CPR 10-4-2011 JUSTICE SILVIO SCATIA ISSUES PART 1 OF HIS OPINION IN EATING CONTROVERSY
News came today from Justice Silvio Scatia's chambers that the Judge
had woken up from his nap, and climbed up on top of the refrigerator
at Cabbage Hill, his higher bench, to issue Part I of his opinion on
the controversy over whether or not the eating competition between
Catsby and Pharoah had been properly adjudged by Gracie. Here is the
advance sheet of his opinion:
"This matter comes before me on a claim that an eating competition between two cats was not properly judged by another cat, and a result, a dog lost money betting on a cat. I will take up the issue of the dog losing money first.
"Caveat Canis" is a fundamental maxim in cat, er, I mean pet, jurisprudence. Dogs are gluttonous omnivores who kiss human ass and pretend to be man's best friend, even while eating them out of house and home. What is particularly disturbing is that dogs will eat anything, and I mean anything, even cat turds rolled in kitty litter. This court finds the very concept of dogs eating cat turds so offensive that it insists its own kitty litter box be cleaned daily by robots, and then it is my standing order (more like a squatting order) that the contents of my litter box be placed under hermitic seal, in containers, which containers are then moved to caves, and tended to by hermits, until such time as my library gets built, and my turds may be properly displayed, along with my papers, in giant glass floor to ceiling cases. So it is a basic principle in cat, er, I mean, pet jurisprudence that in any controversy involving a dog and a cat, BLAME THE DOG. Here, it is clear from the briefs submitted that a particular dog, Lady Emma, allegedly a great friend of felines, stood to profit from a decision that determined that Pharoah was interfered with by Libby while engaged in the eating competition. It is this Court's opinion that dogs should not be allowed to win money from cats. Period. This opinion does not rest on any prejudice (although it is the Court's opinion that dogs are dumb, graceless butt sniffers and a massive waste of fur) but is rooted in precedent-- specifically, the precedent established by dogs with money, who don't know how to budget, and spend it on stupid things like victrolas and squeaky plastic toys. I mean really. Now if you will excuse me I need to take a short recess to lick myself.
"This matter comes before me on a claim that an eating competition between two cats was not properly judged by another cat, and a result, a dog lost money betting on a cat. I will take up the issue of the dog losing money first.
"Caveat Canis" is a fundamental maxim in cat, er, I mean pet, jurisprudence. Dogs are gluttonous omnivores who kiss human ass and pretend to be man's best friend, even while eating them out of house and home. What is particularly disturbing is that dogs will eat anything, and I mean anything, even cat turds rolled in kitty litter. This court finds the very concept of dogs eating cat turds so offensive that it insists its own kitty litter box be cleaned daily by robots, and then it is my standing order (more like a squatting order) that the contents of my litter box be placed under hermitic seal, in containers, which containers are then moved to caves, and tended to by hermits, until such time as my library gets built, and my turds may be properly displayed, along with my papers, in giant glass floor to ceiling cases. So it is a basic principle in cat, er, I mean, pet jurisprudence that in any controversy involving a dog and a cat, BLAME THE DOG. Here, it is clear from the briefs submitted that a particular dog, Lady Emma, allegedly a great friend of felines, stood to profit from a decision that determined that Pharoah was interfered with by Libby while engaged in the eating competition. It is this Court's opinion that dogs should not be allowed to win money from cats. Period. This opinion does not rest on any prejudice (although it is the Court's opinion that dogs are dumb, graceless butt sniffers and a massive waste of fur) but is rooted in precedent-- specifically, the precedent established by dogs with money, who don't know how to budget, and spend it on stupid things like victrolas and squeaky plastic toys. I mean really. Now if you will excuse me I need to take a short recess to lick myself.
When this opinion was read to Lady Emma, she
was quite shaken. (photo 1) She had no idea that there were caves of
cat turds waiting to be discovered and ransacked. For his part, Catsby
wanted to wait for the second part of Justice Silvio Scatia's opinion
before commenting; he tried to hide from this reporter by napping
under the covers on the bed, but such as your reporter's indefatigable
reportorial skills that he was coaxed out from under the covers for
these exclusive photos.
Sponsored by RCA Victrolas, whose motto is "Only Dogs are Dumb Enough
to Buy a Victrola rather than an IPOD"
No comments:
Post a Comment