The late Robert McCorkill of St. John New Brunswick died, leaving an estate worth over $250,000 to some violent neo-Nazi group in West Virginia. These guys in fact inspired the 1995 Oklahoma bombing.
This did not sit well with the deceased’s sister who obtained an injunction pending a decision on the validity of the will, as her lawyer says the bequest offends public policy.
What kind of man was this McCorkill? I guess if Adolph Hitler were around, McCorkill might very well have mentioned the Fuhrer in his will. What would that look like? Would the lawyer summon all beneficiaries to hear the will read?
“Ladies and gentlemen. Please listen to my reading of the Will. And you sir, with the little moustache. I ask that you put down your right hand. If you must go to the washroom, you need not raise your hand. It’s the second door town the hall to your right. And stop shouting.
I shall now read the Will...
...And finally, to my hero, Adolph Hitler, I leave one half of the residue of my estate together with Larry, my daschund. Any questions?”
“What? Only one half? No way Heinrich. I only want a piece of the estate as long as it is a 100% piece. If I do not get it, I shall invade New Brunswick tonight and dangle the mayor of St. John upside down and naked over the Reversing Falls. We shall demagnetize Magnetic Hill. And I shall appoint Larry as ruler of Moncton. Nein!”
I am sure with this injunction ruling and the resistance the proof of the Will is getting, the late Mr McCorkill would not be too happy. Well, to him I say, wherever you are, keep rolling in it.
I enjoy practising civil litigation and family law. Though my practice is never dull, it does not get this exciting. Please visit www.striglaw.com .
For centuries people have wondered about the mystery of how the stones at Stonehenge England arrived there. There are several dozen huge stones arranged in a circular pattern with some rocks resting horizontally high atop the other rocks, each piece weighing several tons. Experts claim that the stones originate from Wales. I recently visited Stonehenge. I was no further enlightened.
It seems however that some light may now be shed on the mystery as construction workers digging near the courthouse in nearby Salisbury have come across some court records which reveal a legal action that took place centuries ago. The story will show that times have not changed.
The following narrative is taken from the judgment of the trial judge:
Flintsone J.: The plaintiff, the Druid Orthodox Temple, brings this action against the defendant Jock the Mover. It seems that the plaintiff hired the mover to move its temple from Wales a couple of hundred miles south to a site near Salisbury. The plaintiff claims that many of the rocks were not delivered, some were returned damaged and the temple was not properly set up.
A month or so before the move a sales representative of the mover, one Ehrlick, visited the Druids to price the move. He dealt with one Bork, the Temple's ritual slaughterer and accountant.
The two struck a deal to move the entire temple rock by rock and reset it up at Stonehenge.
The move was to start the following week and take three days. Ehrlick's testimony however was that he specifically advised Bork that the mover was also moving a second nearby temple shortly and that it would move the two simultaneously "as there's no sense travelling all that distance for just one temple".
Unfortunately the move was plagued by misfortune from the word go.
On November 26 the Druids waited patiently for Jock's team of movers to arrive. To their chagrin what came were three drunken men in a broken flatbed wagon. They circled the temple once and left, indicating they would be back after lunch. The move was not started completed until the following July.
While the movers were unloading an altercation erupted. The man in charge, one Leon, requested payment before completion of the set up, indicating that terms of payment were C.O.D. Bork refused to pay at that point and the movers left, retaining with them a number of rocks as security, pursuant to the Moving and Warehousing of Places of Worship Act.
The Druids claim that many rocks are still missing or damaged and they sue for 100,000 Crowns.
The mover argues that it is not at fault, saying that on route its vehicles were ambushed by a bunch of outlaws while passing through Sherwood Forest. The bandits made off with the driver's purse, his wagon and about twenty-five eight-ton rocks. They also snatched his pet beagle Pokey.
The Sheriff of Nottingham eventually recovered a couple of the rocks from the homes of the poor. The Sheriff charged them with possession of stolen property. The accused apparently alleged that they picked the rocks up at a local flea market.
The Druids also claim that the temple is now ruined. Bork points to a sketch of rocks arranged in a circle and says, "Where is the roof?"
The structure indeed appears roofless. Ehrlick denies that the temple ever had a roof. He points to the bill of lading which lists what was being moved and he says that there is no mention of a roof.
Bork on the other hand insists that there was a cover, "as you can hardly light up a sacrifice when it rains if there is no roof."
The mover says that if there was a roof, then maybe the outlaws pocketed it. His lawyer points to a clause in the contract that absolves the mover from "unlawful acts of the King's enemies."
I did not spot this clause initially but I now see it with the aid of my magnifying glass. Bork denies ever seeing the clause at all. Furthermore he claims he doesn't read Latin. I don't accept the mover's argument that Latin is similar to Druidese. I can't believe that for any Druid "Latin is a piece of cake".
There will be judgement for the plaintiff.
I trust this helps explain the mystery of Stonehenge. But nobody knows what ever became of Pokey.
When I am not busy watching temples being moved, I practice family personal injury and insurance law. Please visit www.striglaw.com. I am bilingual (English and French, not Druidese.)
In St. John N.B. the outcome in a criminal trial involving twin brothers could not be determined on DNA evidence as in case of twins, the DNA is identical for each twin. The jury did convict both brothers on burglary related charges as it had other evidence to go by. However given the importance of DNA evidence in securing criminal convictions, I think a change in the law is due as there is unfairness in exempting twins from the scourges of DNA evidence.
Firstly I believe the rest of us have a strong Charter of Rights argument. Section 15(1) of the Charter reads:
“15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination...”
Where is the equality? Why should twins get off in the face of solid DNA evidence, while the majority of good single birth criminals are subject having saliva, hair or other body substances buy them a conviction?
I have 2 more suggestions
The first is, convict either one of them. It doesn’t matter which. Given their cemented relationship, each should feel the pain of the other, something like Alexander Dumas’ Corsican Brothers. Conversely if Brent is convicted for Brad’s crime, though incarcerated, he would no doubt feel the freedom Brad would enjoy. On second thought, in that case, I am not happy with this scenario. Why should the guy in jail feel good?
The other suggestion is, hang them both. After all, they are the ones who caused this confusion. And considering that their DNA is identical, if one has bad DNA, so does the other.
Speaking of hair, a certified aesthetician in Ross Township, Pennsylvania was fired by the owner of the European Wax Centre for not allowing co-workers to perform a Brazilian wax on her. She is now suing for damages, alleging there was something illegal about the owner insisting she restructure her private area. I suppose the owner sees it more like an employee at Tim Horton’s going out for lunch and returning with a double double from Starbucks.
I don’t know how this case will turn out but the owner is counterclaiming for the tickets he had to refund to 250 spectators.
I practice personal injury and family law. Please visit www.striglaw.com. There is only one of me.
The past few days have seen a couple of oddball court decisions surface.
Firstly is the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling staying the charges against Nicole Doucet of Nova Scotia after she tried to hire a hitman to put her husband away. The "hitman" was actually an undercover RCMP officer whom she offered $25,000.00. No, hold it. The Mountie was the second hitman she hired. Hitman #1 one took her $25k and absconded with the cash.
My concern now is that this decision will enable hitmen to come out of the closet to ply their trade. It will not be too long before hitmen start attending family law continuing legal education conferences and setting up display booths. Most sponsors dole out giveaways like pens, memory sticks and keychains. What will these guys hand out? Silencers?
I can already see the company's banner:
"Divorce case taking too long? Give us a call. Free estimates. Visit us at www.werubout.com."
There will likely be a fish bowl on the desk: “Put your business card in and win a free contract.”
Quare whether they will provide a list of satisfied clients.
The SCC does not realize the Pandora's box it has opened.
The other bizarre decision was by the B.C. Supreme Court which upheld a $15,000.00 judgment of the BC Human Rights Tribunal against comedian Guy Earle, for uttering anti Lesbian slurs in the course of his act, at a lady in the audience who allegedly heckled him. The HR Tribunal accepted the complainant's evidence that she suffered a post traumatic stress disorder consequent to her attendance that night at the comedy club.
I have not read the details but, hey, I spent 6 years doing standup. Sitting in the front row and heckling the comedian may just attract an unwanted response from the comic. And she even spilled a glass of water on Earle.
This being a comedy club I would have thought the comedian is immune from any civil liability claim. Throughout the centuries the court jester was always safe to do his schtick without fear of incurring the king's wrath. While I do not at all condone improper slurs, a stand up comic's ultimate punishment for a lousy set is the audience's reaction with a deafening silence. To borrow a theme from the late Prime Minister Trudeau, the state has no business in the nation's Yuk Yuks's.
And what about the damages? How did this PTSD display itself? I can only imagine:
She wakes up in sweats after having recurrent nightmares of being chased by a rubber chicken. She has this inexplicable urge to hit people in the face with cream pies. She emits primal screams whenever she hears the names, Larry, Moe or Curly?
The B.C. Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box. Caveat comedian.
Let me conclude by giving some advice to Nicole Doucet. Next time she hires a hitman, she should not give him the full contract price up front. She should just give him a deposit. Ten % sounds reasonable.
Please visit my website, www.striglaw.com for more info about my personal injury and family law practice. I am an equal opportunity lawyer and humourist.
Shannon Everett approached Mayor Rob Ford at a recent street festival and tossed a container of juice on His Worship. She was charged with assault.
Her high profile criminal lawyer tells the media that she will be "vigorously defending" the assault charge. OK, I know all about being innocent until proven guilty but this 27 year old woman Christened the mayor in front of people and cameras. What can her possible defenses be?
1. Self defense? She had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that His Worship was about to spill juice on her. She can swear that he was reaching for that Tropicana tetra-pack in his holster.
2 Consent? She closed in on Ford and coyly asked, "Your Worship, is it OK if I spill this juice on you? " The mayor, responded, "No problem madam. After all, I have only worn this suit once."
3 Charter of Rights? I can see any lawyer worth his or her salt arguing that charging Ms Everett with assault is a violation of her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights, contravening section 2, which reads,
"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
... 2(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression..."
No doubt spilling juice on a mayor is a fundamental freedom of expression.
This latter argument might best be made by the master of these arguments, colleague Clayton Ruby. And since Clay might have some time on his hands having lost his leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada in the conflicts case launched by his client Paul Magder against Mayor Ford, perhaps he can collaborate with defence counsel on this one.
For that matter, Mr Magder having lost his appeal, should consider a plan B attack on Mayor Ford. He can go to Loblaws, purchase a container of orange juice....
And while we are still speaking of mayors, this week was not a good one for Michael Applebaum, former mayor of Montreal who replaced the previous mayor accused of corruption. Mr Applebaum was himself arrested on corruption charges and forced to resign. Montreal, having suffered a number of scandals with mayors and other municipal officials, is at a loss to find another safe mayor. Maybe Mr Magder can consider going for this position. It appears a lot easier to become mayor of Montreal than to remove the mayor of Toronto.
I practice family and personal injury law. Please visit www.striglaw.com. All mayors welcome.
The Midwest Book Review has referred to Marcel Strigberger as "an irrepressible humorist with a story teller’s flair for spinning a yarn with true (and hysterically funny) insights into the basics of human nature".
Midwest Book Review
CLICK HERE to bring a little LegalHumour to your event >>