or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Lawyer's Xmas.

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 
Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a
certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter "the
House") a
general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not
limited to, any mouse or mice that may, in fact, be present.
A variety of foot apparel, e.g. stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed by
and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St.
Nick a/k/a/ St. Nicholas a/k/a/ Santa Claus hereinafter "Claus")
would arrive at sometime thereafter.
The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House were
located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal
hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein vision of confectionery treats,
including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did
dance, cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.
Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to
as ("I"), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with
the party of the second part (hereinafter "Mamma"), and said
Mamma had retired for a sustained period of sleep. (At such time, the
parties were clad in various forms of headgear, e.g. kerchief and cap.)

Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the
unimproved real property adjacent and appurtenant to said House, i.e. the
lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance.
The party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House
the investigate the cause of such disturbance.

At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of
wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleig (hereinafter "the
Vehicle") being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by
approximately eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be
and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus.

Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to
the approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically identified the
animal co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet,
Cupid, Donner and Blitzen (hereinafter "the Deer"). (Upon
information and belief, it is further asserted that an additional
co-conspirator named "Rudolph" may have been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer
intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences
located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the
Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown
origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either
express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered
said House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with
residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion
of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was
smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation
of local ordinances and health regulations.

Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stocking of the
minor children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other
small gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute "gifts" to
said minor pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.)

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew,
rose and/or otherwise ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof
where the Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as "lookouts."
Claus immediately departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said
House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim:
"Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!"
Or words to that effect
post #2 of 6
supercool, but you know, WE (herein as the law profesionals and/or additionall personell) are not that way in real life whatsoever and by all means
post #3 of 6
nakona, if that's intended to be legally technical, try asking a REAL lawyer to, um, "correct" it. And who SAYS we're not that way in "real life"?! and what is THIS, a dress rehersal?!!! or something?!!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ January 15, 2002 03:55 PM: Message edited 1 time, by oboe ]</font>
post #4 of 6

what oboe said.
post #5 of 6
i think most of the real good lawyers dont overuse technical terminology, either in their professional activity or in day to day life. That goes for here (AT LEAST), where i live.
men of the law (judjes, attorneys, councilors, are much apreciated if they do the contrary, making sense in what they are saying, using common and explicite terms in their discourses, advices and verdict motivations.
this of course doesnt mean they arent using technical terms, but for a good lawyer this happens only when necessary, as term abuse is percieved oftenly as evasive and confusing.
And when i said WE are not that way i meant I and A LOT of young lawyers, judges, and councilors that are friends of mine, so i guess that "WE is relevant at least for my country!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
post #6 of 6

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ January 16, 2002 07:59 PM: Message edited 1 time, by oboe ]</font>
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Humour and Fun Stuff