Silly and Serious
I thought I would spice up this blog with a bit of variety because – hey, that’s how I roll.
The serious first with more breaking news from the legal eagles reforming family law.
1. New forms.
I know this isn’t incredibly exciting, particularly in an area which is ruled by forms. If any of you out there want a job where there is no risk of unemployment, I recommend that you hunt out the secret army of form creators who decide that once the lawyers have got used to one set of forms, those forms need to be totally overhauled.
In this case I am happy to report that the new child arrangement forms are getting an overhaul before they even bedded in – which is a relief. I have this from the horse’s mouth when I heard our local Circuit Judge explaining that she was using her not inconsiderable influence, or if you like – her considerable influence – to oust them for something better . I realise that in that sentence I have just compared her Honour’s mouth to a horse ‘s– I can’t think of a better analogy I’m afraid, so it’ll have to stay (no offence Ma’am)
Further new forms are on their way to apparently enable the public to draft their own financial court orders. Good luck on that one. If any of you wish to hang around to see what will come out of it – I ask you to bear in mind the overhaul of the divorce petition which was similarly updated. It is as user-friendly as the caps lock that keeps afflicting my online passwords.
2. Definition of the word “need”
This is a really important word in the world of family law. It helps the lawyers and Judges decide the amount of maintenance (or regular payments) and/or the amount of capital available for re-housing the parties in any one case. Other factors involve sharing and compensation. It may be a long haul if we have to await further definitions of these words as well. You might think that it would be a simple case of looking these words up in a dictionary. Oh no friend, that is not how we work in these here parts. We have to test these words out in case-law and provide examples of how these words would operate in legal practice. In the words of Homer Simpson, it’s funny ‘cos it’s true. Watch this space on that one
And now for the benign and downright silly. Being a plagiarist I have totally and shamelessly cribbed this bit from a national newspaper. It was a piece prompted by an American lawsuit where a certain Anton Purisima has lodged a claim for $2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 for being bitten by a dog on a bus and then having his photo taken while being treated – without his permission. That man is crazy – as if you need permission to be bitten by a dog!
Other stupid cases include the $832m claim made against Michael Jordan, basket-ball star for apparently looking a bit like Allen Heckard; the undisclosed amount of claim made by the Turkish town of Batman for the unsolicited use of their name in the film “Batman”; the £50,000 claimed against a shopping centre for encouraging a local squirrel to visit which then attacked a customer and the successful claim of £1.5m made against the phone-book publishers who advertised the name of a bad plastic surgeon.
If any of you have details of a case in which you were involved, or which you know of – please let me know. I am particularly interested in the case of the cow who escaped her stall, leaping over walls, fences and electric gates to find herself in the same road as an ongoing car, whose driver later successfully sued the unlucky farmer for the ensuing collision – on the basis that he ought to have foreseen it. I want to know what happened to the cow.