Thursday, December 19, 2013

Judge Foley Announces New Lead Council For Her Law Firm and Files Her First Case

Being a Judge at Rainbow Bridge means that I had to sever my ties with my former law firm.  Originally I was going to appoint Pocket as head litigator but I have changed my mind for two reasons.  One:  Pocket is an excellent researcher but not very confident when it comes to her speaking abilities during trials and two:  If you had to go to court would you want to look at the opposing counsel and see this:

And now we have our first big case.  Several dogs have come to me to complain about items being sold at pet stores.  They pose a direct threat to both the dignity of dogs and our rights to peacefully enjoy their lives.  I shall now list our three main pieces of evidence in this case.

First is this:

It is a bottle opener attached to a dog collar.  I have heard tails told of men who convince their adoring pets to fetch them alcoholic beverages.  While I believe the law should not become involved in the relationship between dog and parent I find such behavior an abuse of said relationship.  For the parent to grasp the dog by the collar and use it to open his disgusting beer, filling the pups nostrils with the noxious smell and treating the sweet angel like an appliance is appalling.  While some pet parents do not use the best judgment, especially the more they drink, we hold that the company selling the produce it at fault and we are seeking a restraining order to make them stop.  If the do not cooperate with our request to stop selling the collar bottle opener they will be face with this.

Our second piece of evidence is this:

Again, it has to do with humans’ love of beer.  They are treats that taste like beer.  Not wine, or another tasty beverage like Sex on the Beach, but, gross, skanky beer.  I believe the idea behind this product is, when our Dads have drank too many of these beers, and are regurgitating them into the toilet, we will be next to them, regurgitating our treats right next to them.  This is an abuse of our bodies.  Treats are our weakness.  We will eat any treat presented to us even if it is harmful.  Since a small percentage of humans are using bad judgment in buying these treats we ask that they be pulled from the shelves immediately or the store owners will be summoned to court and face this.

And this is our third piece of evidence:

I lived my life under the banner “Freedom to Bark” and this means freedom to live without muzzles.  Now I know these are a necessary evil.  Lots of dogs go out and put things in their mouth they shouldn’t.   My sister River is one of them.  But there should be no other reason to muzzle.  This product not only silences our freedom to bark, but mocks us in the process.  A muzzled dog is a humiliated dog, and to add to the humiliation with cartoon drawings, is an unspeakable injustice.  We demand that these products be moved immediately.  If not you will have to face this.

The plaintiff rests.

5 comments:

  1. We think you have a solid case there.

    XXXOOO Daisy, Bella & Roxy

    ReplyDelete
  2. OMD....I will NEVER drink another beer again. And I sure hope Puddles sees this post!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Us too.....you are so right. We certainly will be voting with our feet and not buying. Have a fabulous Friday.
    Best wishes Molly

    ReplyDelete
  4. We think, too, that you have a solid case with all three--for exactly the reasons you stated. Glad you are still watching over us pups here on Earth. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  5. We concur. We really should seek compensatory damages, punitive damages and seek to criminalize these offenses. After all... this is pure abusive behavior.

    ReplyDelete