Based on the Carrolls' quarrel, Brooklyn finally got the whole thing going.

The core of the controversy in this case is actually ridiculous compared to its outward appearance.

Mr. Carroll was complained by his wife for a poor poker game, and the more his wife complained, the worse his poker skills became, and the worse his poker skills became, the more his wife complained.

In such a vicious circle, Mr. Carroll began to become inferior and gradually lost his right to speak in the family.

Finally, his wife's resentment with him accumulates to the peak and orders him to sign an agreement.

According to Mr. Carroll's arguments, he was forced to sign the agreement without even having time to read what was written on it.

After signing, Mr. Carroll was sent to the club in the video and began to undergo 'reform'.

Mr. Carroll describes in detail the transformation he underwent and sums it up in one sentence: to destroy the personality by means of insults and to turn people into obedient pets.

Mr. Carroll provided photographs of his body as evidence.

After his 'transformation' was over, he was sent home, where he was treated like a pet by his wife until the incident was discovered by his brother.

The second half of the story is seamlessly connected by Mrs. Carroll.

According to Mrs. Carroll, her husband's brother noticed her husband's unusual reaction and took him to a psychiatrist.

After six years of treatment, the husband recovered most of the time.

In order to treat her brother thoroughly, the brother found her, explained the situation, and begged her for help.

She agreed to come down because of fear, guilt, etc.

This is also the source of the video provided by Mr. Carroll.

After listening to the story, Brooklyn believes that the core of the case should be the so-called 'disclaimer' and Mr. Carroll's brother.

With Mr. Carroll's consent, Brooklyn presented the contents of the 'Disclaimer'.

Looking at the disgusting regulations on the screen, the auditorium was in an uproar.

DuangDuangDuang！

Brooklyn has made a decision to keep order by sounding the gavel.

"Case No. 017-EDNY09-086, Mr. Carroll sued his wife for divorce. The Tribunal rendered the following judgment: "

"The property in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Carroll belongs to the plaintiff, and the total value of the stock and other property in the name is $70,000, of which 70% is owned by the plaintiff and 30% is owned by the defendant."

"The custody of his sons, Orne Carroll and Kent Carroll, is vested in the plaintiff, and the defendant has visitation rights and is required to pay the plaintiff $500 per month in child support. The court and the child rights protection agency jointly supervise the enforcement of this judgment. ”

DuangDuang！

After the verdict was announced, Brooklyn tapped the gavel and signaled that he still had something to say.

"Article 5 of the Constitutional Amendment provides that no one shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law;"

"In this case, the so-called 'disclaimer' signed by the plaintiff under duress does not conform to the spirit of a fair and voluntary contract."

"Moreover, the content specified in the 'disclaimer' is extremely insulting to personality and is a manifestation of the annihilation of personality, and the means of its implementation are even more desecration of human nature, which has caused the fact of illegal detention."

"The so-called 'transformation' of the plaintiff's body directly infringed on the plaintiff's personal rights and caused irreversible damage to his body."

"Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Constitutional Amendment provides that slavery or forced labour shall not exist in the territory of the Union or in any place under the jurisdiction of the Federation, except for the punishment of convicted offenders.

No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall it be denied the same legal protection to any person under its jurisdiction. ”

"If the constitution cannot deprive people of their freedom and dignity, is a so-called 'disclaimer' sufficient?"

Brooklyn's voice echoed through the courtroom, and it was particularly solemn.

"This court wishes to use this case to remind every citizen that under no circumstances does anyone have the right to infringe on the personal rights of others."

"Personal rights are absolute, and cannot be bound by a 'disclaimer'. When anyone is violated, they can claim and file a lawsuit against any third party to protect their personal rights! ”

"The original intention of the emergence of the judicial system and the establishment of courts and tribunals is to allow citizens to legally protect their own rights and interests, rather than defending their rights by infringing on the rights and interests of others when their own rights and interests are infringed." [Note 1]

"The court also used this case to remind citizens that a wedding should be the starting point of happiness, that marriage should be desirable, and that it should not become the end of life and the grave of all positive emotions."

……

……

The divorce case is over, and Brooklyn finally fails to get Orn's wish, and he doesn't even get to see the Orn brothers because he's too busy.

In the middle of the trial of the divorce case of the Carrolls, Michael rushed to hear the news, and as soon as Brooklyn announced the end, he was immediately pulled away by Michael.

"What do you think?"

Michael asked as he dragged him back to the inner court.

Brooklyn didn't squeak.

Michael pulled him all the way back to his room, poured him a glass of water, and looked him up and down.

"Tsk~ Your small body, I'm afraid I can't afford it now."

Brooklyn didn't quite understand what Michael was saying, but he was keenly aware that the way Michael looked at him changed after saying it.

He still didn't speak, just let his emotions show on his face.

Michael looked at him blankly and shook his head, "What are you going to do?" ”

He turned around and sat down on the couch and raised his head slightly, "There has never been a case like this before. ”

"The federal law is case law, not statutory law," Brooklyn said, with a 'so you say this again' expression, "The Constitution gives me the power to decide cases." ”

"There was no precedent before, but now there is."

Statutory law is a normative legal document in the form of provisions. Statutory law national decisions are based on legal provisions. Case law refers to the fact that decisions can be made on the basis of precedent.

In previous divorce cases in the Federation, the division of property and other matters would be decided based on the morality of both spouses and comprehensive considerations.

Today's Brooklyn decision on the divorce case of the Carrolls couple is different.

In the Brooklyn judgment, the division of property between the spouses was determined by the number and order of the number of times the parties violated the law.

In other words, the Brooklyn ruling divides property according to the universal sense of "right" and "wrong."

In the divorce case of the Carroll couple, according to the logic of Brooklyn's ruling, it should be like this:

Mr. Carroll did not play cards well, Mrs. Carroll was dissatisfied, deceived Mr. Carroll, causing Mr. Carroll to suffer insults, lose his personality, and become a plaything, and then his brother rescued Mr. Carroll, and in retaliation, filmed a video of Mrs. Carroll playing cards.

If Mrs. Carroll could have been more tolerant and helped Mr. Carroll improve his playing skills through psychological counseling or doctor's visits, instead of humiliation, nothing would have happened, and the Carroll family would still be a family that loves each other.

Brooklyn's ruling found Mrs. Carroll primarily responsible for the divorce.

In addition, although the constitution stipulates that citizens' property and freedom are inviolable, and that barabalas shall not be enslaved, there is no specific provision in the constitution, and there is no specific provision in the constitution, and there is no circumstance that constitutes an infringement of property and freedom.

In the divorce case of the Carrolls, Brooklyn defined the violation of personal rights.

The definition of personal rights or violations of personal rights is not unique to Brooklyn, and has been the case in countless cases before, and Brooklyn's ruling thinking is really small and not worth mentioning.

From the perspective of universal values, a matter must be traced back to the source, who is right and who is wrong, but the courts cannot do that. [Note 2]