EPT3. Catherine’s genteel family tree
[15] Some family trees have more barren branches than others.
[15] Some family trees have more barren branches than others.
Amusing Canadian Court Judgment - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
lowercase
Canada1047 Posts
| ||
JBright
Vancouver14381 Posts
On January 19 2011 11:19 PanN wrote: I don't see how thats remotely funny or comical in anyway imaginable. I think he means it's funny in a sad kind of way... | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
The OP was hilarious in the cynical and sardonic way. Less dark. Except maybe for the family in question. | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
 | ||
|
emperorchampion
Canada9496 Posts
| ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
| ||
|
GhoSt[shield]
Canada2131 Posts
Here is what I have got through so far. Larry and Catherine were married for 11 years. They have 2 children: a daughter named Taylor (13yrs) and a son named Brandon (11yrs) Larry and Sam were friends at the same waste management company. Larry and Catherine are now separated, Taylor and Brandon continue to live with their mother in the matrimonial home. Catherine is now living as a common law spouse with Sam, Larry's former friend and co-worker in the matrimonial home of Larry and Catherine. Larry and lives with Sandra in a common law relationship with her 3 children. Larry and Catherine hate each other. Larry and Sam hate each other. The Judge's words on their hatred: "The source of the difficulties is hatred: a hardened, harmful, high-octane hatred. [2] Larry and Catherine hate each other, as do Larry and Sam. This hatred has raged unabated since the date of separation. Consequently, the likelihood of an amicable resolution is laughable (hatred devours reason); and, a satisfactory legal solution is impossible (hatred has no legal remedy)." Catherine's family has been repeatedly extorting Larry for money by use of verbal threats of bodily harm by Hell's angels accompany demands for money. Catherine's family is described in the the judge's own words as: "3. Catherine’s genteel family tree [15] Some family trees have more barren branches than others." Regarding Catherine's efforts to turn Larry's children against their father: "[50] During these enforced access visits, Taylor repeatedly said to Larry: “You’re not my father. Sam’s my father. You’re a loser.” These are comments that Taylor would have parroted from Catherine, I have no doubt. They are the result of persistent, behind-the-scenes brainwashing by Catherine." This is an amazing read. I'm not yet done, but I'll edit more in later as I finish. For all you Canadians like me out there, this happened in St. Catherine, Ontario. North America's Obesity capital :D | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
"[22] When the operator of a motor vehicle yells “jackass” at a pedestrian, the jackassedness of the former has been proved, but, at that point, it is only an allegation as against the latter." I'm posting this up somewhere. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
Basically, a guy was on trial for possession of drugs and assault causing bodily harm. The defendant plead guilty to marijuana possession and plead not guilty th the assault - though they did not contest that the guy was involved in an assault. Turns out the Baseball bat and knife had the defendants blood on it and not the man whom he was supposed to have been attacked. Furthermore the guy who was assaulted said that he was dealing drugs and that he dealt drugs out of his coffee shop to make money. The judge laughed came back and then charged the shop owner with assault instead XD. He called him a dumbass and apologised to the defendant for the ineptitude of the prosecution. Also the judge called up the crown prosecutor and told him to bring good cases forward and not to bring bullshit charges into court lol | ||
Chef
10810 Posts
Judges have a very dry sense of humour and sometimes get laughs from the spectators. Obviously they will have sensitivity to cases of murder or rape, but with petty disputes it's more or less free reign. Sometimes judges are allowed to get pretty creative with their rulings too, if I recall correctly. I think it helps the system be less utilitarian and more human oriented. | ||
|
Fasterfood
Canada166 Posts
On January 19 2011 11:02 BlackJack wrote: The funniest Canadian ruling is the one where a guy had a paternity test and found out his ex-wife's children weren't his but the judge ruled that he had to pay child support anyway.. lol http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1152816 You make it sound like these kids didn't see the guy as their father. "Cornelio knew at the time of separation that his wife had an extramarital affair with someone named Tony, who may have fathered the twins -- but he sought joint custody regardless. He only began pursuing the issue after Ms. Cornelio began seeking increased child-support payments" The guy wasn't trapped into anything. He wanted to raise the kids as his own until they got too expensive. Absolutely he should continue to pay, despite having a bad wife. Think of the children. | ||
|
duk3
United States807 Posts
But the whole situation is screwed up in general [3] I am prepared to certify a class action for the return of all wedding gifts. | ||
|
b3h47pte
United States1317 Posts
On January 19 2011 13:01 duk3 wrote: At least Larry got a pretty good ruling, $31 in child support per year isn't bad But the whole situation is screwed up in general Looool. I hit the "3" expecting some weird reference thing like wikipedia but then i saw that and i just ROFLd. Great judge. Omg. This stuff is pure gold. Highly suggested for everyone to read. [6] This is always a telltale sign that a husband and wife are drifting apart. [7] The courtroom energy level in a custody/access dispute spikes quickly when there is evidence that one of the parents has a Hells Angels branch in her family tree. Certainly, my posture improved. Catherine’s niece is engaged to a member of the Hells Angels. I take judicial notice of the fact that the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club is a criminal organization (and of the fact that the niece has made a poor choice). [8] When one considers that the parties then had been separated for a mere four months and that Larry was exercising access, this is a remarkable request. What does it tell us about Catherine? [9] Donna is a devotee of the literary device known as, “repetition for emphasis.” I do not know whether Donna is the niece who is engaged to the Hells Angels member. If she is, they may be more compatible than I initially surmised. I can't stop reading this. lol [26] The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “dickhead” as “a stupid person.” That would not have been my first guess. | ||
|
Inside.Out
Canada569 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
BloodyC0bbler
Canada7876 Posts
| ||
|
tarpman
Canada719 Posts
Possibly my favourite part: [21] A finger is worth a thousand words and, therefore, is particularly useful should one have a vocabulary of less than a thousand words. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3820 Posts
On January 19 2011 13:05 EcstatiC wrote: ya i dont get it really, maybe you should try posting it on a lawyer's forum site Yes, because humour is restricted to the realm of the law... In any event, it would seem this Judge has made a bit of a name for himself with such judgments... http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2010/2010onsc2446/2010onsc2446.html Again, read the judgment and footnotes together.. lol | ||
|
sikyon
Canada1045 Posts
On January 19 2011 12:52 Fasterfood wrote: You make it sound like these kids didn't see the guy as their father. "Cornelio knew at the time of separation that his wife had an extramarital affair with someone named Tony, who may have fathered the twins -- but he sought joint custody regardless. He only began pursuing the issue after Ms. Cornelio began seeking increased child-support payments" The guy wasn't trapped into anything. He wanted to raise the kids as his own until they got too expensive. Absolutely he should continue to pay, despite having a bad wife. Think of the children. Exactly. Biological bonds are not the only bonds that create family. | ||
|
StayPhrosty
Canada406 Posts
| ||
|
Kamais_Ookin
Canada4218 Posts
On January 19 2011 12:40 ZeromuS wrote: Lol, that's hilarious and he's got a good point.This is pretty funny thank you for posting. In Canada, the judges say pretty much whatever they want and the more ridiculous the situation the better theit comments end up being. I was sitting in court watching a trial and the judge burst out laughing at one point and had to excuse himself to calm down. Upon return he pointed out the irony of the situation and dismissed the charges for which the defendant plead not guilty. Basically, a guy was on trial for possession of drugs and assault causing bodily harm. The defendant plead guilty to marijuana possession and plead not guilty th the assault - though they did not contest that the guy was involved in an assault. Turns out the Baseball bat and knife had the defendants blood on it and not the man whom he was supposed to have been attacked. Furthermore the guy who was assaulted said that he was dealing drugs and that he dealt drugs out of his coffee shop to make money. The judge laughed came back and then charged the shop owner with assault instead XD. He called him a dumbass and apologised to the defendant for the ineptitude of the prosecution. Also the judge called up the crown prosecutor and told him to bring good cases forward and not to bring bullshit charges into court lol | ||
| ||
