by David Fisher
Copyright
This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents are either the product of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events or locales is entirely coincidental.
Copyright © 1996 by David Fisher
All rights reserved.
Warner Books, Inc.
Hachette Book Group
237 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Visit our website at www.HachetteBookGroup.com
First eBook Edition: December 2009
ISBN: 978-0-446-56511-0
To my mother, Sylvia Fisher,
a mother, mother-in-law, and grandmother
of lawyers. Enough is enough.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are many people I would like to mention here; however, the lawyers have informed me I am limited by current libel laws. That stated, I would like to thank my editor, Rick Wolff, who goes to bat for authors whenever a hit is needed; as well as my agent for this project, Frank Weimann, for another job well done. I would also like to thank Susan Koenig for her valuable guidance and unfailing support.
CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
JACK “DOE” AND JILL “DOE” V. IMPERIAL BUCKET CORPORATION
TAILOR V. EMPEROR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
KINGDOM V. HANSEL AND GRETEL
PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP AND OTHER LEGAL RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF BEAUTY, SLEEPING
RE SNOW WHITE, INC.
USA V. WOLF DEPOSITION OF MR. WOLF
HUMPTY DUMPTY V. KING, KING’S HOSPITAL, ALL OF KING’S HORSES, ALL OF KING’S MEN
PETITIONERS: JACK, GEORGE, PETER, MARIA, ET AL. V. ESTATE OF OLD LADY WHO LIVED IN A SHOE
OAK v. GEPETTO
KINGDOM V. PRINCE CHARMING
BEAUTY V. BEAST
LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD V. REGAL PICTURES, INC.
FROG PRINCE V. WICKED WITCH
KINGDOM V. GOLDILOCKS
JACK “DOE” AND JILL “DOE”
V.
IMPERIAL BUCKET CORPORATION
The Plaintiffs, Jack “Doe” and Jill “Doe,” both minors, do here-by allege that (1) they suffered grievous and permanent injuries when a steel bucket manufactured by the Defendant, Imperial Bucket Corporation, proved to be of unsafe design and manufacture, and without proper safety guards, so as to allow it to be operated in an unsafe manner by these minors; and (2) the Defendant is guilty of such gross product liability as to be responsible for these injuries and therefore should compensate Jack and Jill for a sum greater than five million dollars ($5,000,000).
Plaintiffs were both completely untrained in the proper operation of the Defendant’s bucket, hereinafter referred to as “the pail,” when they attempted to convey such pail up a steep incline, hereinafter referred to as “the hill.”
The pail manufactured by the Defendant was made of steel and weighed 1.6 pounds when empty. It was designed to be carried by a rounded metal handle, or “bail.” Depending on the material used to fill the pail, the weight of such pail could vary between 1.9 pounds (cotton) and 61.0 pounds (pig iron). Unless one received proper instruction in the use of this pail, it could easily be overloaded, causing it to become unstable.
The pail included no directions for safe use, no warnings of any kind about the potential danger of the pail, and no safety devices to protect individuals from suffering injuries when using this pail. The pail could be operated by minors who could not possibly be aware of the inherent dangers in the defective design of this pail and would therefore be subject to injury.
Jack and Jill will testify that they were able to move forward in a skipping (def.: proceed with leaps and bounds) manner up the hill, holding on to the pail, which swung precariously between them. Upon reaching the top of said hill, they proceeded to fill the pail with a clear liquid, hereinafter referred to as “water.” The weight of the water will be affixed through laboratory testing. What they could not possibly have known is that the defective design of this pail permitted it to be filled with water to an unsafe level.
As Plaintiffs began carrying the now hazardous steel pail down the side of said hill, the water began shifting in the pail, causing the weight to be unevenly distributed. While this motion, known scientifically as “sloshing,” did cause a partial reduction in the contents of the pail, this had the effect of causing an additional unbalancing of the pail. Jack and Jill, neither being experienced in the trade of carrying a pail of water down a steep incline, suffered extreme difficulty in maintaining control over the pail. In their effort to retain control of the pail, both Jack and Jill, individually and simultaneously, did lose their balance owing entirely to the instability of the pail.
According to police reports, Jack apparently lost control of the pail and fell down the hill. Jill, a young female weighing approximately forty-eight pounds, could not possibly have been expected to retain control of the pail without assistance and immediately came tumbling after.
By reason of the foregoing and by reason of the Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiffs were severely bruised, injured, and wounded; suffered, and still suffer, and will continue to suffer for some time to come, physical and mental pain and great bodily injuries. Specifically, Jack broke his crown in three different places in addition to fracturing his ribs and right arm. Jill sustained bruises and contusions to her legs, ankles, and wrist. Some of these injuries may well be of a permanent nature so as to affect the lives of these minors forever and one day.
The Imperial Bucket Corporation, being aware for an indeterminate time that the bucket they callously manufactured and offered to market had serious design flaws and under certain conditions could cause severe injury, nevertheless did continue to manufacture and market such a bucket to the public. They failed to take the necessary steps to inform the public of the potential for injury inherent in the use of their product. That they did so, and continue to do so, indicates a disregard for the public welfare, for which punitive damages might be deemed appropriate.
Until such design problems as noted are corrected, the Imperial Bucket Corporation should be enjoined from offering their product for sale to the public. They should also be required to recall all such defective buckets in existence and make appropriate restitution and repairs. All persons past and present in possession of this dangerous product should receive notice that under certain conditions, even with proper precautions, use of this product might result in permanent, disabling injury. Minors should be prevented from purchasing or possessing this product without proper parental supervision.
Due to use of this defective product, Jack “Doe” and Jill “Doe,” minors, have suffered irreparable injury and must be compensated in line with the substantial pain and suffering they have endured.
TAILOR V. EMPEROR
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In this action, the Plaintiff, Donald Tailor, by trade a tailor of fine garments, hereby alleges and swears that he was employed by agents of the Emperor to create for the Emperor a suit of new clothes. This suit of clothes was to be worn by the Emperor when he led the annual parade down Emperor’s Way on Emperor’s Day. Tailor Tailor asserts that he was told to use only the finest materials, cut to measurements provided by Palace officials, and to create a design traditional yet au courant. Plaintiff Tailor asserts that on at least three previous occasions he was employed to design, cut, and sew garments for the Emperor and on each such prior occasion he was suitably compensated by the Emperor. Plaintiff Tailor asserts he is a highly respected craftsman whose garments have been worn by royalty in kingdoms, fiefdoms, dukedoms, counties, and towns throughout the Empire.
Unfortunately, during the parade an uneducated child with an untrained eye unable to appreciate the subtleties of this garment did remark that he could not see the true beauty, causing the Emperor to believe that something was amiss with this suit. Notwithstanding that the rank and file in the Palace did praise and compliment the clothing, the Emperor accepted the word of a minor and has refused to pay the agreed-upon fee. Plaintiff Tailor asks for immediate payment for the garments.
Plaintiff also asserts that, contrary to the uneducated opinion voiced by a child, royalty in this and other kingdoms have ordered garments made from the same “miracle fabric” as that of the Emperor. Plaintiff Tailor has received so many orders that his shop is currently backlogged and he cannot produce them rapidly enough, as production of this material is painstaking and time-consuming. Plaintiff Tailor charges that his reputation has been damaged and he has been subjected to derision. He humbly requests that the Court order the Emperor to make immediate payment for services faithfully rendered.
FOR THE DEFENSE: In this action, the Defendant, our Most Honored and Beloved Emperor, Direct Descendant of the Sun King and Moon Queen, does hereby assert that he employed the Plaintiff to create for him a suit of clothing suitable for wearing in the annual Emperor’s Day Parade. However, the Emperor asserts that when such garments were delivered to him, the suit in question was the wrong color and the wrong size and appeared to have been previously worn. Plaintiff did additional work on these garments and did deliver to the Palace the morning of the parade several hangers on which he claimed garments constructed from this “miracle fabric” were hanging. When the Emperor did not fully appreciate the beauty of this fabric, Plaintiff explained it was so unusually sheer that it looked like nothing but in fact was special, unique, one of a kind. The Emperor did accept this clothing and did wear this clothing in the parade. He was subjected to scorn, ridicule, embarrassment, and humiliation. The Emperor does not like to be subjected to scorn, ridicule, embarrassment, and humiliation. Therefore he refused payment to the Plaintiff based on the fact that Plaintiff failed to deliver to him suitable clothing at the proper time. The Emperor humbly asks the Court to dismiss all claims against him.
DECISION OF JUDGE LAW: I see absolutely nothing to dispute here. The Emperor did not receive satisfaction or clothing. Therefore he should not be forced to pay for it. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
KINGDOM V. HANSEL AND GRETEL
Report to the Court: Defendants’ State of Mind at the Time of Fatal Accident; Submitted to the Court, Dr. Kiddlove, M.A., B.A., B.S., Department of Child Psychology, University of the Kingdom at Magic Hallow
I Dr. I. M. Kiddlove, did examine extensively the minor Defendants, Hansel and Gretel, over a prolonged period of time. I conducted extensive interviews with the Defendants on at least five occasions, both individually and together, and have spent approximately twenty hours with them. I believe this statement to be a true reflection of their psychological state at the time of the alleged incident.
FACTS AT ISSUE: The Defendants, Hansel and Gretel, minor brother and sister, are known to be the only children of a poor woodsman. It is alleged by the Defendants that their father did intentionally and knowingly abandon and desert them in the dark forest to please a stepmother. It is alleged by these minor Defendants that they wandered aimlessly through this forest until, starving, they encountered the ranch-style house at Number One Wilderness Lane, such house being made completely of gingerbread and mortified sugar icing. At such time, starving, they began to eat the first floor of this home, seriously weakening the structure. There is a belief upon statements that Hansel and Gretel were psychologically abused by a father suffering from pronounced macho deficita, who acceded to the demands of a strong female presence.
The Defendants were halted in their destruction of the property by the legal owner, Mrs. Josefa Crone. According to the Defendants, Ms. Crone, an elderly woman of indeterminate age, claimed to be a witch. Both Hansel and Gretel state that they were afraid of this individual and her potential power to harm them. Defendants state that the owner of the property locked Hansel in a cage and threatened to eat him when he was sufficiently fattened. Defendants state that Ms. Crone suffered from cannaseefaraway (farsightedness) and would go near this cage daily to determine if Hansel had gained weight. Defendants state that to save Hansel, they showed Ms. Crone a chicken bone, which she mistakenly accepted as Hansel’s finger. After a considerable period of time, during which Defendants acknowledge they were adequately fed, clothed, and provided shelter, Ms. Crone announced her intention to cook and eat Hansel. This statement was not perceived by either Defendant as attempted humor. After turning on the oven and preheating it to a temperature of approximately 350 degrees Fahrenheit, she leaned closer to determine if it was hot enough to cook a boy, at which point Gretel, in conspiracy with Hansel, pushed Ms. Crone into the oven, broiling her. Defendants state they subsequently consumed one room of the house to gain strength, then fled to freedom. Defendants state that at all times they acted in self-defense.
REPORT OF DR. KIDDLOVE
Courts in this kingdom have long labored to answer the question “Who is crazy?” Many crazy people have appeared in the courtrooms of this kingdom. Yet the question remains, can we morally convict crazy people who are guilty of a crime? Or, conversely, are we crazy not to convict guilty people of criminal actions? Is it crazy to find a guilty person not guilty because that person is crazy?
Here we have two young adults who state they believed at all times that their lives were endangered and therefore took the actions they deemed necessary to save their lives. In many such cases (Kingdom v. Menendez, cit. 34 part B, 1994) the courts have found that individuals acting in what they believed to be self-defense are protected by the same laws as if they actually were in jeopardy and cannot be judged guilty of the results of those actions. The question in this matter is, did Hansel and Gretel believe in their hearty-heart-heart that in fact their lives were in danger? Did they act in self-defense?
It is of no consequence, nor is it possible, to determine at this point in time if the deceased, Ms. Crone, was legally a witch. Being bad, harboring negative thoughts, making threats, even casting spells under certain conditions, does not fulfill the legal definition of witch. If she was not a witch, but Hansel and Gretel believed she was a witch, they were suffering from advanced paranoia, and the actions they took grew out of that paranoia. Therefore the Defendants were of diminished mind and cannot be found guilty of this crime. If, however, the deceased actually was a witch, Hansel and Gretel took reasonable actions to protect their lives and cannot be found guilty of this crime.
On the surface the facts may make it difficult to accept the possibility that these two children were in danger. To many, it may appear that they ran away from home because they did not receive the lo
ve and attention to which they were entitled as children and came upon the home of a hermit living alone in the woods. This very old woman immediately claimed to be a witch. While some people may suspect that a very old woman, living by herself in the woods and claiming to have magical powers, might be suffering from dementia, i.e., “nutty as a fruitcake” (Robbins, Old Women Claiming to Be Witches, Macmillan, 1945), the question at all times is not what is real, but what did the Defendants believe to be real at the time of the incident, resulting in the untimely broiling of the deceased.
It has been seen throughout the legal history of this kingdom that facts are subject to the interpretation of lawyers. Facts, in fact, may not be factual, unless they are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Conversely, something proven beyond a shadow of a doubt may be presumed to be a fact, even though it is provably untrue. It is for that reason defendants are adjudged “not guilty” rather than innocent. Innocent people can be guilty, while people not guilty may not be innocent.
Research has proven that children believe what children believe. And what children believe may not square directly with the facts as they occur, but rather with the facts as they are perceived. This means that children not directly in danger may believe that they are in danger, and therefore they are in danger and may take actions to save their lives, even though their lives are not in jeopardy.
Whether or not this woman was a witch is not significant. When asked in several interviews if they thought she was a witch, Hansel and Gretel responded in the affirmative. There is much proof to support this contention. The Defendants claim that Hansel was locked in a cage and Gretel was forced to cook and clean. Although this was an aged woman, perhaps weak and infirm and certainly unable to protect herself against two healthy young adults, the fact that they believed she was a witch and was capable of casting spells against them is sufficient reason to understand their compliance to her demands. And whether the cage in which Hansel was locked was real or metaphorical is not significant. We, as human beings, often find ourselves locked in metaphorical cages, which are just as real as cages with iron bars and secure locks. Therefore Hansel, because he believed he was locked in a cage, was in fact locked in a cage, whether he was locked in a cage or not.