by Jay Johansen | Jan 22, 1998
The minister at a church I attended years ago once related this little story. A member of the congregation who was in the midst of a divorce came to him for advice. What property should he try to get out of a divorce settlement?
The minister asked him what they owned. They were a young couple and didn't really have much. They were renting, so there was no real estate to divide. He had no use for her clothes and such personal items nor she for is. The only thing he could think of that they might really fight over was their car. It was getting old, and he estimated it was worth about $2,000.
The minister suggested that he offer some equitable deal on the car, but if she decided to really fight for it, just let her have it. It wasn't worth fighting over. The young man agreed.
But then he went back to his lawyer, and the lawyer talked him into fighting for the car. So he went into a long, drawn-out court battle over it. He ended up spending over $6,000 in legal fees fighting for a $2,000 car.
And he lost. He spent $6,000 to not get the car.
"And so", the judge explained to the jury, "You must decide whether a stolen kiss is worth $10,000."
"Your honor", the foreman of the jury replied, "The gentlemen on the jury have discussed this, and we are agreed that the only way we can accurately determine the value of such a commodity is to sample it for ourselves."
"Are you all right?" the paramedic asked one man with no apparent injuries.
"How should I know?" he replied. "I'm a doctor, not a lawyer."
"I object!" the other attorney announced. "This is hearsay evidence."
"Your honor," the first attorney replied, "I am merely trying to establish what information was available to the witness at that time."
The two lawyers argued furiously, bringing up legal technicalities and precedents, and making fine speeches. Finally, after an hour of wrangling, the judge ruled that the question was admissible.
"So," the lawyer asked again, "When you called on Mrs Stover on the 23rd, what did she say to you?"
"Nothing", the witness replied. "She wasn't home."
"How hard did you push him?" the prosecutor demanded.
"Just a little," he replied.
The prosecutor got a brilliant idea. He badgered the witness mercilessly, deliberately making him angrier and angrier as he challenged every part of his story. Then he said, "Suppose you come down from the witness stand and show the jury just how hard you pushed him." He was hoping, of course, that after his badgering, the defendant would get a little carried away.
Nevertheless, he was stunned when the man kicked him in the shins, punched him in the stomach, and then picked him up and bodily threw him over the table.
Turning to the jury, the defendant said, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, about one-tenth that hard."
Defendant: But judge, you can't swindle people who don't trust you.
Friend: That's great. Very few people get to live out their childhood fantasies.
"Well," he replied cautiously, "A couple of days ago I would have said yes, but after hearing you in court today, now I'm not so sure I've ever even seen that car."
"Yeah," the juror replied. "When I go back to my regular business, it's going to be hard to remember not to lie and cheat people."
"Insanity, your honor," the foreman replied simply.
"What?!" he exclaimed, "All twelve of you?"
Defendant: No, your honor. My lawyer took my last dollar.
"Well, no," the witness meekly replied. "I just want to make it clear what an incredible liar I must be if he's telling the truth."
"Come on, you inherited it all from your uncle."
"Yeah, but do you know how hard I had to work to keep the lawyers from getting it all?"
Witness: That is correct.
Lawyer: Did you see him gambling?
Witness: Well, no.
Lawyer: Did you see him drinking?
Witness: No, but ...
Lawyer: Did he tell you he'd been gambling or drinking?
Lawyer: Then how can you sit here and confidently tell this court that my client had been drinking and gambling?!
Witness: Because when I told him the fare was five and a quarter, he handed me a five of diamonds and a blue chip and asked for change.
A convicted mugger was appealing. He claimed that he had been convicted on the basis of his confession, but his lawyer and not been present at the time he confessed, and he had not been advised of his rights. Thus, he insisted, his conviction should be overturned.
In the course of explaining his decision, the judge related the basic facts of the case. Namely:
There was a mugging. The police quickly arrested a suspect near the scene of the robbery, running in the opposite direction, and with a quantity of money in his pocket which just happened to match the amount that the victim said had been stolen from him.
He was promptly arrested and taken to the police station. As the desk sergeant was doing the paperwork, the suspect asked, "What am I being charged with?"
"Aggravated robbery," the desk sergeant replied.
Apparently unfamiliar with the legal terminology, he asked, "What's the 'aggravated' mean?"
"It means that someone was injured in the course of the robbery."
At this point the suspect blurted out, "I didn't hurt nobody! I just grabbed the money and ran."
The judge refused to overturn the conviction.
© 1998 by Jay Johansen
Lalely Oct 3, 2015
Your question is a cmoomn inquiry. Our firm would not risk the reputation damage that some law firms find acceptable.Some lawyers are more litigious than other lawyers. We find resolution preferable to confrontation even though confrontation is more profitable. As a rule resolution is in the best interest of a client.In looking over Ms. Pladson’s financial record affidavit, I find it objectionable that the records were part in parcel to her divorce settlement plan.Had you been our client, an ethics complaint against Ms. Pladson would have been filed early in the divorce process bringing the matter to a head.Practice reasonableness and resolve your differences sooner than later. Then move on to more constructive endeavors. Life is too short.
Outlawteddy Nov 26, 2015
There's probably a lot to Anon's clreroation theory. But I'm inclined to agree at least partially with the first theory in the original article, that by the simple act of deliberately making a point of splitting the housework equally, it threatens to turn every instance of housework into a point of contention.Housework consists of a variety of tasks. For each possible task there are differing notions of how often it should be done, how thoroughly it should be done, and what 'weight' it should be given with respect to what other task(s) it is 'equal' to. All of this becomes fuel for bickering about who's not doing their fair share.Add this to the numbers of women who follow the Lysistrata school of male behavior modification and it's a recipe for stress and misery.