Best put your "tongue in cheek" and have a real "sense-of-humor" regarding the "legal workings" of our society.   Just imagine how these stories might have played out in the hands of some of our "celebrity lawyers"!!

Just imagine if... Once upon a time ...some overzealous attorneys filed court papers concerning the alleged disputes, grievances, and occurrences that took place between the adverse parties who were residing in the municipality hereinafter known as Fairyland - this is what the result may have been!  If you thought bedtime stories were "Grimm".... take a goosey-gander at these...hahaha!!


Beauty & The Beast

Application to Abrogate, Nullify, Rescind, Withdraw, Annul, and/or Otherwise Revoke an Existing Prenuptial Agreement between the Petitioner, Beauty and the Respondent, Beast.

The petitioner warrants that nine years, four months, and two days prior to the date of this filing, the petitioner, Beauty, did willingly but without benefit of legal counsel agree to and sign what in law is commonly referred to as a "prenuptial agreement," a legal document signed prior to marriage in which marrying parties do agree to a disposition of assets should said marriage fail to endure. The petitioner does not contest this fact.

This agreement did state that in the event petitioner and respondent did not live happily ever after, the Plaintiff would be entitled to a specific but limited portion of the funds, estate, and all properties owned then or to be acquired during the time of said marriage. This agreement limited such participation in the assets of the Beast to two percent (2%) of his total assets and no more than five percent (5%) of all assets gained during that period during which Beauty and the Beast resided together. It was also stipulated that these funds would be bestowed and distributed entirely at the discretion of the Beast and that Beauty shall/should be entitled to continue living a lifestyle commensurate with that she enjoyed during the period of cohabitation. Petitioner will not contest these facts.

BUT AND/OR HOWEVER, such agreement did not sufficiently or specifically address consequences arising from the desire of the respondent, Beast, to end this marriage, contrary to the wishes and desires of the petitioner, Beauty. This agreement also did not anticipate the four children born to this couple during their marital years.

BUT AND/OR HOWEVER, this agreement did not anticipate the reversal of fortune of said Beast, including the loss of several income-producing properties, resulting in the precipitous decline in the total value of all assets. Said agreement also did not anticipate the extremely high level of inflation resulting in the dramatic increase in the cost of goods and services necessary to the continued well-being of this family. Therefore this combination of factors had reduced the real value of this agreement far below that either anticipated or desired by both parties when such and said agreement was mutually agreed to and signed.

THEREFORE, said agreement does not adequately compensate Beauty and such heirs as exist in a manner that would allow them to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed and to which Beast agreed in this document, and therefore, said document should be considered null and void and should be abrogated, rescinded, withdrawn, annulled, and/or otherwise revoked and replaced with a court-ordered disposition of assets owned or controlled by the Beast, and failing that, this document should be replaced with court-ordered support payments to be made on a timely basis of such scale as to enable petitioner to continue to support her family in a manner approximating that enjoyed during the marital years.

THE FACTS: Petitioner was coerced into signing this agreement. Eight years ago the plaintiff was the simple daughter of a merchant, home educated, an innocent maiden who was forced to share an abode with the respondent to relieve real threats to the family, specifically the father, of the petitioner. Said father, after partaking of the hospitality of the Beast, admittedly did rip, tear, and cause to come asunder a single rose from the property of the Beast. Beast thereupon threatened said father with capital punishment for the "crime" of Rose Robbing. Beast provided an alternate sentence to the father: If his daughter, the petitioner, would reside within the confines of the Beast's estate for one year, the sentence passed upon the father would be revoked. After discussing this with is family, the father agreed to these terms.

At great personal sacrifice, giving up all she knew and to whom she was known, the petitioner did leave her abode and reside in common with the Beast. All parties to this binding contract agreed that the term "reside with" would be specifically limited to a physical presence on such premises as designated by the Beast but would not include any physical contact whatsoever. All parties involved agreed that this contractual provision was properly observed.

STATE OF MIND: At the time the petitioner agreed to cohabit with the Beast, his state might properly be described as "the unfortunate victim of a wicked fairy." In all physical traits he more closely resembled an individual identified as a member of the animal kingdom than those traditionally known as "human beings". Rather than a nose he had a long snout. His ears were long and extended beyond the rim of his head. His entire body was covered by hair. He had a tail. Instead of the common hand and fingers, he had paws and claws. Such physical handicaps did cause the Beast to create a solitary existence. He lived completely alone. He had no known friends. He spent his days doing non-productive work. Such traits have previously been described by the psychiatric community as being most common among individuals suffering from severe inferiority complexes, often bordering on excessive manic depression.

While he did exist in such a state, Beauty did come to fulfill all obligations under the contract agreed to between said Beast and her father. She did share a common residence, and a non-physical relationship did grow between them. Beauty, void of all knowledge of this curse and believing the Beast to be, in fact, of "his own mind and body", did fulfill completely all contractual terms.

CHANGE OF STATUS: There came a time at which the petitioner requested and was granted temporary relief from contractual terms, allowing her furlough in which to visit her family. She left the residence with permission and goodwill and proceeded to return to her familial residence, at which time and place she enjoyed the familial bonds to which she was otherwise grievously deprived. After several days, she did become aware through mitigating circumstances that the Beast was suffering a severe distress reaction occasioned by her absence. A feeling human being, the petitioner experienced great sympathy toward the plight of the afflicted Beast and did return immediately to the aforementioned residence.

PETITIONER SAVES LIFE OF RESPONDENT: On arrival at said premises, the petitioner found respondent to be extremely weak, apparently stricken with an illness of a non-determined, non-diagnosed, and arguably psychosomatic nature. Respondent complained of difficulty in breathing and severe heart pains. Overcome by sympathy for said respondent, the petitioner did willingly, of her own accord, and without prompting, lean over and kiss respondent.

CHANGE OF STATUS OF RESPONDENT: The kiss-of-life caused to occur an immediate and dramatic transformation, during which the respondent was physically altered from an individual resembling a beast in all physical characteristics to a handsome prince. Respondent claimed that prior physical appearance rsulted from an altercation with a wicked fairy. Respondent admitted that the kiss administered by petitioner of her own free-will was the only antidote for such penalty. At the same time, respondent did suggest, ask, request, and otherwise beseech petitioner to agree to a prenuptial pact outlining distribution of his assets in the event said nuptials should not prevail for a substantial period of time. The petitioner, having just witnessed this transformation, can psychologically be described as "being in a state of confusion occasioned by such change as never before experienced"... and therefore, completely unable to make real and rational decisions based on the actual events having occurred. So without counsel to which she was entitled and, as a matter of law, obligated to consult, the petitioner did agree to such terms as outlined by the Prince. These terms eventually proved to be heinous in all aspects to the continued health and well-being of the petitioner and such heirs as now exist. In legal terms, the petitioner might be termed to be Princess Simplea.

FAILURE TO LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER: Unfortunately, this cautionary tale precludes any claim whatsoever by either party that the resulting nuptials concluded in an ending properly defined as "happily". It is the position of the petitioner that in addition to the solely cosmetic change experienced by the respondent, there occurred concurrently a more substantive change... ie: a complete reversal of personality. At the outset of this relationship, the respondent might accurately be described as "a beast on the exterior, and prince on the interior". However, once transformed, due entirely to the actions, dedication and selflessness of the petitioner, the respondent thereupon became "a prince on the outside, a beast on the inside." It is charged in divorce papers filed by the petitioner that the respondent, while fullfilling his spousal obligations, did also engage in extra-marital activities in extremis. The petitioner can provide substantial evidence that the respondent did engage in carnal activities with eight or more village maidens while the petitioner was entirely engaged in providing a happy castle for him and producing his family. These extra-marital activites did cause substantial pain and suffering, ridicule, emotional distress, and physical danger from prolonged contact with a variety of maidens. The petitioner and respondent did engage in at least several loud and lengthy discussions about these activities, and durng one such encounter, the respondent did knowingly accuse the petitioned of "gaining weight", an unusually cruel and harmful attack on the emotional state of the petitioner. These prolonged discussion did occur more frequently until it became no longer viable for the petitioner to cohabit in the castle of the respondent.

PRECEDENT: Various aspects of this petition have been litigated previously, and there exists substantial precedent to support the claims made by the petitioner. In Queen v. Rumpelstiltskin the Court held that an individual, in that case Queen, could not be compelled to fullfill a contract, however valid such contract, if provisions of said contract forced either party into performing actions that otherwise would not be considered legal. In that case, the issue was involuntary servitude to fulfill an obligation entered into by Queen. The Court said: "No party to a contract can legally waive such rights as to put them in such a position as they are compelled by said contract to perform activities or services deemed illegal under the existing statutes of that municipality, as such rights are beyond the scope of the individual to waive. Specifically, "Such contracts negotiated, agreed to, or signed in a situation in which any contracting party may be responding to pressure, duress, or other external factors, causing them to act against their own self-interest, are hereby held to be invalid and cannot be used to compel any action." Having previously witnessed the respondent transformed from Beast to Prince can be seen by the Court to have created a situation rife with pressure and duress, which therefore would invalidate any agreements made in that state of mind.

(14i) In Kingdom v. Old Lady Who Lives in a Shoe (cit. 34 partb, ex parte 145), in which the defendent (Old Lady) attempted to provide for many children by contracting for their servicers prior to their taking residence in the shoe, in direct contravention to an order from the Child Welfare Board, the Court held - "It is imperative that the Court recognize there exists no rights of any individual to proffer, contract for, or in any other way whatsoever accept or agree to any contract concerning the welfare of minor children without the express consent of coherent adult supervisors". It is the contention of the petitioner that by agreeing to the signing of this contract while in a state of extreme duress, and without counsel, the rights of the children were compromised and therefore the entire agreement is invalid, as the children were improperly represented in this agreement.

REMEDY: It is within the power of this Court first, to declare said prenuptial agreement to have been signed under duress, at a time in which the petitioner was not in complete possession of faculties, and is therefore invalid; and, second... to replace this agreement with a court-ordered schedule of payments, compelling the respondent to fulfill his paternal obligations to the best of his ability.

Respectfully filed:
O. King Cole

Main Index