The leftward and other blatherings of Span (now with Snaps!)

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Mara to FATW "Back off, sonny Jim"

Mr Preston,

You have now publicly repeated the allegations of your client, Mr FATW, and, to add insult to injury, on the blog of her legal guardian, span(ner in the works).

Your claim that our client, Mara, is financially motivated is unfair and quite slanderous - as our client is a cat your money is of little use to her. Her legal guardian will be similarly outraged if you attempt to attach such an accusation to her person as well, and I do not have to warn you that a further suit may be forthcoming on her behalf if you seek to insinuate the same about her.

As to the ability of your client to pay - as it is not money but good reputation that is at issue whatever penalty would result in the bankruptcy and subsequent poverty of your client would be sufficient in reparations. In any matter the quantum of the damages is an issue for the Courts to decide. We are however quite confident of sizeable success in this arena.

In regard to your frankly laughable rebuttals to the points raised in our first missive to Mr FATW:

1.1 Mara is in fact a cat
Mara's catness is not at issue. Her status as a NZ citizen is however questionable. We wish this were not so and in fact have prepared submissions to the current Government around the extention of various rights to the feline population, in particular the franchise, as Mara has political ambitions that she would like to pursue via the Animals First Party.

1.2 Mara is in fact under 18 and thus unable to sign a contract of any sort
You responded: "We do not have access to your client's birth records and are thus unable to verify her exact age. However we suspect based on her appearance that she is substantially past the age of majority in cat years (note that you have already stipulated that your client is, in fact, a cat), and therefore entitled to enter into any contract she might find appropriate."

We are quite stunned by your lack of understanding of simple etiquette. It is quite ungentlemanly to enquire of a lady's age to begin with, but then to question her assertion in regard to it is totally unacceptable and were this still the age of duelling you would find yourself facing a slap in the face with an empty glove and at the next convenient dawn picking your pistol.

1.3 span(ner in the works) is in fact the legal guardian of Mara and thus able to consent on her behalf
The relationship between span(ner in the works) and our client is that of all legal guardians - span(ner in the works) stands in loco parentis. We can assure you that the appropriate papers were lodged with the SPCA at the time that this arrangement was initiated. Once Mara is of adult age the relationship will no doubt become one of close friends and possibly co-habitors (platonic), but that is far far in the future and not a relevant point at this time.

1.4 Would you, sir, deny the world the beauty that is Mara?
You claimed that you were pursuing the best interests of our client, when in fact it is we that are empowered to act on her behalf and are instructed by her, and her legal guardian, span(ner in the works), who is the legal caretaker of her best interests. To second guess us in this manner is inappropriate given that you do not act on behalf of any suitable Government or NGO agency. Some might say that you are nothing but a scurrilous troublemaker, capable of little more than throwing mud to see if some might stick, but of course we could not possibly make such an unprofessional allegation.

You also wrote:
"My client will issue a full and unreserved retraction if and when proof of the above is presented."

We assume that this will be immediately forthcoming, and would like to remind you of the principle of bane and antidote, in relation to defamation and retractions. Any retractions must have comparable coverage to the offending statements; in this case we suggest publication on your blog, in the NZ Herald, the Dominion Post, the Christchurch Press, the Times of London and broadcast during peak viewing hours at least three times on channels 1, 2, 3 and Prime.

Yours etc,
Ms I Robb and Mr A Cheat
Lawyers of Great Repute

1 comment:

Jarrod said...

Dear Ms Robb and Mr Cheat,

I apologise for the delay in replying to your latest broadside. My client has been out of the city on business for several days and was therefore quite uncontactable.

A response will be posted on my client's webpage as soon as time allows. In the meantime I caution you that any further attempts at stalking my client via the interweb will result in the appropriate authorities being notified.

Kind regards,

William S. Preston, Esq.
Attorney at Law