Posts Tagged ‘Property Line’

h1

Today’s Civil Court Docket

August 19, 2009
Practical jokes like this make any trip to court a true joy!

Practical jokes like this make any trip to court a true joy!

Free Waterfall, Jr. v. Farnsworth
Property line dispute. Waterfall, Jr. claims that “no one can, like, own land, man.” Farnsworth has responded that one can own property, provided they are not a “penniless hippie.” Farnsworth also seeks clarification as to whether existing laws permit use of “doomsday devices” to deter trespassers.

Mitchell v. Fire Department
While Mitchell admits carelessness in starting fire via an attempt to cook Jiffy Pop while under the influence of Wild Turkey, he questions whether the fire department was justified in using “so much goddamned water.”

Mitchell seeks compensation for water damage to property including:
– Four (4) black velvet paintings;
– “that sandwich I was going to eat later;”
– hard-bound collection of Tiger Beat magazines; and
– several “outdated electronic devices.”

The fire department has countered with “next time (and there will be a next time, you drunken moron), we’ll just let the fucker burn to the ground,” adding “burn, motherfucker, burn.”

Gleason v. Rasmussen
Gleason seeks clarification as to why Rasmussen is unwilling to keep his “multitudinous offspring” off his well-cared-for lawn. Rasmussen’s offspring are accused of “wearing a path between the house and the garage,” “coming and going at all hours of the night,” and “playing their music, if you can call it that, at intrusive levels.”

Rasmussen has countered that his children (“and there’s only five of them, possibly six”) are law-abiding citizens, who “aren’t trying to cause any problems” and are “generally pretty good students, I mean not honor roll or anything and only the youngest boy has had to repeat a grade.” Gleason has countered “those kids are trouble, I just know it,” going on to point out that the “slow one” has been eating the flowers out behind his garage.

Rasmussen has cited Adams v. Jenkins to wit: they are “just kids being kids. Cut ’em a break,” adding “mind your own business and close your drapes once in a while.”

Garelli v. Landover Hills Community Pool
Garelli has filed a motion for a dismissal of his lifetime ban from the community pool, stating that his ban is “excessive, punitive and a violation of his right to enjoy publicly-funded recreation.”

Pool representatives have stated that, despite several warnings, Garelli has continued to sport an “unattractive combination of gold medallions, chest hair and barely-there Speedos.” Garelli has also “made a mockery of this family-friendly atmosphere with his crude sexual comments, endless requests for ‘more disco,’ and visible erections.” He also refuses to “stop running around the pool or diving into the shallow end.”

Garelli has stated that, as a recent citizen of America, he has the right to “make love with all the girls” and display his body “in the proud tradition of his countrymen.” He also wishes to know why his requests for “hot disco music” have been ignored, as he is “always ready to get down.”

Pool reps have responded “they’re lifeguards, not DJs, and stop asking our mothers whether they ‘have a little Italian’ in them and if not, ‘would they like to, yeah?’ Not to mention the followup statement of ‘only it’s not so little, it’s actually large and hard, like some sort of butcher product from my homeland.’ In fact, stay away from our mothers altogether.”

Martinez v. Masterson
Masterson cites Martinez and his Humvee dealership as being “a major contributor to climate change” and “a force of evil working in collusion with the Big 3 auto makers, Big Oil and other ‘Big’ corporations.”

Martinez has counter-argued that his business is self-owned, carbon neutral (excluding test drives) and all-American. He would also appreciate it if Masterson wouldn’t “localize the entire climate change debate to my parking lot, exclusively.”

Martinez cites Free Waterfall, Jr. v. Farnsworth: i.e., “Shut the fuck up, hippie.”

Anita Block v. Theodore Block [Divorce Hearing]
Anita Block is seeking a divorce from T. Block for “infidelity, neglect and general sexual ineptness.” She states that T. Block has frequently forgotten “birthdays, anniversaries, interventions and her first name, often referring to her as ‘woman’ or ‘the help.'”

T. Block was unable to attend the hearing, stating via a note delivered by his attorney that he was currently “banging his secretary (out of town on business).”

The court found in favor of A. Block as T. Block had failed to produce a suitable excuse due to a massive “parentheses FAIL.”

A. Block was awarded custody of the house, checkbook and dogs. The kids were remanded to the state at the Blocks’ cries of “Not it!” were judged “too close to call.”

Aaron Gill v. Rosewater Downs Racetrack
Aaron Gill is suing Rosewater Downs for “gross negligence” for failing to stop his out-of-control gambling by “any means necessary, including, but not limited to: threats, begging, confiscation of car keys/wallet/property deeds and lifetime ban.”

Racetrack officials have stated that “we did hand you a lifetime ban three months ago, but you took us to court and had the ban thrown out as ‘unconstitutional.”

Morton still argues that some rules should have been put into play before he wagered away his car, his firstborn child and his soul, in that order.

Mindy Whitman v. the International Brotherhood of Pipe Welders
Whitman states that she is not interested in the “length, girth or hardness of any union member’s pipe nor would she like to ‘feel their fire.'” She has further stated that this is harassment, both annoying and illegal.

The Brotherhood has countered with “What are ya? A lesbo?”

At this point, all discussion has broken down and Miss Sweet Tits has been asked to “shake it” for the court at a later, as yet undetermined date.

-CLT

Advertisements