Dog Subpoenaed As Witness In Murder Case
Excuse me....but, do I really need to say this again? Fine, ok then - here you go: Lawyers are idiots and dogs suck.
"And I'm a sexy bastard...."
I know that Sassy (the so-called "editor" of this ridiculous rag) thinks my anti-attorney and contra-canine commentary is loathesome and rife with discriminatory invective. But, then again, she's a lawyer. And she seems to like the dog that lives at my house. (I believe his name is Sam.) But, people, please, the above-referenced article proves once and for all that, not only are lawyers lazy (and apparently incapable of hiring a private investigator to find out who they are sending subpoenas to), dogs are (and I know I have said this before) a bunch of disloyal dolts. Really, is it any wonder the pounds are full of them awaiting inevitable euthanasia? It's a public service as far as I am concerned.
Let me tell you what I would have done had I been the subject of said subpoena:
First of all, I would have moved to quash the subpoena. Clearly, the court has no personal jurisdiction over a fabulous feline such as myself. What? You don't understand? Oh...I'm sorry...sometimes I forget that many of you are attorneys and, therefore, by definition, don't understand the constitutional requirements of personal jurisdiction. Let me see if I can explain this in a way even you so-called counselors can comprehend:
Um.....I'm a cat. My whole purpose in life is to have ZERO contact with you low-life imbeciles. I am sure even the stupidest lawyer out there knows: No minimun contacts means no personal jurisdiction. And don't try to pull your long-arm statute bullshit on me either. If you can actually cite to a statute that includes felines in its definition of "person" for the purpose of out-of-state jurisdiction, I might entertain your nonsense. However, having done some research of my own, I am happy to report that the one thing your legislators get right is the definition of "person". Oh, don't get me wrong - I've never understood who decided that a "person" could be a corporation (probably the same losers who think a tomato is a vegetable). But at least they are smart enough to realize that classifying cats as "persons" would be an insult likely to incite instant insurrection. (For you lawyers out there, what I am trying to say is: The Cat Nation would rise up and kick your sorry asses if you EVER, and I mean EVER, refer to us as "people".)
In view of the foregoing, I say, "Motion to quash granted."
Secondly, and in the unlikely event my motion to quash was denied, I would refuse to show up at court. Yes, I would probably be held in contempt, but let me repeat...I'm a cat. I am the definition of contempt. So sue me.
Finally, even if some odious human were to actually catch me and carry me to the courthouse, I would refuse to testify. Do you know why? Yes! (I see some of you brighter ones are catching on) I'M A CAT! I don't come when you call, and if I do, I don't play your silly game. And if I play your silly game, I don't let you win. And even if I let you win, I quit before you're ready. (Sigh). Assholes.
At the risk of repetition, but for the sake of the slow, felines are phenomenal. Lawyers are lame. And dogs suck.
Respectfully submitted,
Playdough (Pro Se)
Ed. NOTE: We at Sassy Travels would like to just, well...um....The opinions of Playdough.....well, he is diabetic and prone to insulin shock and....um....Just read the "Disclaimer" over there, OK?
No comments:
Post a Comment