:46:03
- No.
- I didn't think so.
:46:05
Well, due to habeas corpus...
:46:09
you and Miss Bonifante
had a common law marriage...
:46:12
which heretofore
entitles her...
:46:15
to what is
legally referred to...
:46:17
as equitable division
of the assets.
:46:20
Come again?
:46:22
Due to the fact that you've
retained this residence...
:46:26
Miss Bonifante is entitled...
:46:28
to full canine
property ownership...
:46:30
and will be enforcing
said ownership right now.
:46:36
Tell him, Paulette.
:46:44
I'm taking the dog, dumbass!
:46:49
That's awesome! We did it!
:46:55
Come here.
:46:57
Oh, my gosh, did you see him?
:46:58
He's probably still
scratching his head.
:47:00
Which must be a nice vacation
for his balls.
:47:13
Thank you.
:47:20
According to
Swinney vs. Neubert...
:47:22
Swinney, who was also
a private sperm donor...
:47:25
was allowed visitation rights
as long as he came to terms...
:47:28
with the hours
set forth by the parents.
:47:29
So, if we're sticking
to past precedent...
:47:32
Mr. Latimer wasn't stalking.
:47:35
He was clearly within his rights
to ask for visitation.
:47:38
But Swinney was
a one-time sperm donor...
:47:41
and our defendant
was an habitual sperm donor...
:47:45
who also happens to be
harassing the parents...
:47:48
in his quest for visitation.
:47:49
But without this man's sperm...
:47:52
the child in question
wouldn't exist.
:47:55
Now you're
thinking like a lawyer.