If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Bizarre legal case involving a mysterious billionaire could force 1 million Quebecois to be married, against their will. Quebecois?   (slate.com) divider line 256
    More: Amusing, Quebecois, legal cases, Canadians, appellate courts, French language, Supreme Court of Canada, social order  
•       •       •

18408 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 May 2012 at 12:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



256 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-24 11:25:29 PM
oooooo....

Quebec really is a wierd little island unto itself, isn't it?
 
2012-05-24 11:29:06 PM
sacre bleu
 
2012-05-25 12:00:53 AM
That is odd. I also like how the chick can't figure out how to make it on the over $400k a year that she is already getting. Sounds like she is arguing to maintain the life to which she had become a costumed. Maybe she should have thought of that before breaking up.
 
2012-05-25 12:05:01 AM
kebeckers?
 
2012-05-25 12:29:48 AM
Meh oui.
 
2012-05-25 12:34:10 AM
FTA: The institution has become wildly popular in Quebec, for gays and straights. An astonishing 34.6 percent of all Quebec couples are de facto couples, and one half of couples under 40 are not married. A full 60 percent of Quebec children are born out of wedlock.

What? You're telling me that "traditional" societal roles have been uprooted and Quebec hasn't been burned to a crisp by sky fairies yet, and no one's raping and pillaging and murdering in the streets?

Huh. I thought all that was supposed to happen if you upset the rigid "traditional" roles that American conservatives always drone on and on about.
 
2012-05-25 12:35:25 AM

MeinRS6: That is odd. I also like how the chick can't figure out how to make it on the over $400k a year that she is already getting. Sounds like she is arguing to maintain the life to which she had become a costumed. Maybe she should have thought of that before breaking up.


Yeah, it probably costs a lot to look like a pirate all the time.
 
2012-05-25 12:36:06 AM
I bet they all have to surrender to the terms of the lawsuit
 
2012-05-25 12:37:29 AM

tjassen: Yeah, it probably costs a lot to look like a pirate all the time.


The puffy shirts alone can run into 6 figures annually!
 
2012-05-25 12:37:58 AM

MeinRS6: Sounds like she is arguing to maintain the life to which she had become a costumed.


images.buyclowncostumes.com

Sometimes it's just better to let the costume go
 
2012-05-25 12:39:54 AM
FTFA: When the separation occurred, Lola didn't take it lying down. She decided to challenge Quebec's law and ask for everything a married woman would have been entitled to. Her lawyers claimed that the provincial law discriminates against unmarried couples. The first provincial court to hear the case saw it otherwise. In 2009, The Supreme Court of Quebec rejected Lola's claim for $56,000 (Canadian) per month for herself and $50 million as a lump sum. Eric was already giving her $411,000 per year as child-support payments for their three kids.


Farking biatch!!! He's giving you $400,000 per year!! That's into CEO/high executive income. The POTUS gets paid around that much per year.
And she wants to wreck the whole concept of de facto spouses just because she wants to get paid....

I hope she gets sent packing. Stupid whore.
 
2012-05-25 12:40:41 AM
...Is Quebecois not a common term?

/Ontarian
//Always fun to watch the House of Commons verbally knock their Blocs off in Question Period
 
2012-05-25 12:43:10 AM
>
 
2012-05-25 12:44:16 AM

tjassen: MeinRS6: That is odd. I also like how the chick can't figure out how to make it on the over $400k a year that she is already getting. Sounds like she is arguing to maintain the life to which she had become a costumed. Maybe she should have thought of that before breaking up.

Yeah, it probably costs a lot to look like a pirate all the time.


My costumes cost a small fortune.The feathers alone, mon Dieu!
 
2012-05-25 12:44:19 AM
I think it's pretty classy that the dude is paying half a million per year for child support on his own.


//English Canadians say "Quebeckers".
////Quebecois makes more sense, and doesn't sound like an insult.
 
2012-05-25 12:44:48 AM
Pourquoi non, hein?

/Fark no like mes brackets double!
 
2012-05-25 12:44:57 AM
i130.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-25 12:46:04 AM
Québéc-quoi?
 
2012-05-25 12:48:14 AM
This is why we can't have nice things.

Greedy biatch sounds she fits in well in Quebec. I bet she's got a lot in common with the entitled students rioting in the streets.
 
2012-05-25 12:48:40 AM
So Quebec develops a system that bypasses archaic and discriminatory alimony and asset-division laws, which the vast majority of the citizens are happy with, and now because of one greedy gold digger the whole thing might come crashing down?
 
2012-05-25 12:48:43 AM
When the separation occurred, Lola didn't take it lying down. She decided to challenge Quebec's law and ask for everything a married woman would have been entitled to. Her lawyers claimed that the provincial law discriminates against unmarried couples. The first provincial court to hear the case saw it otherwise. In 2009, The Supreme Court of Quebec rejected Lola's claim for $56,000 (Canadian) per month for herself and $50 million as a lump sum. Eric was already giving her $411,000 per year as child-support payments for their three kids.


....aaaand there went any sympathy I might have had for her.
 
2012-05-25 12:52:57 AM

ds_4815: ...Is Quebecois not a common term?

/Ontarian
//Always fun to watch the House of Commons verbally knock their Blocs off in Question Period


.... Ontarionian? ;)
 
2012-05-25 12:53:46 AM
"Lola, a Latin American woman, met Eric, a world-famous billionaire, when she was only 17 and he was 32. Although she wanted to get married throughout their relationship, Eric, who claims like many Quebecois that he "doesn't believe in marriage," refused....She decided to challenge Quebec's law and ask for everything a married woman would have been entitled to."

You know what? Fark him.
 
2012-05-25 12:54:19 AM
No chance in hell this is going to fly. Too huge a voting Bloc over there.
 
2012-05-25 01:00:53 AM
Some additional info:
"Lola" originally based her claim on the fact that in her home country she would have been entitled to half of Eric's fortune, even though he is a self-made billionaire and she took no part in creating his fortune.

Very few people are siding with Lola.

MeinRS6: Sounds like she is arguing to maintain the life to which she had become a costumed.

an excellent hint as to Eric and Lola's real identities...
 
2012-05-25 01:01:17 AM

ginandbacon: "Lola, a Latin American woman, met Eric, a world-famous billionaire, when she was only 17 and he was 32. Although she wanted to get married throughout their relationship, Eric, who claims like many Quebecois that he "doesn't believe in marriage," refused....She decided to challenge Quebec's law and ask for everything a married woman would have been entitled to."

You know what? Fark him.


He made it clear to her he didn't want to get married, and didn't believe in marriage, and she decided to stick around. Maybe she thought she could change his mind, or maybe she just enjoyed the lifestyle, but FTA it seems that he was upfront about his intentions. Now she's trying to do an end run around the system and get half of his stuff even though they never entered into any legal contract where that would have been promised. Fark her.
 
2012-05-25 01:03:22 AM
I preferred Oui magazine before the internet.
 
2012-05-25 01:03:50 AM
Child support payments don't last much after the children becomes adults. The father can then pay support payment to the children directly. She wanted to be set for life.

It's probably easy for her to get lawyers defend her cause with that kind of money involved.
 
2012-05-25 01:06:14 AM
She got involved with a billionaire at age 17. It's a safe bet she has no schooling, no job training, and no ambitions in life apart from Rich Man's Trophy Wife.

fark the freeloading parasite.
 
2012-05-25 01:06:42 AM

TuteTibiImperes: ginandbacon: "Lola, a Latin American woman, met Eric, a world-famous billionaire, when she was only 17 and he was 32. Although she wanted to get married throughout their relationship, Eric, who claims like many Quebecois that he "doesn't believe in marriage," refused....She decided to challenge Quebec's law and ask for everything a married woman would have been entitled to."

You know what? Fark him.

He made it clear to her he didn't want to get married, and didn't believe in marriage, and she decided to stick around. Maybe she thought she could change his mind, or maybe she just enjoyed the lifestyle, but FTA it seems that he was upfront about his intentions. Now she's trying to do an end run around the system and get half of his stuff even though they never entered into any legal contract where that would have been promised. Fark her.


In most countries he could be charged with rape. He picked up a minor, got three kids off of her, and the tried to screw her over because there was nothing on paper. So yeah, fark him.
 
2012-05-25 01:08:24 AM

Bondith: She got involved with a billionaire at age 17. It's a safe bet she has no schooling, no job training, and no ambitions in life apart from Rich Man's Trophy Wife.

fark the freeloading parasite.


Way to side with a predator.
 
2012-05-25 01:13:53 AM

ginandbacon: TuteTibiImperes: ginandbacon: "Lola, a Latin American woman, met Eric, a world-famous billionaire, when she was only 17 and he was 32. Although she wanted to get married throughout their relationship, Eric, who claims like many Quebecois that he "doesn't believe in marriage," refused....She decided to challenge Quebec's law and ask for everything a married woman would have been entitled to."

You know what? Fark him.

He made it clear to her he didn't want to get married, and didn't believe in marriage, and she decided to stick around. Maybe she thought she could change his mind, or maybe she just enjoyed the lifestyle, but FTA it seems that he was upfront about his intentions. Now she's trying to do an end run around the system and get half of his stuff even though they never entered into any legal contract where that would have been promised. Fark her.

In most countries he could be charged with rape. He picked up a minor, got three kids off of her, and the tried to screw her over because there was nothing on paper. So yeah, fark him.


We don't know how old the children are. They may have had them after his intentions as to marriage were already something she was made well aware of at which point it becomes more likely she had the kids to force him into marriage. And remember, he's under no legal obligation to pay the nearly half mil a year he's already paying. She's willing to upend an entire province's cultural identity just to get what she perceives to be hers and you can't tell me she didn't know he was disgustingly rich when she popped out the first kid. She cannot adjust to life on the amount of money that most people would see as an amount they will never see in their entire lives.

She's a golddigger.
 
2012-05-25 01:16:19 AM
I keep unsuccessfully trying to link to this article with more detail, but the formatting is glitchy. I'm sure you can copy /paste and erase random spaces if you are interested in the identity of Eric and Lola. I'm Canadian, so here is the obligatory apology: Sorry for the crappy link.

http://detroitstreetpress.com/2012/01 /18/preserving-the-sanctity-of-m a rriage/
 
2012-05-25 01:20:32 AM
Is that anything like a Glaswegian?
 
2012-05-25 01:21:26 AM

Shadowtag: ginandbacon: TuteTibiImperes: ginandbacon: "Lola, a Latin American woman, met Eric, a world-famous billionaire, when she was only 17 and he was 32. Although she wanted to get married throughout their relationship, Eric, who claims like many Quebecois that he "doesn't believe in marriage," refused....She decided to challenge Quebec's law and ask for everything a married woman would have been entitled to."

You know what? Fark him.

He made it clear to her he didn't want to get married, and didn't believe in marriage, and she decided to stick around. Maybe she thought she could change his mind, or maybe she just enjoyed the lifestyle, but FTA it seems that he was upfront about his intentions. Now she's trying to do an end run around the system and get half of his stuff even though they never entered into any legal contract where that would have been promised. Fark her.

In most countries he could be charged with rape. He picked up a minor, got three kids off of her, and the tried to screw her over because there was nothing on paper. So yeah, fark him.

We don't know how old the children are. They may have had them after his intentions as to marriage were already something she was made well aware of at which point it becomes more likely she had the kids to force him into marriage. And remember, he's under no legal obligation to pay the nearly half mil a year he's already paying. She's willing to upend an entire province's cultural identity just to get what she perceives to be hers and you can't tell me she didn't know he was disgustingly rich when she popped out the first kid. She cannot adjust to life on the amount of money that most people would see as an amount they will never see in their entire lives.

She's a golddigger.


Yup, She's just awful isn't she? She was 17. He was 32. Think about that for a second.
 
2012-05-25 01:22:37 AM

ginandbacon: TuteTibiImperes: ginandbacon: "Lola, a Latin American woman, met Eric, a world-famous billionaire, when she was only 17 and he was 32. Although she wanted to get married throughout their relationship, Eric, who claims like many Quebecois that he "doesn't believe in marriage," refused....She decided to challenge Quebec's law and ask for everything a married woman would have been entitled to."

You know what? Fark him.

He made it clear to her he didn't want to get married, and didn't believe in marriage, and she decided to stick around. Maybe she thought she could change his mind, or maybe she just enjoyed the lifestyle, but FTA it seems that he was upfront about his intentions. Now she's trying to do an end run around the system and get half of his stuff even though they never entered into any legal contract where that would have been promised. Fark her.

In most countries he could be charged with rape. He picked up a minor, got three kids off of her, and the tried to screw her over because there was nothing on paper. So yeah, fark him.


The age of consent is 16 in Canada (and globally 16 seems to be about the average) so unless he was in a position of authority over her, no, he couldn't be charged with rape.

It's not trying to screw someone out of something if they have no claim to it in the first place. Personally, I don't believe that even the dissolution of a marriage should result in an equal division of assets - you should be entitled to what you came in with, nothing more, nothing less. In this case, there was no marriage, and the legal standard of 'de facto spouses' in Quebec, which the majority of the Quebecois seem to support, is that when you split the lesser earner in the partnership is not entitled to alimony or any assets. There was nothing stopping 'Lola' from leaving this relationship years ago and finding someone who did want to get married if she wasn't happy with the legal definition of her status with 'Eric'.
 
2012-05-25 01:24:14 AM
What's the big deal? I always thought that common-law couples could end up in spousal support situations already, especially if there were kids involved. How's this any different?
 
2012-05-25 01:25:10 AM
Nice pedobear apologists up in here.
 
2012-05-25 01:25:33 AM

ginandbacon: TuteTibiImperes: ginandbacon: "Lola, a Latin American woman, met Eric, a world-famous billionaire, when she was only 17 and he was 32. Although she wanted to get married throughout their relationship, Eric, who claims like many Quebecois that he "doesn't believe in marriage," refused....She decided to challenge Quebec's law and ask for everything a married woman would have been entitled to."

You know what? Fark him.

He made it clear to her he didn't want to get married, and didn't believe in marriage, and she decided to stick around. Maybe she thought she could change his mind, or maybe she just enjoyed the lifestyle, but FTA it seems that he was upfront about his intentions. Now she's trying to do an end run around the system and get half of his stuff even though they never entered into any legal contract where that would have been promised. Fark her.

In most countries he could be charged with rape. He picked up a minor, got three kids off of her, and the tried to screw her over because there was nothing on paper. So yeah, fark him.


I would agree. . .except he's agreeing to pay her $400K in child support. If she can't put that to good use to both support her kids and invest for her future, then it's her fault as an adult and not his.

Also, 17 may be a minor in the US, but he couldn't be charged with rape in "most countries" since the age of consent isn't 18 across the board. In fact, it's probably more like a handful of countries where that would be considered rape, and even in the U.S. it would vary depending on the state.
 
2012-05-25 01:27:29 AM
As of 2009, the two shared custody of their children but she received $35,000 a month in child support and $2.4 million for a new home with $500,000 to furnish it. The issue is that she wants an additional $56,000 a month in alimony and a multi-million dollar lump sum.

Yeah, she's reallllllllllllllllllllllllllly hurting without the extra cash.
 
2012-05-25 01:28:07 AM
ginandbacon:
Yup, She's just awful isn't she? She was 17. He was 32. Think about that for a second.

Maybe she had a thing for older men, maybe they really had a connection, or maybe she saw him and thought 'wow, getting with this guy could make me really rich without having to do any work myself'.

Whatever the case, he told her he didn't believe in marriage and she stuck around for ten years on her own accord. He made the decision not to get married because he didn't want to get stuck in a situation where she would have a claim to his assets. He shouldn't now be punished for being able to think ahead.
 
2012-05-25 01:28:08 AM

ginandbacon: Yup, She's just awful isn't she? She was 17. He was 32. Think about that for a second.


Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and and they all stink.

For everything else we have laws.
 
2012-05-25 01:28:41 AM
Canada has billionaires?
 
2012-05-25 01:29:01 AM

turbidum: $400K in child support.


For three children and he's a multi-billionaire. That's complete BS. I'm sorry, but he's not the victim here.
 
2012-05-25 01:30:20 AM

zzrhardy: ginandbacon: Yup, She's just awful isn't she? She was 17. He was 32. Think about that for a second.

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and and they all stink.

For everything else we have laws.


And the law says he was an asshole and should pay up.
 
2012-05-25 01:30:52 AM
The age of consent in canada is 16.

Link

Also, looking at the ages of consent in South America, it varies, but the majority of countries down there have an even lower age of consent (14 seems to be the most popular), so I highly doubt she would play that card.

Link

Plus, the guy is giving her $400,000+/year. The women in her village back home will never need to buy another Sharpie EVER. Definately a gold digger.
 
2012-05-25 01:31:08 AM

MeinRS6: That is odd. I also like how the chick can't figure out how to make it on the over $400k a year that she is already getting. Sounds like she is arguing to maintain the life to which she had become a costumed. Maybe she should have thought of that before breaking up.


Two things....

1. That money is for the kids. And cannot be spent on things only for herself (And will end when they kids turn 18).
2. That is in Canadian dollars. So that's like $3.50 US.

/I am assuming child support in Canada is similar to US child support
//IANAL so I don't know
 
2012-05-25 01:33:43 AM
Poor Guy.

/subtle?
 
2012-05-25 01:33:50 AM

ginandbacon: Nice pedobear apologists up in here.


A pedophile is someone who is sexually interested in children who have yet to start puberty. Unless there was something really wrong with her medically or she was an Olympic class gymnist, at 17 she was half a decade past starting puberty.

Words have meanings and something they simply don't fit in with your agenda.

Also as other have pointed out, in much of the world seventeen year olds are legally allowed to have sex. But apparently you feel the laws of your state should be imposed on the entire planet.
 
2012-05-25 01:34:25 AM

ginandbacon: zzrhardy: ginandbacon: Yup, She's just awful isn't she? She was 17. He was 32. Think about that for a second.

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and and they all stink.

For everything else we have laws.

And the law says he was an asshole and should pay up.


Actually, the law doesn't say that. It says the opposite, and that's what this article is about.
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report