Michael Trapido
Michael Trapido

Freedom fighters urge rendition, death penalty

Freedom fighters – people who are going through a divorce – have a number of interim applications available to them in order to ensure that there is sufficient maintenance and security pending the final decree being handed down by our courts.

These unfortunately are never enough for most spouses who are going through a split in their marriages.

In order to overcome this lacuna in our law I am proposing that new and exciting alternatives be introduced which should give even the most hostile litigant a goodly measure of satisfaction.

What am I on/on about?

Simple, let’s start with the decree of divorce and work backwards.

The prayers set out at the end of most combined summonses, which initiate divorce, coupled to the settlements concluded by the parties during litigation usually results in the court being requested to order the following:

1. A decree of divorce
2. That the settlement agreement annexed hereto as “A” be made an order of court
3. Costs of suit
4. Further and/or alternative relief.

BUT, as most attorneys will tell you, that result is grudgingly accepted by their clients who feel that the outcome is woefully short of satisfactory. What they really want, if justice is to be served, is an order in the following terms:

1. A decree of divorce
2. An order that the defendant be placed on a rendition flight to a country that practices torture including, but not limited to, castration, removal of fingernails with pliers, and crucifixion.
3. That upon the conclusion of 2, the defendant be flown to China smothered in enough heroin to ensure that even a retarded sniffer dog with a bad cold at Shanghai International Airport couldn’t miss him. (This will result in the defendant obtaining a suitable penalty for his misdeeds during his marriage to Mrs Shnookums.)
4. An order that all friends and families of both parties speak only highly of the plaintiff even recommending her for sainthood while trashing the memory of the ungrateful bastard she was married to.
5. All property of whatsoever description be awarded to the plaintiff.
6. Costs of suit.
7. Further and alternative punishments that the court might think of or suggest.

As you can see, the gap between what spouses get and what they want is miles apart.

Now returning to the problem set out in the opening paragraph, the same dilemma manifests in respect of the interim measures available to our freedom fighters. A Rule 43 sorts out interim maintenance, custody and access while the Interim Protection Order can stop an abusive spouse, but where are the measures pending divorce that give parties real satisfaction, a measure of justice?

I would suggest that at present there aren’t any.

Accordingly I would recommend that legislation be introduced whereby South African freedom fighters are afforded all round interim protection and satisfaction pending the divorce, thereby entitling your lawyer to make an application for an order in the following terms:

1. An order declaring that the respondent may not leave the hovel he is holed up in, since being thrown out the house by the applicant, save and unless this is to attend to work which earns income to pay the applicant.
2. That the respondent may only make business phone calls and may never discuss the applicant with anyone or try to respond to the version given by the applicant, about the respondent, set out in the newspapers, radio, television, family functions and friends’ parties.
3. That the respondent shall pay maintenance to the applicant at the rate of 10% above his total income and shall ensure that the same is in the applicant’s bank account at 00h01 on the 1st day of each month.
4. That the respondent may not make friends with anyone on Facebook nor attempt to respond to the applicant’s on-going tirade against the respondent on the social network.
5. That the respondent may not tweet or respond to the applicant’s tweets on Twitter.
6. That the respondent may never again see or speak to the children unless the applicant, unlikely though this may be, decides that it is appropriate.
7. That on weekends the respondent be taken to a farm, force-fed Viagra, stripped naked and hooked up to a tractor facedown and used to plough the fields until such time as the final decree of divorce is obtained. While the tractor is being refuelled he, along with other similar respondents, should be unhooked and lined up to be used as a bicycle stand.
8. That the respondent be advised that should any party allege that the respondent is or appears to be happy, on a date which transpired after he was thrown out of the matrimonial home, the local veterinarian shall immediately attend to neuter him.
9. That should this uncalled for happiness somehow persist, the veterinarian shall immediately have the respondent put down.
10. That the applicant’s attorneys will simply send all their costs to the respondent who shall immediately attend to pay same.

Tags: , , , , ,

  • Who died and made you a marriage expert?
  • How to survive dinner party small talk
  • The traitorous Clive Derby-Lewis: Killing him softly
  • The death penalty is more anti-black than Malema realises