Posted on 07/08/2005 5:10:26 PM PDT by Pharmboy
You've been served.
In the Free Republic Superior Court, Part IV
Lazamataz, as plaintiff,
V.
Pukin Dog, as defendant
WHEREAS the defendant has recklessly laughed at a joke, and,
WHEREAS the plaintiff has been severely and irreparably
harmed by the laughter aboved described, and,
WHEREAS the laws of the State of Confusion allow for
relief of said harm, and the consideration to make the
plaintiff whole,
THEREFORE the plaintiff comes before the court to pray for
relief and the consideration to be made whole:
1) That the defendant be permanently enjoined from
laughing at the joke on this thread,
2) That the defendant make restitution to the plaintiff in
the form of $2,000.00 US currency,
3) That the defendant stand on his head, smear himself
with orange marmalade, swing a ferret by the tail with one
hand and warble "oooo WWWEEEE oooo WWWWEEEE oooo" for
three hours.
Yep...understood. That's why I said it was just a guess. But, that is typically the appearance of fair-skinned folk with that history (with some sun-damage thrown in).
I agree, plus living in Florida...
I'll be the plaintiff AND your defense attorney.
That way, no matter which way the case breaks, I WIN!!!!
He forgot to take out the trash again! :-)
Some States claim to be the victim in abuse and press charges even if the actual victim declines. I believe that Colorado is one of them.
What is interesting is that the report states the wife struck the husband against his will, but further on states that the husband states there was no physical contact.
Prolly a menopause moment, she'll be aquitted.
She looks as though she had been crying.
Going to jail isn't a happy occasion, unless you are Otis, the town drunk.
" She was very reserved and had class...
Of course, things change."
Yeah, you have to watch out for those quiet ones. Decades of keeping things bottled up inside causes some to eventually snap or have a heart attack. Verbal venting is healthier.
Any woman, 59, who had just been arrested for trying to choke her husband, would look old and tired, and depressed. These things don't happen in a vacuum. Unless the woman is nuts, I am pretty sure that the attack was not unprovoked. Perhaps she responded in a public situation because it was the only place that she felt safe enough to attack him, because she knew that he wouldn't hit her in public. She doesn't look very big, I'm sure that the husband could have easily over powered her, if he thought it necessary.
One look at her told you she had been brought by a good family. She definitely knew not to use the knife for peas.
She's Billy Graham's daughter. AP would not have used a speck of ink otherwise.
It sounds to me as though attack was a long time coming, since someone else posted that when she was arrested, she showed the police a large bruise on her thigh. She doesn't look very big, the husband could have easily over powered her, if he thought it necessary. My guess is that he hit her in private and in places where the bruises would not show. He was probably just waiting until they got in the car or home to hit her.
"She definitely knew not to use the knife for peas"
You would know since you say you knew her.
"She definitely knew not to use the knife for peas"
.... AND she definetly knew not to use rope for strangling her spouse. So much for "fun loving".
If she were a man with much stronger hands then moment of rage would have probably resulted in murder.
Enough. Don't throw stones, they sometimes bounce back..
Time for hay --- later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.