Ladies! If you got a Diamond engagement ring.....AND.....

[busybody..]

It turned out to be Cubic Zarconian......

Would it matter to you??


'Rhyming' Judge Out of Synch With Peers
Wed Nov 27, 9:27 PM ET Add Strange News - AP to My Yahoo!


By DAN NEPHIN, Associated Press Writer

PITTSBURGH (AP) - A state Supreme Court justice given to writing opinions in rhyme was criticized by two fellow justices who said his style reflected poorly on the court.



Seven stanzas from Justice J. Michael Eakin, and complaints about them from Chief Justice Stephen A. Zappala and Justice Ralph Cappy, appeared in a decision Wednesday involving a dispute over a prenuptial agreement.


Susan Porreco's lawsuit claims the prenuptial agreement she signed with Louis Porreco should have been voided because he allegedly misrepresented the engagement ring as a diamond.


In his opinion, Eakin wrote rhymes including:


"A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium


when his spouse finds he's given her a cubic zirconium


instead of a diamond in her engagement band,


the one he said was worth twenty-one grand."


"The filing of an opinion that expresses itself in rhyme reflects poorly on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania," Zappala wrote. "No matter addressed by this court is frivolous."


Cappy wrote that judges have the right to express themselves, but expressed concern about "the perception that litigants and the public at large might form when an opinion of this Court is reduced to rhyme."


Eakin, through his secretary, said Wednesday that it would be inappropriate to comment on what Zappala and Cappy wrote.

In Wednesday's decision, the Supreme Court overruled a trial court that had agreed with Susan Porreco that the prenuptial agreement was fraudulent. The high court sent the case back to the lower court, saying Susan Porreco could have had the ring appraised before signing the agreement.

Eakin was among the judges dissenting in the 4-2 decision.

Eakin, 54, had become known for writing some opinions in rhyme as a Superior Court judge before he was elected to a 10-year term on the Supreme Court in November 2001.

___

 

[kotori]

here are the grounds for appeal

Cappy wrote that judges have the right to express themselves, but expressed concern about "the perception that litigants and the public at large might form when an opinion of this Court is reduced to rhyme."

My italics.

I would argue that they were "elevated" to rhyme.

 

[roxanne69]

Absolutely not. And I would probably never find out because I don't care about things like that If it was given sincerely and with love I don't care if it's made out of tin

 

[busybody..]

Roxy

Good for you.......

A wonderful women is GREAT to find......

Your BF is a lucky guy

 

[sheath]

I would PREFER a CZ with a really nice band.

I mean, jeez, I LOSE things, you know?

And we could use that couple thousand as a down payment on a home to start our family in...

S.

 

[Pamela]

The only part that would bother me is if he tried to hide it.

My first engagement ring wasn't a diamond. It was my favorite stone instead...aquamarine.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I would be delighted beyond measure. I, uh, lost mine.

 

[Kitte]

if he lied I would be angry he lied...if he said hon, I dont want to blow a ton of cash on a ring when we could use the money for a home and a life together. I would say, ok there is a gumball machine over there lets get one there.

If he loved me, and wanted to be with me I would not care if it was the proverbial cigar band if it was given with love. It is nothing but a peice of jewlery it truely is the thought that counts.

 

[Temptress_1960]

I wouldn't want to be mislead. I would be fine with CZ if I knew that's what it was.

I do like colored stones, tho, like sapphires and emeralds and rubies and peridots and citrines *G*

 

[Harbinger]

You should never, ever lie about jewelry, or misrepresent by omission. That is just plain evil. I vote the death penalty on this one.

 

[Ham Murabi]

Ladies! If you got a Diamond engagement ring.....AND.....

It turned out to be Cubic Zarconian......

Would it matter to you??

It's all a matter of perspective. For example, you could be promised undying love, but when it's over all you've got is genital herpes.
Under those circumstances, I'm thinking most women would settle from a ring out of a Crackerjack box.

 

[Sensua]

The real problem here WAS the misrepresentation. What else might he have misrepresented?

Would it have changed her answer? If yes, then he didn't really need her anyway. If no, they why wasn't he upfront.

I did NOT receive an engagement ring...and still I said yes. 25 years later, I am exceedingly happy with my choice.

But had he presented me a ring, and lead me to believe it was something that it was not...I'd be mad as hell!

 

[SkyBluAngelEyes]

That is a great question.

Would I be mad? Only at the deceit.

Diamonds are not my favorite stone, they don't appreciate in value, and they are too expensive and overrated.

My wedding ring from the ex is a 3/4 carat with several baguettes that line the wedding band.

It now resides in a box and has sat there for years because:
A) It's too heavy to wear.
B) As a nursery nurse, I am not going to risk clawing a baby with it.
C) While its a gorgeous ring, and I love it, I wore a $20 band he bought for me at Wal-Mart. It made more sense than losing the $3600 thing.


I think some of the CZ stuff they have out there is gorgeous too. I'd be more apt to wear it just because if it were lost or stolen, it would be easier to accept.

 

[PacificBlue]

hmm...

I could care less about the cost of the ring. It would be the lie that would stop me from marrying him.

 

[Guest]

The deception would truly concern me.

If he isn't being truthful about just a piece of jewelry, what else is he hiding?

 

[Minkey Boodle]

I'd rather have a nice hunk of granite, anyway.