Listen Live Z107.9 WENZ Cleveland


Z 107.9 Featured Video

We all know Tameka Raymond is not the type to back down so it should come as no surprise that the ex-wife of Usher is planning to file an appeal to the custody ruling handed down Friday in which Usher was granted primary custody of the former couple’s two sons, Usher V and Naviyd. What may be a little surprising though is the justification for the appeal. When Tameka started tweeting about how “money can buy many things” after the ruling, many assumed she was talking about Usher’s money, but Tameka seems to think Usher’s lawyer’s cash may have played a part in the custody outcome as well. As our favorite gossip site tells it:

“[S]ources close to Tameka tell TMZ, she feels the ruling was unfair. We’re told Tameka recently found out that Usher’s lawyer’s law firm threw an election fundraiser back in 2008 for the judge who presided over the trial … and she feels that connection may have influenced the ruling.

“According to the campaign contribution report for Judge Lane, the law firm that represented Usher raised $1,278 for Lane in March 2008.

“Sources tell us … Tameka is baffled by the decision because she argued in court that Usher is constantly on the road, where as she has the more stable schedule … thus it makes no sense to give him primary custody.

Being real, $1,200 isn’t a whole lot of money but it does show the law firm that represented Usher supports Judge Lane, meaning the ruling could be proof of a little “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” agreement between the parties. It’s not as though the judge didn’t have plenty of other things to base her ruling on though, considering some of the petty allegations thrown at Usher and questions regarding Tameka’s mental state. At this point, Usher’s ex-wife may just be grasping for $1,200 straws, but she could have a case if the connection between Ursh’s lawyer and the judge turns out to be as suspect as it looks on the surface. What do you think?

Do you think the contribution Usher’s law firm made to Judge Lane presents a conflict of interest?



Recent Updates