser. For the best experience and your security, please visit
us using a different browser.
Enlarge Image Julia Haart, star of “My Unorthodox Life,” has lost her bid to prove that her ex, Silvio Scaglia abused her. Getty Images
Filed under
celebrity divorces
,
julia haart
,
netflix
,
8/12/22
Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.
Julia Haart has lost her bid to prove that her estranged husband abused her, a court has ruled.
The star of Netflix reality show “My Unorthodox Life,” fought to get an order of protection against Silvio Scaglia shortly after she filed for divorce from the Italian billionaire in February.
The 51-year-old — who is embroiled in a bitter divorce with Scaglia — claimed he had left her weeping in fear at their $65 million Tribeca apartment and had been rude to her children, while also making anti-semitic slurs.
However, Judge Douglas Hoffman of the Supreme Court of the State of New York this week ruled, “There was no fear exhibited by either party and no intimidation, certainly not of Wife.”
Despite this, Judge Hoffman has allowed Haart to have “exclusive use” of the couple’s penthouse for the foreseeable future.
Haart’s attorney Michael F. Beyda told Page Six, “Silvio saying that he would kill Julia in the press was not sufficient for a criminal restraining order. But Judge Hoffman did grant Ms. Haart the relief she was seeking, which was exclusive use and occupancy.”
In the ruling, seen by Page Six, the judge wrote, “The court does not find that Mr. Scaglia exerted physical or emotional control over Ms. Haart. Each party strongly and ably argued with the other and there was not a credible showing of any physical or emotional intimidation.”
He continued, “Here, while the discourse became acrimonious, there was no credible showing of physical, emotional or psychological control by either spouse over the other that would rise to the level of an enumerated family offense.”
In February, Page Six revealed that Haart had accused Scaglia, 63, of threatening to kill her. She petitioned a court to prohibit her estranged husband from coming near or contacting her, accusing him of hostility toward her son’s Judaism — and claiming he told her, “I will kill you in the public eye.”
She filed for the order a day after she was fired as CEO of Elite World Group, which she argued she co-owned with Scaglia.
The document alleged, “Respondent has become increasingly volatile, abusive and unhinged.”
Haart claimed in the petition that she was “scared for my safety and the safety of my children, some of whom reside with me,” adding, “Over the past several weeks, Respondent [Scaglia] has become increasingly volatile, abusive and unhinged.”
Her daughter Miriam Haart also claimed in the petition that in January 2021, she found her mom “crying hysterically” in her bathroom and heard Scaglia screaming at her.
“I was afraid for her safety and I seriously considered calling the police. I was terrified that he was hurting her … I ran into the room and found my mother on the bathroom floor, naked, curled up on the floor and sobbing.”
However, Judge Hoffman — who heard testimony from both Julia and Scaglia as well as Miriam, reviewed pages of WhatsApp messages between the pair and listened to recordings and voice messages — found the abuse allegations to be false and Miriam’s testimony to be “not credible.”
“During her testimony, the daughter stated that shortly after the parties were married, Husband made clear that he hated the children and wanted nothing to do with them. The WhatsApp messages during the pertinent time frame directly contradict this testimony. The messages are replete with mutual expressions of love and affection,” the filing read.
The judge concluded that Julia filed her petition and publicized her allegations in retaliation for having been fired, and in a bid to gain exclusive occupancy of the penthouse where she had lived with her ex.
He also noted that Scaglia “accurately points out that Wife’s family offense claims changed in a meaningful manner from pleading to pleading and affidavit to affidavit,” and that her allegations included in her family offense petition were “simply false both substantively and temporally.”
The filing did state, “The court had serious concerns with each party’s credibility, to varying degrees.
The Court further determined that Julia “was a strong, independent, forceful person who exhibited no fear whatsoever of Husband, and who dominated the conversation/argument with Husband.”
Scaglia’s lawyer Robert Wallack told Page Six, “This is a resounding and complete victory for Silvio Scaglia.
“All of Julia Haart’s false allegations of abuse were rejected by the Court, and both Ms. Haart and her daughter Miriam were found to be not credible.”
The couple’s apartment was put up for rent in July for $125,000 a month .
“We are very pleased the judge granted Ms. Haart’s request to have full use of her home, which she shares, at times, with her supportive children,” Beyda added.
This story has been shared 99,343 times.
99,343
This story has been shared 32,682 times.
32,682
This story has been shared 30,610 times.
30,610
This story has been shared 28,798 times.
28,798
© 2022 NYP Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Terms of Use
Privacy Notice
Your Ad Choices
Sitemap
Your California Privacy Rights
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Your California Privacy Rights
Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Sex. Celebrity. Politics. With Teeth
Sex. Celebrity. Politics. With Teeth
Photo : Astrid Stawiarz ( Getty Images )
Jezebel's Crush of the Week: Bella Hadid in 'Ramy'
Jezebel's Crush of the Week: Jennette McCurdy
Photo : Pascal Le Segretain ( Getty Images )
Jezebel's Crush of the Week: Bella Hadid in 'Ramy'
Jezebel's Crush of the Week: Jennette McCurdy
The news dropped, well, less like a bombshell and more like a stale, half-price box of Russell Stovers at CVS post-Valentine’s Day: Kanye West and Julia Fox were over . A mere two months after the pair were first linked on New Year’s Eve, a whirlwind romance chronicled with equal parts raised eyebrow and eyeroll, they were, in tabloid parlance, dunzo . West is now fully immersed in stalking his estranged wife Kim Kardashian while trolling “Skete, ” his nickname for Pete Davidson, on social media.
All of this coincided with Fox’s exquisitely timed profile in The Cut , which featured her in a midriff-baring black latex ensemble, splayed out on a pile of last week’s dirty snow. The headline declared her both “her own muse” and, less deferentially, a “TMZ A-lister.” It turns out Fox had a modestly interesting career as a downtown art and fashion scene habitué before West. Did you know she was a dominatrix for a spell and has authored some art books? Per Reddit, one is a compilation of photos of her having sex. How Madonna! (Apparently, they’re lunch buddies!) The Cut even describes her minor role in Uncut Gems as a “well deserved promotion.” Still, the comments there, and everywhere else she’s been covered, have been far less generous.
“ More Kardashian backwash, ” read one.
“ Take ur purse and go. There was no relationship. Just a low budget chick looking for a handout from a disabled man, ” reads another.
Inveterate flamethrower Azalea Banks called Fox a “ low rate escort with a crack baby .”
“It was too much,” moaned Charlamagne Tha God on “The Breakfast Club, ” before mockingly launching into the refrain from Kodak Black’s, “We Could Have Been Superstars.” The Daily Mail declared that Fox had “outfoxed her own earning power” thanks to the short fling, but warned she’d need to “do something tangible this year” to keep the public’s interest.
Invisible liners that make you feel great. This doctor-directed treatment costs thousands less than braces, and is done entirely from the comfort of your own home. The process starts with teeth impressions, and after that, doctors formulate the best plan of action for your smile.
Most recently, Fox has become the subject of mockery for her pronunciation of “Uncut Gems” on the Call Her Daddy podcast — more evidence, her detractors say, not necessarily of “vocal fry,” a well documented Millennial affect, but of Zsa Zsa Gabor levels of self-regard.
The problem appears to be that Julia Fox is too thirsty. And nobody gets more shit from the public than a woman trying too hard. That is the prevailing critique of Fox: She made too much hay of being the rebound, which everyone knows is short-lived and fated to become, well, last week’s dirty snow. But Fox flipped the script and ran with it. Remember when she called Interview magazine with juicy intel on their big date night at Carbone, which Ye capped off with a professional photo shoot (all the shots were conveniently ready for publication) and a new designer wardrobe? Instead of asking who does that? about Kanye—turning a meal into American Psycho levels of excess—we turned our gaze to Julia for having the audacity to participate and chronicle it.
She humble-brag gossed about the romance on her podcast, a big no-no when it comes to celebrity courtship. (“People are like ‘Oh, you’re only in it for the fame, you’re in it for the clout, you’re in it for the money,” she said. “Honey, I’ve dated billionaires my entire adult life, let’s keep it real.”) Then she coined the “ Juliye ” moniker, à la Bennifer and KimYe, a clear signal of her interest in becoming so-famous-you’re-shorthand-famous. And who can forget the cringey Paris Fashion Week twinning in matching leather and denim outfits. Julia Fox is too thirsty!
In fact, plenty of women get called thirsty (and men, too—I see you, Channing!), but notice for whom it has been used pejoratively. Kim’s thirsty money shots on Instagram, for example, are evidence of her commitment to her billion-dollar brand. She’s hot, she knows it, and your job, dear scroller, is to cosign with hearts and flames and exploding head emojis so that her posts flick the algorithm g-spot and end up at the top of your feed. All of which leads to more sales—undies, makeup, sympathy in the divorce. It doesn’t matter. What Mike Milken was to junk bonds, Kim Kardashian is to thirst trapping.
Julia Fox isn’t that kind of thirsty. She’s the hungry kind—for celebrity, fame, attention, and then, perhaps, bigger entertainment opportunities. Whereas before, she was known only to a cool subset of Lower East Side, today she’s a national story, a click-driver. Smart enough to know that’s currency, Fox has torn a page from the Kim K. “ how to build an empire ” handbook and run with it.
What Fox seems to underestimate is the public’s loathing for people who so plainly want t0 get ahead. Elizabeth Spiers unpacked it in her viral New York Times op-ed , “In Defense of Jeremy Strong (and All Strivers With No Chill)”. Recall that Strong, who plays the addled and shattered Kendall Roy on Succession, was the subject of a public roasting following a New Yorker profile that revealed him as, in effect, laughably self-serious about his acting. Spiers ascribes some of that backlash to classism. “There’s an unmistakably negative connotation to the word ‘careerist,’” she writes. “It is a dismissive insult often deployed against people who have the temerity to transcend their economic class.”
It’s also true, maybe even more so, of those who want to transcend their celebrity class — and it’s acutely damaging for women. Strong at least got the benefit of a hoity-toity New Yorker profile, condescending as it may have been. Fox gets nasty headlines that frame her as a grubby fame whore, riding the Balenciaga coattails of someone far more famous t0 snag an invitation to the Vanity Fair Oscar party. No matter that she mixed and mingled with the likes of Madonna and Drake before Ye. Fox committed the cardinal sin of letting the seams of her ambition show, betrayed by her comments in The Cut profile: “I never wanted to be super-megafamous. It’s a life-ender for some celebrities. They become reclusive and paranoid and hide. I refuse to not live authentically.” Not super-megafamous — just regular famous will do!
The scorn for Julia Fox whiffs of the Meghan Markle backlash — both are cautionary tales about what the public does to women who level up, who want to level up. The web is littered with salacious anecdotes of Markle telling anyone who would listen she wanted to marry rich — evidence, they say, of cunning or turpitude. No, the only permissible level jumping for women in the public eye is the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes kind. She was a ho-hum B-list actress when she paired off with the biggest actor in town. Whether contrived or not, the couple put up a reasonably effective show of affection. It met our unspoken guidelines for women foisted up to the highest celebrity altitudes: she smiled, looked pretty, dressed conservatively, talked very little and did as she was told. As for men hoisted up to such heights by a megafamous partner, one need only turn to Skete himself to see how we treat men who level up: We congratulate them for having Big Dick Energy.
Fox and Kanye seem to share the same distaste for the conventional, which is why it’s disappointing she even bothers to defend herself against allegations that the relationship was all a performance (allegations which, by the way, nobody has leveled against Kanye. “ He fucking wanted me to!!! , ” she replied in exasperation on an Instagram post calling her “desperate for attention” for talking so much about the relationship). So what if the relati
Naked Sky Studio
Nasty C
Silvia Lesbian