As the Court Turns

     Every now and then I run across a paragraph so entertaining that it requires close analysis.
     I have such a paragraph for you today from a ruling of the Court of Appeals of Mississippi called Larson v. Larson .
     The paragraph is on page 3 of ruling. It begins with this: “The chancellor made specific findings regarding Diana’s adultery.”
     OK, I know I lead a sheltered life in California, but I had no idea you needed to plead adultery to get a divorce any more. Mississippi obviously is a far different, and perhaps more fun, sort of place than I’m used to.
     Not only do you get to call your spouse a slut, but the judge (or chancellor) gets to examine the evidence closely. I wouldn’t be surprised if the divorce courts are standing-room-only in Mississippi.
     Next: “Diana admitted under oath during a temporary hearing on September 26, 2008, that she engaged in sexual intercourse with Matt Lyle. Diana claims that this admission was actually a typographical error in the transcript. …”
     Ah, the old “it’s a typo” defense.
     Now we get to speculate on what the transcript should have said.
     Ummm …. “engaged in textual course study?”
     “Mutual intramural golf course play?”
     “Parimutuel intertrack horse wagering?”
     So many logical possibilities.
     By the way, the ruling does say “temporary hearing.” Maybe it’s a typo?
     Or maybe it was only a hearing until they started serving drinks.
     Next: “There was testimony that the security password to Diana’s cellular phone was Lyle’s birthday.”
     Whuh?
     I had some difficulty bending my mind around that one.
     First off, why would you have such testimony? Who would do the testifying and how would they know? Is it commonly understood that use of a person’s birth date on a cellphone is evidence of an affair?
     Maybe in Mississippi.
     I’m going to skip ahead a bit to this: “Mark and Diana’s housekeeper, Ethel Clark, testified that she overheard a phone conversation between Diana and Lyle’s wife where Lyle’s wife asked Diana to cease contacting Lyle.”
     How exactly did the housekeeper overhear this and know who both parties were?
     Shouldn’t she have been cleaning something instead of eavesdropping?
     Isn’t a bit suspicious that the female housekeeper testified for the husband?
     If this were on daytime TV, I’d be wondering about this.
     Next: “Although not stated by the chancellor, there was also evidence of Diana’s relationships with other men besides Lyle.”
     Whuh?
     First off, why wouldn’t the chancellor state this? Don’t we need all the details? What’s wrong with this guy?
     Second, if the chancellor didn’t state it, how does the appeals court know?
     Could Diana have taken an appellate judge lover?
     More: “Clark testified Diana spoke to her of sexual acts she performed numerous times upon another man named Shot Bright.”
     Shot Bright?
     Really?
     I’m thinking that’s a porn name.
     And whatever happened to housekeeper/client confidentiality?
     Finally: “Diana admitted to having a relationship with another man but stated she was not having ‘physical sex’ with him.”
     This is a spiritual woman.

%d bloggers like this: