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!!
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
