American reality TV is a race to the bottom like nothing we’ve seen in human history. Think about that, there is actually a period of time we refer to as the Dark Ages, and it was still more sensible than anything on Fox’s Reality Channel.
For the worst of the worst, look no further than 2005’s Who’s Your Daddy, a reality show where adults who were adopted as children were introduced to eight men. After 30 minutes of playful back and forth and a few Shamwow commercials, the adoptees got to guess which of the men was their biological father.
Guess right and they got $100k, guess wrong and the money went to the guy who was chosen incorrectly.
It was dark, depraved and...definitely different from what we’re going to cover in this article.
As long as we stick to the phony claims, we’re not sinking to the level of reality TV...right?
Strange things are afoot in the Canadian court system
On more than one occasion, we’ve established that Keanu Reeves is a blameless saint. He’s been plagued by frivolous personal injury lawsuits, but came out clean every time.
And yet, still they pursue our dear Keanu.
Karen Sala, for example, brought a paternity case against Mr. Reeves in Canada that was quickly settled with a DNA test.
But as we’ve learned, those who act as their own lawyer in family court rarely go quietly. Ms. Sala claimed:
- When she was four years old, she lived down the street from a “Marty Spencer,” Keanu’s alter ego...according to no one in history but her.
- Marty, er Keanu, perfectly disguised himself as Karen’s ex-husband to live with Karen for three years, and to witness the birth of “their” child.
- Keanu/Marty/Mr. Not-Sala employed expert hypnosis to cheat on the DNA paternity test in her case.
Ms. Sala asked for $150,000 per month in child support and $3 million in retroactive spousal support.
But either because Keanu hypnotized the judge or because a single episode of Schoolhouse Rock contains 100x more legal insight than her case, all Karen ended up with was a few headlines and a short and sweet repudiation from the judge:
“The applicant's evidence is so incredible that it is not capable of acceptance by any reasonable trier of fact.”
Three for three against paternity suits
Michael Jordan is worth $1.3 billion; he’s received more athletic accolades than any player in recent memory, and he was granted the enviable opportunity to compete in an intergalactic match alongside Bugs Bunny and Bill Murray.
But not even His Airness is exempt from the legal efforts of those who want a slice of his fortune.
Michael Jordan has blocked not one, not two, but three separate paternity suits.
In Round 1, a woman sued for breach of contract after Jordan promised her $5 million to keep their relationship and its offspring a secret, but he paid only $250k. The “hush money” contract she alleged was about as legally recognizable as a hypnosis scheme, and it was a slam dunk case.
Before it was over, Jordan took a DNA paternity test to prove that her son wasn’t his.
In Round 2, another woman claimed MJ was the father of her son and asked that he pay child support. Before tossing her case out because its assertions directly contradicted claims she made in a prior divorce case, the judge pointed out that she had hired a publicist before she hired a lawyer.
We’re still waiting to hear back on the translation of “publicity stunt” in Latin.
Saving the best for last, Laquetta Theus -- apparently a woman without much independent thought -- filed a copycat paternity case against Jordan just two weeks after the previous one was rejected.
Similar to case #2, Theus’s case was thrown out because she had already established paternity in a previous court hearing.
Except, in Theus’s case the father was confirmed via DNA test.
In a half court buzzer shot, Laquetta claimed that Jordan had used her ex-husband’s name as an alias...which somehow fooled the DNA testing?
Us vs. Them
See? Who’s Your Daddy turned a meaningful legal discourse with lifelong implications into a cash-prize competition driven by ad revenue.
All we did was apply our legal genius to debunk abuses of the family court system. As long as you aren’t trying to prove that you were hypnotized for 1,095 consecutive days -- we can apply our expertise to your case.