Legally Correct Fairy Tales Page 6
The scenario featured in the animated motion picture The Adventures of Little Red Riding Hood did also claim that Little Red Riding Hood was rendered helpless by the wolf in grandmother’s clothing and was completely dependent for her life and limb upon the intercession of hunters. This is provably false. As was noted in police reports, the wolf did attack Little Red Riding Hood but was summarily punched, kicked, gouged, and beaten into submission by Plaintiff, who employed her recognized skills in martial arts discipline. This scenario is provably false and will severely impact on the ability of the Plaintiff to portray heroic figures in future endeavors.
Therefore, Plaintiff demands Regal Pictures makes full and complete restitution to Plaintiff for damages suffered and future damages caused by the production, release, and distribution of this animated motion picture, in an amount to be determined by the Court, plus punitive damages, and that Defendants cease and desist from the continued violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
FROG PRINCE
V.
WICKED WITCH
A Request for Immediate
Injunctive Relief
WHEREAS and where-fore the Prince, hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff, who unjustly and without cause, reason, legal standing, or permission has been accursed by the Wicked Witch, hereinafter referred to as Defendant, and under terms of such curse has been turned for an indefinite period into a frog, and therefore suffered and continues to suffer irreparable damage to his name and reputation, said Frog Prince does hereby request and demand immediate injunctive relief to compel Defendant to lift, remove, take off, undo, and otherwise reverse such curse until such time as a final determination as to the rights of the Plaintiff can be determined by a duly constituted court of law.
FACTS AT ISSUE
ON OR about the sixth day of the third month of this year, the Wicked Witch of the East did knowingly and without any legal basis whatsoever, without cause, and without notice unilaterally invoke and cast such spells, curses, incantations, black magic, and any and all other mystic powers to cause the Plaintiff to be transformed in body from a prince to a frog. Such curse was to be sustained for an indefinite period of time, to be lifted only upon such instance as an official and legally registered princess did knowingly and of her own free will kiss such frog with affection. The application of this curse is a clear violation of the Plaintiff’s rights to a free and happy life as guaranteed by the constitution of this kingdom; the application of such curse in perpetuity is a clear violation of the Plaintiff’s right to a fair sentence to be administered only after a judgment in a court of law as guaranteed by the constitution of this kingdom; and the application of this curse without the express written permission of a legally constituted body is a clear violation of the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the constitution of this kingdom.
PRIOR TO the illegal application of the invocation, the Plaintiff did enjoy a complete and full life, unhindered by any natural or unnatural limitations. He was able to and did partake completely in all forms of professional work and social entertainment, including but not limited to alcoholic beverages, consorts with females, and amusement by minstrel. While unmarried, he did receive and partake in numerous invitations proper to and befitting a future king. He did ably conduct princely business and by all appearances functioned in a normal, unencumbered manner. He did enjoy the complete respect of citizens of the kingdom and was held in high esteem.
THE IMPOSITION of this curse did significantly and substantially change and alter each and all aspects of the Plaintiff’s life. Immediately after the illegal transformation from prince to frog, Plaintiff did cease to receive invitations to events of any kind, and those invitations previously tendered were withdrawn. He was unable to function at all in a princely fashion. Following the imposition of this curse, he was considered to be socially unacceptable and lost favor with the citizens of this kingdom; he became the subject of scorn and ridicule and the object of antiamphibious attacks. This complete failure of all aspects of his social life did engender feelings of inferiority, despair, depression, anger, hostility, embarrassment, and distress.
PRIOR TO the imposition of such curse, the Plaintiff did enjoy a positive reputation in all fields and forms of business activity. His advice and consent for a variety of projects were prized and sought. He participated in many construction, agricultural, and entrepreneurial activities; his good name lent credibility to those business endeavors in which he became involved. Subsequent to the imposition of this curse, any and all business opportunities that existed or might be presumed to exist in the future did cease to exist. The business community shunned the Plaintiff. His advice and consent were neither sought nor appreciated. The Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer serious, considerable, and irreparable financial damage due to his inability to actively participate in or oversee financial operations.
PRIOR TO the imposition of such curse, the Prince stood approximately five feet eleven inches tall, weighed 175 pounds, had five toes on each of two feet, five fingers on each of two hands, a ruddy complexion, brown hair, and fine facial features. His physical stature enabled him to participate in all forms of common recreational activity, including but not limited to sitting, walking, running, swimming, mountain climbing, horseback riding, painting and drawing, archery, jousting, dueling, kite flying, bowling, and riding to hounds. Subsequent to the imposition of such curse, Plaintiff was reduced in size to approximately 3½ inches tall, .4 pounds in weight, webbed feet, four fingers, a greenish complexion, no hair, and the characteristic facial features of a frog. His physical stature prevented him from participation in most forms of recreational activity previously enjoyed, although he did excel in jumping and swimming. It is noted that this change in stature resulted in physical danger; i.e., rather than riding to hounds, Plaintiff raced in fear of such hounds.
PRIOR TO the imposition of such curse, Plaintiff spoke proper English, enjoyed singing, laughing, and whistling. Subsequent to the imposition of such curse, Plaintiff has been limited to deep croaking sounds.
PRIOR TO the imposition of such curse, Plaintiff was able to make merry with many and varied damsels of the kingdom and surrounding lands. Subsequent to the imposition of such curse, to satisfy any and all carnal longing, Plaintiff was limited to frogs.
PRIOR TO the imposition of such curse, Plaintiff enjoyed a full and hearty palate of traditional fare, including but not limited to turkey, chicken, beef, hog, lamb, grouse, and fish of various nature. Subsequent to the imposition of such curse, Plaintiff’s diet has been limited to flies and bugs.
IN ANY and all forms of normal life, Plaintiff can no longer enjoy and savor those things to which he is entitled under royal birthright and the constitution of the kingdom. It is therefore requested that Defendant be enjoined from continuing the application of such curse and that the Court order such curse be immediately lifted until such time as the proper legally constituted body can render a decision.
THE REMEDY
AS THERE have been no claims made thus far pertaining to or specifically delineating that nature of the injustice upon which the unilateral application of such curse is based, there fails to be any legal issue to be remedied through action in a court of law. However, Plaintiff urges the Court to issue this injunction without prejudice, thus allowing Defendant to reinstate any and all claims to be argued in the proper forum for such disagreement. Therefore, the Defendant, the Wicked Witch, will not suffer any duress, harm, or consequence, nor will standing be lost, by the issuance of an injunction by this Court compelling the Defendant to lift the offending curse until such time as a duly constituted body permits it to be reinstated.
FAILING THAT, Plaintiff has a significantly limited opportunity to fulfill the rules and regulations of such curse, i.e., “if Plaintiff is kissed by a legally recognized princess of her own free will.” It is well known by this Court that few regal ladies, of their own volition and desire, will willingly kiss or otherwise feel, fondle, touch, buss, or rub a frog.<
br />
PENALTIES AND DAMAGES
PLAINTIFF HAS been and continues to be damaged mentally, physically, and financially by the continued imposition of such curse as herein described in an amount to be determined. Plaintiff reserves the right to take action against the Defendant for any and all monetary damages as may be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in the future. Nothing in this document or any judgment made by this Court shall be deemed to alleviate Defendant of responsibility for harm and hardship created by the illegal imposition of such curse and the continued hardships created by the illegal imposition of such curse.
THEREFORE, IT is requested by the Plaintiff, the Frog Prince, that the Court immediately order the Defendant to cease and desist imposition of such curse.
KINGDOM
V.
GOLDILOCKS
I hereby certify that this is the true record of the remarks made to the jury in summation by Richard Grimm, Esq., speaking for the defense.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. First, let me thank you for your patience over these long months. I’m not going to take as much of your time as did the esteemed prosecutor because the burden on me is considerably less. I don’t have to prove anything. I simply have to bring your attention to the fact that there is reasonable doubt that my client, Goldilocks, broke into the house of the Bear family, sat in their chairs, ate their porridge, damaged their possessions, and slept in their beds, as alleged. It shouldn’t take me very long to do that, for in this case there exists far, far more than reasonable doubt; there simply can be no question that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. The prosecution claims they have presented “a pile of hard evidence.” A pile of evidence? What do they really offer you? A few slender strands of hairs and fibers. Some DNA. A fingerprint. An eyewitness identification. A purported confession. Traces of porridge found on a pair of stockings. And that is it. That’s all. Yet based on that they expect you to convict my client. I think they might better expect some witch to turn the judge into a bullfrog.
Let’s examine this so-called evidence. Remember who collected it? Remember who sat on that witness stand and told you a long story about coming to the Bear house late at night? It was Detective Smokey, wasn’t it? And right there, right there, is the key to the entire case. Because the prosecution’s entire case depends on the credibility of Detective Smokey. Let’s look at him again. The fact is that Detective Smokey is… like the Bear family, a bear. He is, in fact, a fur man. In the past, as you heard several witnesses testify, Detective Smokey has put his nose to the ground and tracked down and arrested human beings for very minor infractions, while not applying those same strict standards to members of his own Ursidae family. And, I remind you, you heard Detective Smokey himself testify that he found this physical evidence, that he collected it, and that he carried it in for examination himself.
Oh, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I submit to you that never before in the long and glorious history of this kingdom has the simple phrase “bear witness” been more appropriate. For this detective is a bear, and he is the prime witness against my client. Can you trust him? I ask you, would you leave a fresh fish lying around when Detective Smokey is on the premises?
But let me go further, let me examine this so-called evidence, piece by piece. According to Detective Smokey’s testimony, eight long blond hairs consistent with my client, so the prosecution contends, were found on the pillows of Papa Bear, Mama Bear, and Baby Bear. Hair? Okay, we admit it, we confess, you got us. My client has hair! But so does every single female in this jury! Ladies and gentlemen, I’m afraid I must take a moment here to tell you something about which my client is not very proud. My client, the lovely Goldilocks, has not always been so golden. Her real name is Brunetta. Goldilocks is only her… her made-up name, her fairy-tale name. Goldilocks’s golden locks come from… a bottle. As does the blond hair of tens of thousands of women. Yet the prosecutor would like you to believe these hairs could only have come from my client. Oh, please, they could have come from anyone with five dollars and the desire to purchase gold in a bottle. These hairs have absolutely no value as evidence.
Now, the DNA. Deoxyribonucleic acid, the so-called genetic fingerprint, the building block of life. According to the prosecution, this DNA stuff was extracted from saliva found on both Papa Bear’s and Mama Bear’s porridge spoons. Let me refresh your memory. The prosecution expert testified that DNA was, I quote, “the genetic bar code, sort of like the bar codes used on products in the supermarket.” Oh, dear. Let me ask you this: How often have you been overcharged at the checkout counter because a clerk scanned the same bottle of ketchup over the electronic reader twice? How many of your purchases did they miss because the bar code was misread? Yet the prosecution asks you to compare my client with a bottle of ketchup. Oh, please.
And let me put this to you: Just where is this magic DNA? Have you seen it? Did they show it to you? No, they did not. They showed you a chart and told you that it was representative of DNA. It was made by DNA. Representative? Representative? If it’s so important, let’s see it! What is the prosecution trying to hide from you? Ask yourself that. Now, let’s look at this chart. It’s a lot of dots on what looks like an X-ray. This is DNA? These are the dots that make you unique? Please, ask the prosecutor to show you which dots determine your eye color. Ask him to show you which dots determine whether you are tall or short. They won’t be able to. And why? Because this is nothing more than a piece of paper. That’s all.
But all right, so we’ve got these dots on paper. I suspect most of you have played the child’s game connect the dots. Believe me, if you could collect all these dots so they spelled out Gold-i-locks, I would have a difficult time standing here in front of you and trying to convince you my client isn’t guilty. But that is not the case. Connect the dots on this DNA chart, supposedly the DNA of my client, and what do they spell? Xyrexztdixz, that’s what. Not Goldilocks.
Next, let’s examine the fingerprints found on Papa Bear’s porridge bowl, Mama Bear’s porridge bowl, and Baby Bear’s porridge bowl. It is absolutely true that never in history have two people been found to have the same fingerprints—but that doesn’t mean that no two people have the same fingerprints. It simply means they haven’t found them yet, that’s all. Think of it this way: Fingerprints are simply ridges and valleys formed by your skin to cover your fingers. With all the people in the world, and all the people who have lived prior to this very day, what are the chances that every single one of them would have the same few lines in different places? Eventually, you are going to run out of different places. It’s simply the law of averages. The fact that until today no two people have been found who have the same fingerprints means the odds are getting higher and higher that two people will be found who have exactly the same fingerprints. And who among us would dare say that this is not the case? Admittedly, the few wavy lines found in dry porridge on the side of Papa Bear’s bowl are similar in many respects to those of my client. But what does that mean, exactly? It doesn’t mean she was in the Bear home; it means she could have been in the Bear home. But so were many other people: the Federal Express delivery person; the cable repair man; the mailman. Has anyone thought to take a fingerprint sample from the housekeeper? No, they have not, and the question I am forced to ask is, why? What are they hiding from you? What is it they don’t want you to know? We know for certain that the housekeeper touched these bowls. Yet where is her print? There is no way we can know, because Detective Smokey leaped to judgment. This… this fur man convicted my client long before there was evidence, then proceeded to build his case around that belief. He was never interested in pursuing anyone else. What we have here is a rush to judgment.
Let us now look at the so-called eyewitness identification. Let us recall the sad, sad testimony of Baby Bear. It was night, the house was dark. Papa Bear announced, “Someone has been sleeping in my bed!” Then Mama Bear announced, “Someone has been sleeping in my bed, too!” Imagine, if
you will, Baby Bear’s state of mind when he opened the door to his room: scared and confused. And then, in the dim light he saw the rumpled blankets on his bed and knew that someone had been sleeping in his bed, too. Suddenly someone leaped from the bed and ran right at him and then out of the house. Baby Bear, in a panic now, shouted, “And she’s still here!”
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, put yourself in Baby Bear’s paws. Alone, in the dark, terrified. Someone leaps at him and runs from the room. What kind of look did he get at this person? How long could he have possibly seen this person? Two seconds? Three seconds? And what kind of look was it? A fleeting glance in a dark room. Was that really long enough to be able to look at my client in the broad daylight of this courtroom and say without pause or hesitation, “That is the person”? I doubt it, I doubt it very much.
It is a long established fact that to members of the Bear community all blondes look alike. I submit to you that Baby Bear indeed saw someone, the same someone who left the blond hairs on his pillow. But did he see my client, Goldilocks? No, he did not.
It doesn’t even seem worth my time to discuss this coerced confession with you. You can just throw it out. My client was held by police for almost a full hour without being offered anything to eat or drink. The police are lucky we’re not bringing civil rights violation charges against them. By that time she was practically starving. She would have done anything for just a few morsels of food. So when Detective Smokey told her if she signed this confession he would take her to McDonald’s… I mean, we’re in court, let’s be honest—if I said I was going to yell at you for a few hours or I was going to take you to McDonald’s for thick, juicy hamburgers, those delicious fries, and a crisp, cold soda… do you really think you would resist?