by David Fisher
MR. WOLF: You know, this is exactly how rumors get going. I went over to their house, okay? To welcome them to the neighborhood. Personally, I figured it was a nice thing to do. This is a pretty nice neighborhood, and they built these little shacks. You know what it does to real estate values when Little-Piggs move in? But no, I was gonna be Mr. Nice Guy. So I go over there and they wouldn’t even open the door. My wife had baked a cake for them, you know, it was sort of like… Welcome Wagon.
COURT: So you didn’t threaten to eat them?
MR. WOLF: Eat them? I invited them for dinner. But it’s possible they misunderstood.
COURT: And you did not threaten that if they squealed to the police, you would have them for breakfast?
MR. WOLF: Do I have to listen to this stuff? They don’t speak so good.
COURT: And when they retreated to the second Little-Pigg’s house, did you not again threaten them with personal harm? Please listen to People’s Exhibit Two:
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Come out, come out, or I’ll blow your house down.
Now, Mr. Wolf, does that voice sound familiar?
MR. WOLF: Robin Williams? I love the guy.
COURT: That wasn’t you?
MR. WOLF: Me? You kidding or what? I wasn’t near that place that day, whenever it was. And I can prove it. It was probably kids. You know how they like to cause trouble for strangers.
COURT: Let the record show that that house was subsequently destroyed by strong winds.
MR. WOLF: Don’t blame me for that. If they’d have bought their materials from me like I suggested, that house would still be standing. But when you buy cheap stuff, that’s what happens.
COURT: Now, let us move to the third Little-Pigg home, this one constructed of brick and mortar.
MR. WOLF: So they got smart and finally built a good solid house.
COURT: Did you not threaten to blow down that house, too?
MR. WOLF: See, see, that’s what I mean. I never threatened nobody. I wanted to give them a demonstration of the value of using quality material. I showed them how it could withstand strong winds.
COURT: I would now like to enter People’s Exhibit Three:
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE:… huff and puff and blow your house down. (STRONG WINDS)
Now, Mr. Wolf, is that not you?
MR. WOLF: Yeah, maybe it’s me, but this is taken completely out of context.
COURT: Sir, is it your testimony that that is not you attempting to blow down this house?
MR. WOLF: Lemme finish, okay? I have very bad asthma. I mean, you listen to my doctor, I’ve got two paws in the grave. He’s always after me to move to Arizona or someplace dry. I see what you mean about this sounding like me, but it’s not. That’s me just trying to breathe.
COURT: Mr. Wolf, do you have anything else you’d like to say to this court?
MR. WOLF: Just that I don’t know where you people get these stories from. Those Little-Piggs are a sty on the whole neighborhood, and they’re just trying to blame their problems on self-respecting individuals such as myself. And that’s all I have to say.
COURT: Thank you for coming today.
MR. WOLF: And I didn’t wear no little sheep’s clothes, either.
Transcribed and attested to:
[N. O. Teri Public]
HUMPTY DUMPTY V. KING, KING’S
HOSPITAL, ALL OF KING’S HORSES,
ALL OF KING’S MEN
HUMPTY DUMPTY
Plaintiff
against
KING’S HOSPITAL
Defendant
Plaintiffs as and for their Verified Complaint, allege the following, upon information and belief:
CAUSE OF ACTION
(1) At all times hereinafter mentioned Defendant facility was and still is a corporation wholly owned and operated by the King, the royal family, and heirs, under the existing laws of this kingdom, as established by the King, to be a profit-making entity.
(2) At all times the Defendant facility did operate with permission from the King, and was duly empowered to perform any and all medical services deemed appropriate, and did operate under a medical license issued by the King that permitted them to practice internal medicine, external medicine, invasive surgery, reconstructive surgery, and basic and advanced sorcery.
(3) Defendants, their respective agents, servants, and/or employees were negligent in the medical treatment rendered to and on behalf of Plaintiff, HUMPHREY DUMPTY, were careless, departed from accepted medical practice, performed contraindicated procedures, failed to perform indicated procedures, and in other respects failed to follow good and accepted medical practice and therefore have committed malpractice against the Plaintiff.
(4) As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was permanently injured, permanently deformed, suffers pain and anguish and embarrassment, incurred expenses and lost earnings, and was permanently disabled.
(5) Defendants failed to advise Plaintiff of the risks, hazards, and dangers inherent in the treatment and surgery, failed to advise of the alternatives thereto, and failed to obtain and inform consent.
(6) As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was permanently damaged to a sum in excess of two million dollars ($2,000,000) in real damages and four million dollars ($4,000,000) in punitive damages.
THE FACTS
(1) On the fourth day of June in this year of the King, Mr. Humphrey “Humpty” Dumpty was walking on Kings Lane, in Kingstown, when a sudden and severe rain shower caused him to take shelter beneath several large trees. Mr. Dumpty did thereupon endeavor to await the conclusion of said shower by sitting on a high stone wall. There were no warning signs of any kind in proximity to this wall. There were no barriers of any kind, including but not limited to fences, gates, or concertina wire, preventing access to this wall. There were no guards of any kind, including but not limited to human guards and guard dogs, preventing access to this wall. Therefore Mr. Dumpty did unknowingly climb upon a dangerous and unprotected wall and must not be seen to be liable for his subsequent injury.
(2) The uppermost surface of this wall, the north side, had become covered with a substance consistent in every way with “moss.” When exposed to moisture, moss will become extremely slippery, a natural defect in this product.
(3) The wall was approximately six (6) feet high, constructed of stone and rock held together with mortar. Architect and contractor of the wall is presently unknown. Mr. Dumpty did take refuge upon this wall. After several minutes a strong gust of wind did exacerbate prior existing unsafe conditions, causing Mr. Dumpty to fall off this wall through no individual cause and effect. Mr. Dumpty did fall a great distance and did suffer serious and severe injuries upon making physical contact with the ground.
(4) Such great fall did have the immediate consequences of causing Mr. Dumpty to fail to enjoy a state of consciousness for a prolonged period of time. Plaintiff did resume a state of consciousness in King’s Hospital, awakening to find himself totally and completely unrecognizable, in a state of disrepair, cracked and glued, misshapen, disfigured, unovaled, and otherwise transformed, causing severe pain and anguish, mental duress, and prolonged shock.
(5) Prior to this accident, Plaintiff was in good health, good mind, and good repair. He suffered no permanent disabling impediments. Subsequent to treatment in King’s Hospital, Plaintiff suffered from and continues to suffer from pain, anguish, and disfigurement; he has become the object of scorn and ridicule; he has become a recluse and cannot leave his home; he has lost the love and affection of family and friends; he has been unable to work. Mr. Dumpty has become a shell of his former self.
(6) The foregoing is due to the negligence of the King’s men. Document A140–3, a standard hospital admittance form, describes Mr. Dumpty’s injuries as “shattered outer shell resulting in numerous and severe splintering into small and jagged pieces. Loss of said protective shell caused severe hemorrhaging of internal matter, resulting in ‘scrambling’ of patient’s mind. Patient was in critical condition when received
at King’s Hospital. Patient’s cholesterol level was 100 percent, indicating severe trauma and dictating use of emergency lifesaving techniques.”
(7) At King’s Hospital the King’s doctors attempted to fix and repair Plaintiff’s wounds and breaks; to restore him to his preaccident state through modern medical technology. EMS personnel at the accident site did collect smashed body parts and did rush them to King’s Hospital, where doctors attempted microsurgical reattachment of such parts to restore Mr. Dumpty to normal health.
(8) Rather than restoring Plaintiff “good as new,” malpractice by consulting physicians and operating physicians instead turned Mr. Dumpty into “bad as old,” by failing to put him back together again in a manner consistent with accepted medical technique.
(9) Statements given by attending physicians in Document A331-C indicated “Patient arrived at hospital in a vegetative state.” This report led to callous treatment endured by the Plaintiff and has caused him to undergo numerous cosmetic surgeries in an effort to restore his well-being.
(10) Prior to surgery Mr. Dumpty had an oval-shaped frame, consistently smooth in all areas, with no obvious cracks, crevices, fissures, overlays, holes, rough edges, bumps, bruises, or other disfigurements. Rather than painstakingly reassembling Plaintiff, surgeons callously and with obvious disregard for the Plaintiff’s well-being did not attempt to refit recovered pieces, instead putting them anywhere deemed appropriate; therefore body parts were reattached in the wrong places. As a result, Mr. Dumpty’s once smooth complexion became rough and coarse; Plaintiff’s once oval-shaped frame lost all recognizable shape, body parts overlapped, and other significant body parts were cracked and broken as surgeons forced them into place with disregard for Plaintiff’s well-being. Rather than employing the services of a certified plastic surgeon or glueist, responsibility for restoring Mr. Dumpty to his former state was left in the hands of unqualified physicians.
(11) Such physicians did fail to maintain the operating theater in antiseptic condition. Patient suffered serious postoperative mold complications due, it is contended, to the presence of the King’s horses in said operating room. Such horses were present without Board certification and were not licensed by the King to practice medicine.
(12) The King’s horses and the King’s physicians failed to restore Plaintiff to his former state, due to negligence, carelessness, and a complete lack of refrigeration, and are therefore liable for damages under the statutes of this kingdom.
PETITIONERS: Jack, George, Peter, Maria, Mary, Ronald, Steven, Dennis, Eileen, Tony, Jane, Kumbasha, Emily, Pearl, Carl, Benjamin, Caroline, Andrew, Kee-Wa, Jonas, Diana, William, Mary Margaret, Victor, Harry, Samuel, Juan, Georgia, Jake, Martin, Thomas, Regina, Jeffrey, Oliver, Tammy, Irwin, Paul, Leonard, Isiah, Richard Milhouse, Warren, Mark, Judy, Jessica, Molly, Lindsay, Ulysses, Xavier, Junior, Theodore, Kenneth, et al.
V.
ESTATE OF OLD LADY WHO LIVED
IN A SHOE
Notice of Summary Judgment
FOR THE COURT: Judge Solomon
I have before me an application from the petitioners, Jack, George, et al., to declare null and void the finding of the First Court that the executor of the estate of the deceased, Old Lady, acted in good faith and correctly in awarding all of her earthly possessions to her oldest son, Marty.
THE FACTS: The deceased, the Old Lady, age undetermined, died intestate, without providing a last will and testament outlining her wishes for the disposal of her estate, be it ever so humble.
THE PROPERTY: Under provisions of the law, the Office of the Sheriff did conduct an extensive search for all known possessions of the deceased and did provide the Court with an inventory. Such possessions included
(1) an old shoe, size very large;
(2) miscellaneous furnishings for (1) (above).
THE PETITIONERS ask that the Court find that the Old Lady was noncompos mentis at the time of her death, meaning she was incapable of understanding the consequences of her actions and did not intend to disinherit all of her children by the lack of a will. Petitioners state, “The Old Lady who lived in a shoe had so many children she didn’t know what to do about providing for them all.” So rather than divide her possessions, she believed that the lack of a will would result in all her survivors continuing to live in their shoe in harmony. There is no evidence that she desired her eldest child to inherit her estate to the exclusion of all other children.
DECISION: The law speaks quite clearly and often eloquently on matters such as this. In instances in which an individual dies without providing for his or her heirs in a specific manner, such property is subject to the law of primogeniture. Under this law, the firstborn or eldest son shall be entitled to inherit the entire estate. “The superior or exclusive right to succeed to the estate of the ancestor is possessed by the eldest son by right of seniority of birth and to the exclusion of younger sons.” There is no mention in any way or manner of the rights possessed by female children; in fact, the law of noget squat specifically excludes female children in the presence of a male sibling from receiving any legal inheritance in this situation.
Therefore, it is the decision of the Court that the eldest son, Marty, shall be entitled to receive sole possession of the shoe and all it contents.
Judgment of the Lower Court affirmed.
OAK V. GEPETTO
Opinion of Judge Wood
U.S. District Court
Special Branch
THE FACTS: The Plaintiff, Oak, has come before this Court to plead for the return of his natural-born offspring, a minor herein-after referred to in this proceeding as “Pinocchio.” The Plaintiff claims that this minor was violently abducted approximately eight years ago by the Defendant, Gepetto. Plaintiff further claims that said Gepetto has brainwashed the minor Pinocchio until he no longer has the ability to determine truth from lie, fact from fiction. Plaintiff demands immediate return of the minor in addition to an order from this Court prohibiting said Gepetto from having any further contact in any form with said minor Pinocchio.
The Defendant, Gepetto, counterclaims that said minor Pinocchio was barely surviving when he found him; that he was living in the woods in rotting conditions; that he was completely without clothes, without adult supervision of any kind; that he was growing up misshapen and twisted. Respondent claims to have saved the life of said minor Pinocchio and raised him as he would have his own child, to respect the truth and with good manners.
At trial the Plaintiff, Oak, testified as follows: I was living peacefully in the Black Forest with a growing family when suddenly, and without warning or provocation, I was brutally attacked by a then unknown individual with a deadly weapon. This then unknown assailant proceeded to rip and saw me asunder limb from limb, inflicting extreme pain and anguish. I was totally and completely defenseless. I could not leave. This attack left me, literally, as stiff as a board. When I recovered from the shock induced by this assault, I discovered that my beloved offspring, to whom I had given life and limb, had been abducted.
Under the circumstances there was nothing I could do. My roots were deep in the community, and it simply was not possible for me to pack my trunk and search for him. I wanted to go after the person who had taken my limb, but I was stumped. Time passed, and while I recovered from my physical wounds, emotionally I never got over this loss. I wept for my child. I knew he had been completely cut off from his own kindling. Eventually a little birdie told me that my offspring was living in the village with a so-called woodcarver named Gepetto. I learned that Gepetto had turned my offspring into his puppet, forcing him to fulfill his desires. Moreover, Pinocchio, as I learned he was called, had attempted to flee his captor and during that time was in grave jeopardy.
While ensconced in the Gepetto domicile, young Pinocchio was deprived of any knowledge of his heritage. When Pinocchio began sprouting, a natural process, and growing his own limb, Gepetto convinced him that this was, in fact, a deformity caused by failure to adhere to Gepetto’s beliefs, t
hereby further brainwashing the poor sapling. There can be no question that Pinocchio suffered and continues to suffer from a warped sense of reality and that he would be much better served by being returned to his own bed.
The Defendant, Gepetto, testified at trial that: [i]n order to appreciate the depth and impact of my relationship with the subject of this proceeding, it is necessary to understand how this relationship began. When I first came upon him, Pinocchio was unrecognizable as the individual he is today. He was not wearing any clothes, he was totally exposed to the elements, unable to respond to any stimulus. He was completely devoid of emotion and did not speak. When I asked him what he was doing in the forest, he did not respond. When I carried him home in my arms, he did not object.
From that first moment it was clear to me that he was rotting away inside. My only desire was to save him. I took him with me to my small shop and day after day tried to shape him into the kind of young boy I could be proud of. I fed him and clothed him. As he had never been exposed to civilization, I tried to teach him by example; when necessary, I was a stern disciplinarian. But there were never any strings attached. He was free to stay with me as long as he wanted to. I had carved out our own little world.
While Pinocchio never did become a chip off the old block, he learned many lessons. It is true that for much of his childhood he was completely dependent upon me. But one day my fondest wish came true. It was as if a miracle had happened: Pinocchio became independent. And, to be honest, he quickly got bored with the life we led together. The things we had once enjoyed no longer seemed to be of interest to him. He barely spoke to me. At times he did not tell the truth. He would make up unbelievable stories, expecting me to believe him. Once, for example, when I threatened to punish him for being out all night, he claimed that a witch had turned him into a donkey. Nothing that I did was good enough for him. He accused me of being completely out of touch with reality. In short, Pinocchio had become a teenager.
