Legally Correct Fairy Tales Page 4

  I began to suspect that there was something physically wrong with him when he developed a rare dermatological problem that caused excess swelling to his nose and subjected him to ridicule from his friends. He told me he believed his nose grew when he told a lie, but I suspected he was lying about that. The truth, I believe, was that the swelling was caused by a deer tick bite.

  Finally, one day we argued and he left my home. There was nothing I could do to stop him, as I had no legal hold on him. Weeks later I was able to find him and bring him home with me, where he presently resides.

  It is my hope that the Court will understand that for the welfare of this child it is best he be left in my keeping, and that I be awarded custody until the time of his eighteenth birthday.

  DR. ROOT, COURT-APPOINTED PSYCHOLOGIST, testified in court as follows: This is an extremely complex and unusually sad situation. On three separate occasions I have interviewed the minor herein described. On each occasion I conducted lengthy interviews. Although said subject is anxious to please and willing to respond, it is obvious he has deep-seeded psychological problems. He shows symptoms of severe disassociation, an extreme lack of ego causing him to overcompensate, leading to disillusions of grandeur and a total inability to distinguish reality from fantasy. While outwardly showing initial signs of a manic-depressive disorder, inwardly he may or may not be suffering from the initial stages of schizophrenia.

  There is also a suggestion of the presence of mind-altering drug use.

  According to the subject, he has no memories of his early childhood. His memory begins at age seven, when he recalls awakening to find an older man hovering above him, holding a large carving knife. The man and the boy lived alone. The man attempted to gain the boy’s confidence by bestowing upon him material possessions, but in fact the subject was under his complete domination. This man controlled the purse strings, and the subject was unable to move without his permission.

  Undoubtedly because of this extreme control, this manic-possessive behavior, the subject created a rich fantasy life in which he had complete freedom. These fantasies, which he recalls vividly, include one in which he was turned into a donkey. It is important to note that Freud equated the presence of a donkey in a dream with the more common term, ass, which also refers to the posterior portion of the human body. Such sexual references cannot possibly be overlooked in the correct diagnosis of this patient.

  Subsequently the subject dreamed that the older man was swallowed by a whale. A whale’s mouth is a large, dark opening, which Freud often compared to a tunnel, another obvious sexual metaphor. The subject claims he saved the life of the older man by causing the whale to sneeze, expelling the older man and the subject onto the shore, representing safety. By making himself the lifesaving hero of this dream, the subject is satisfying the needs of a damaged superego.

  While the fundamental meaning of such fantasies can easily be explained, it is far more difficult to determine their genesis. Rarely have I interviewed anyone with such deeply repressed memories of their early childhood. A clue to that might be the claim made by the subject that his nose started growing when he told a lie. The belief in growing body parts is a common phenomenon, but it is most often associated with the stomach or feet. The Michigan Board Tests (1983–86) seem to support a conclusion that an individual’s claim that his or her nose is growing may suggest the presence of hallucinogenic drugs. A search of the guardian’s household uncovered significant amounts of glue, which the guardian claimed was a work-related tool. The effects of glue sniffing on young people is quite well documented: among primary symptoms are the perception that the nose or, in extreme cases, the entire head is becoming enlarged, as well as the creation of vivid fantasies often involving so-called fairy godpeople. So while it cannot physically be proved that the subject did participate in glue-sniffing activities, certainly there is every reason to suspect that this is the source of his erratic behavior.

  Under any circumstances this is not a healthy environment for a growing child. The lack of any female presence and the easy availability of mind-altering substances are both clear danger signals. It is my belief that the child should be removed from this environment as soon as possible.

  However, returning him to his natural parent after all these years is not a suitable alternative. The forest is no place for a boy lacking the most elemental survival skills. While an ongoing relationship with this branch of his family would be beneficial, putting down roots in the forest would deprive the subject of all the positive benefits of civilization.

  CONCLUSION: Nothing could be more difficult for a judge than awarding custody of a child to one parent while depriving other parents of those rights. Yet such decisions must be made. In these cases there is little precedent upon which a judge might rely, as every case is the first and only case of its particular nature. Do we award custody of the child to the natural parent who gave it life or the adoptive parent who gave it love? Or do we simply hire a rail splitter and chop the child in half?

  This case is complicated by the existing psychological problems of this child. It is clear that while the woodcarver Gepetto loves the child, he is simply incapable of creating the healthy environment necessary for a successful upbringing. Conversely, while the rights of the natural parent are clear, moss is simply not a nutrient for a growing child.

  Additionally, the probability that this child has used and may continue to use drugs renders all claims moot. The drug problem must be resolved before any final determination can be made. Therefore, I hereby remand this child to the custody of the Betty Ford Clinic for a complete drug analysis and an initial detoxification program. When he has recovered sufficiently to fully comprehend the matters at issue here, as well as distinguish the difference between reality and fantasy, we will revisit this case.

  KINGDOM V. PRINCE CHARMING

  Summation of Mr. Clarion

  (Prosecution for Kingdom)

  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You have before you what I believe to be a simple but vitally important task. It is your job—nay, your privilege—to be in a position to protect the virtue of every woman in this kingdom. For these past few weeks you have sat here listening to the disgraceful tale of how one man, a pillar of this kingdom, knowingly and persistently took advantage of the fair damsels of this community. You have heard witnesses describe how he made promises to them, how he gave them hope for a better life and then, after he had had his way with them, betrayed them. You have heard witness after witness describe how he gained their confidence, then dismissed them forever after. And you have seen the evidence, the so-called glass slipper. The slipper that could not possibly have ever been worn.

  Ladies and gentlemen, in a few minutes you will retire to the jury room and determine the fate and reputation not only of the accused, but of the entire kingdom. It is an awesome burden. But let that verdict be a clear message to all who come here: Our damsels are not for trifling. This is a place of chivalry. So I beseech you, ladies and gentlemen, beseech you, to reach the only possible verdict in this case: You must find that this prince is not so charming! And that he is guilty as charged of sexual abuse!

  Let us take a few moments to review what you have heard and seen in this courtroom. The basic facts of this sordid case are not in dispute. Let’s begin by examining the testimony of the Defendant, the Prince, himself. He admits that this all began the night he attended the annual 1,500-crown-a-plate ball at the Royal Palace. As befitting a prince, he danced with many different women. But then, he claimed, toward the end of the evening a mysterious stranger arrived, a beautiful woman no one in the kingdom had ever seen before. He danced with her for approximately one hour. Close dancing, slow dancing. And yet, according to the Prince’s own testimony, he never learned her name. Think of that. They were dancing closer to one another than I am to you, but not once the entire time did he think to ask her what her name was? Does that sound reasonable to you? A charming prince, a beautiful woman, and he failed to
ask something as basic as “By the way, what’s your name?” How convenient for him, as things turned out. What did they speak about during that time period? The weather in the kingdom? Archery? Perhaps he told her the latest Goth joke. Maybe she shared her favorite witch’s brew formula. But he claims he didn’t even ask her her name. If you believe that, I’ve got a little gingerbread house to sell you.

  Next, according to the Prince, as the clock began striking midnight, this unidentified woman ran out of the ballroom without even giving the Prince her address. Hard to believe? Well, how about this. The only thing she left behind was a single glass slipper—in fact, this very glass slipper, People’s Exhibit 43–1. Finally, according to the Prince, he combed the kingdom far and wide in search of this mystery woman, promising to marry the damsel whose foot fit into that shoe.

  Ladies and gentlemen, please. Does this make any sense at all? It is so clearly a subterfuge, an alibi, a fraud, to cover one of the greatest con jobs in the history of this kingdom. What it really is, and what the evidence bespeaks, is that this entire story was created for the Prince to satisfy his abhorrent sexual desire… his foot fetish.

  I will prove that to you. Let’s examine the evidence. First, let us look once again at this highly unusual item, the so-called glass slipper. Think of it, ladies and gentlemen. Of all the different materials in the world from which shoes or boots or slippers might be made, of all the various types of leather and skins and wood and even chain mail, certainly the last material anyone would choose is glass. Yet the defense would have you believe that this mystery woman was wearing glass slippers. You’ll notice that glass cannot be bent, it has no flexibility at all. But you are supposed to accept the fact that this mystery woman danced for more than an hour in this glass shoe. How? How could she even move in glass slippers? The answer, of course, is that she couldn’t, and that she doesn’t even exist.

  But let us go further. I haven’t even mentioned the inherent danger in wearing glass shoes. One slip in this slipper… Well, I’m sure you can visualize the bloody results yourself.

  Finally, you heard the expert testimony of the kingdom cobbler Thomas McAn, who said… Let me quote him precisely:

  QUESTION: Mr. McAn, have you ever in your more than fifty years in the business heard of shoes being made of glass?

  ANSWER: I never heard of any such thing. I mean, I think it would be very difficult to do. Soon as you tried to nail on the soles… that’s it, no more shoe.

  And, in fact, the defense has been unable to produce another pair of glass slippers made anywhere at any time, and they failed to do so because it could not be done.

  Next, let us more carefully examine the Prince’s claim that this mystery woman fled the ball at midnight in an ornate carriage driven by a coachman and pulled by six white horses. I ask you, gentlefolk of the jury, where is this carriage? What happened to it? The Horse-Drawn Vehicle Bureau has absolutely no record of any such carriage being registered in the kingdom. And where are those six white horses? And this coachman? Who is he? Why hasn’t he appeared in this courtroom to support this story? Because he doesn’t exist, that’s why. No, like everything else in this fairy tale, the carriage, the coachman, and the six horses are part of an elaborate ruse by the accused to divert the attention of this Court from the facts of this case.

  Finally, let us look at the so-called search organized by the accused. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we are here in this room. The search for the nonexistent mystery woman. The search that enabled the Prince to fulfill his hidden sexual desires. The search that allowed him to touch and fondle the feet of so many once innocent women of this kingdom. Let us take just one moment to review some of the damning testimony you heard. I’m sure you remember the handmaiden Diana Freewoman. I’m sure you remember her tears when she told you:

  DIANA FREEWOMAN: For a poor maid like me, this was the only real hope I ever had to escape my life of misery. If the shoe fit, I would become a princess. So I joined the long line. I’ll never forget the look in the eyes of the Prince as he held my foot in his hands, rubbing it gently, kneading my toes. I could see a strange look in his eyes, as if the Devil himself—

  DEFENSE: Objection, Your Honor. There is no accusation of blasphemy here.

  THE COURT: Sustained. The witness will refrain from any mention of the presence of the Devil, please.

  DIANA FREEWOMAN: I’m sorry. Well, it was a really strange look as he caressed my foot. And then he tried that glass slipper on my foot. It was the biggest shoe I’d ever seen. When it didn’t fit, he just smiled at me and said, “Too bad.” And then I was dismissed. I was so humiliated.

  “And then I was dismissed.” This poor, poor girl, falling for the oldest line in the kingdom. A chance to be princess. And there was much more. Remember the testimony of Leticia Goodbody:

  LETICIA GOODBODY: He seemed so open and honest, not like most of the men I meet. But when he started rubbing my feet his whole manner changed. He closed his eyes and began breathing heavily. And then, when he made me try on that hideous shoe…

  Twelve different women recounted similar experiences with this… this Prince. Woman after woman, foot abused. Then, finally, at the last minute, what did the defense do? They produced a surprise witness, the mystery woman herself, who claimed the only reason she had come forward was to save the handsome Prince.

  Cinderella, she called herself. A woman who works by day as a poor stepsister, who has nothing to her name and so has nothing to lose by claiming to be the mystery woman. Cinderella. She, supposedly, attended the ball that night and caught the Prince’s fancy. She, supposedly, was the woman he was searching for when he rubbed and fondled feet from far and near. And you are supposed to believe that. Well, I know you are too smart for that.

  And what did this Cinderella have to say for herself? Well, if you believe her, a fairy godmother appeared and with the flip of a wand dressed her in finery. The missing coach? Well, of course, it was turned back into a pumpkin. A pumpkin, not even a watermelon. The coachmen and horses? Mice, who scattered into fields, where they could conveniently not be called to testify. And finally, the glass slipper itself.

  Does the defense believe you people are still living in the Dark Ages? Do they honestly believe you would accept such a tale? I have seen some strange things in my life, I’ve come to accept the fact that not everything can be explained. A pumpkin transformed into a handsome carriage? Well, I once bought a carriage that turned out to be a lemon. Horses that turned into mice? The truth is I’ve bet on a few horses that turned out to be dogs. And sadly, even in this kingdom, we all know of men who acted like rats. But there is one thing even this mystery witness, even Cinderella, could not explain….

  This Cinderella claimed that the glass slipper came from her foot. Oh, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Thom McAn showed you how a shoe is measured. He proved to you that this slipper was a size fourteen. Size fourteen! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, has there ever been a woman in all the world who would admit that she had a size fourteen foot? Would any woman, under threat of being burned at the stake, really admit that?

  “Never” is the only answer you can accept to that question. Never. And so you have it. The proof. The smoking shoe. All the evidence you need to convict this… this notorious footman. There can be no doubt in your mind. There can be no hesitation when you walk into that room. You must send a clear and unequivocal message that can be heard throughout this kingdom, that even a man of his station, even a prince, cannot take advantage of innocent women in this place. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you must find the accused guilty as charged.

  The prosecution rests.

  BEAUTY V. BEAST

  Application to Abrogate, Nullify,

  Rescind, Withdraw, Annul, and/or

  Otherwise Revoke an Existing

  Prenuptial Agreement between

  the Petitioner, Beauty, and

  the Respondent, Beast

  The petitioner warrants that nine years, four
months, and two days prior to the date of this filing, the petitioner, Beauty, did willingly but without benefit of legal counsel agree to and sign what in law is commonly referred to as a “prenuptial agreement,” a legal document signed prior to marriage in which marrying parties do agree to a disposition of assets should said marriage fail to endure. The petitioner does not contest this fact.

  (2) This agreement (Exhibit A) did state that in the event petitioner and respondent did not live happily ever after, the Plaintiff would be entitled to a specific but limited portion of the funds, estate, and all properties owned then or to be acquired during the time of said marriage. This agreement limited such participation in the assets of the Beast to two percent (2%) of his total assets and no more than five percent (5%) of all assets gained during that period during which Beauty and the Beast resided together. It was also stipulated that these funds would be bestowed and distributed entirely at the discretion of the Beast and that Beauty shall/should be entitled to continue living a lifestyle commensurate with that she enjoyed during the period of cohabitation. Petitioner will not contest these facts.

  (3) BUT AND/OR HOWEVER, such agreement did not sufficiently or specifically address consequences arising from the desire of the respondent, Beast, to end this marriage, contrary to the wishes and desires of the petitioner, Beauty. This agreement also did not anticipate the four children born to this couple during their marital years.