Story Time For Litigators
There's something wrong with the story that follows after the jump.
Actually, there's one big thing wrong, which is the product of a lot of little things.
To get the full effect, imagine that it is set out in 12 point, double-spaced, Times New Roman with one inch margins.
In a post (or posts) to come, my head will explode about why we lawyers write so poorly. Is there a law somewhere that says we must . . . .
But I digress.
After the jump is the story. Any resemblance between my story and a brief you may have sent me to edit is purely coincidental.
Or at least really really exaggerated to make a point.
COMES NOW, Dr. Thomas Muffet (hereinafter "Muffet" or "APPELLANT") and by fourteen points of error does hereby challenge the judgment of the Family Court in terminating his parental rights viz. his adopted step-daughter, Patience Muffet (hereinafter, "the Child") for, inter alia, endangering the Child on or about June 7, 2010 by exposing the Child to a venomous spider where the child lodged in the APPELLANT'S home. APPELLANT would respectfully show:
APPELLANT was born in 1970 to Thomas Moffet in Shoreditch, London. From there, APPELLANT rose to become a well recognized physician.
On or about September 4, 1976, APPELLANT began attending the Merchant Taylors' School. Subsequent thereto, on or about May 12, 1989, APPELLANT entered Trinity College at Cambridge. On October 4 of 1991, Muffet transferred to Gonville Hall. He continued his education there until his graduation the following year, when he received his Bachelor Degree on May 21, 1992.
In September 1992, APPELLANT began medical studies with Thomas Lorkin and John Caius. On October 7, 1995, APPELLANT began his Master's program at Trinity College, at which point he was expelled from Gonville Hall. On April 4, 1998 Muffet boarded with Felix Platter, chief physician of Basel, where he adopted the Paracelsian system of Medicine. On June 4,199, Muffet was awarded his MD from Basel with a censored version of his thesis, entitled De amodinis medicamentis.
In addition to his medical studies, APPELLANT became interested in studying the native insects of England. A catalog of said insects was completed by APPELLANT on November 4, 1997. The creature that is the subject of this dispute is not a venomous spider. Rather it was identified by the APPELLANT as a variety of Opiliones (formerly Phalangida), which are an order of non-spider arachnids commonly known as harvestmen. A photograph of the creature was taken by the Child's mother ("the Mother"), which is attached hereto as exhibit A and incorporated by reference as if set out in full.
The State claims that the harvestman is the most venomous animal in the world, but it is undisputed that harvestmen possesses fangs too short or a mouth too round and small to bite a human and therefore is not dangerous. None of the known species of harvestmen have venom glands; their chelicerae are not hollowed fangs but grasping claws that are typically very small and definitely not strong enough to break human skin. Clearly, there was no danger.
On November 4, 2011, APPELLANT adopted the Child and took her into his home. The accusations against APPELLANT, however, are solely guilt by association, clearly arising from his avocation as a naturalist. Clearly they are not sufficient to terminate his parental rights.
Now, wasn't that engaging?
No?
Why not?
See any similarities to any briefs you've read lately? Any you've written? To come is my harangue about this tale of Little Miss Muffet, Litigator Edition. In the mean time, you may harangue at will in the comments.
Welcome to the Appellate Record-- --the online community and virtual watering hole for appellate lawyers and anyone else who is comfortable with their inner law nerd.