Doggy vs Mollie: The Court CasePosted: September 6, 2012
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I’m about to present before you the most distressing case. You must read all the evidence carefully and make your decision. Your vote will decide the fate of our defendant, Mollie and the plaintiff, Doggy.
Please comment your thoughts below and then having carefully considered all the facts our guest judge HIS HONOR SAMUEL KIMMELL will make a ruling.
For those of you not familiar with the case, the defendant recently started a Paw Token competition, she would ask a question and those who answered correctly would receive the aforementioned Token. In a recent post, the defendant offered a FREE token to those who had failed to answer a question correctly. At this stage, the plaintiff had collected 3 paw tokens.
Here is out first piece of evidence. A screenshot of Mollie’s post Monday Mischief and Results:
Argument from the Plaintiff: (can also be viewed here)
Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury I present to you our case:
When Mollie hereby the defendant, published on her blog the offer of a free token for everyone, she did not specified that such token was limited to those contenders who did not have earned a token up to that point of the competition.
As you can see on the picture, hereby Exhibit A, the defendant did not specified who was exempt of the above mention token.
Was not until Sir Doggy, hereby the plaintiff, enthusiastically celebrated the addition of this new given token to the 3 he had fairly won on the previous challenges presented to all contenders under equal conditions that the defendant decided to change the the offer.
Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the plaintiff is not alleging that the defendant maliciously changed the rules , whoever, we, as his legal representation believe that the oscillation on the rules have caused a great amount of emotional distress on the plaintiff as you can see on the video hereby Exhibit B, the plaintiff is acting erratically since he was informed by the defendant that the token he held dear for hours was not for him to keep.
We ask this court to consider and to grant to the plaintiff with the coin that was offered and also with a compensation for all the emotional distress as well as medical and legal bills.
Attorney for the plaintiff
Statement from the defendant’s legal representative:
Acting as Mollie’s legal representative, I fully refute the plaintiff’s argument. I would like to direct him, and the court, to Mollie’s blog post entitled ‘Naughty Monday and results’
Quote: ‘I fink everyone has at least one token now, if ya haven’t, yoooz all take this one..to give ya a start.’
As you will see from this extract, it is clearly stated that those entrants who had not previously won a token were at liberty to accept a free one. As the plaintiff already had more than one token, this is does not apply.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s emotional distress was caused by his own willful misinterpretation of the rules and not the fault of the defendant.
The defendant’s reputation has been harmed by the injustice of this case and we move for a quick dismissal before more damage can be done.
Counter argument from the Plaintiff
NYT has published:
The statement released by Mrs. Molli’s defense in the case Sir Doggy and The People vs Mrs. Mollie, lacks evidence based on the legal ground. The defense makes reference to edited post published by the defendant.
On the opening argument of this case the accusation specified that the post mentioned by the defense was edited, a copy and transcript of the early version was submitted to The Court during the case opening.
The experts see this as a desperate measure to divert to attention of the jury and the general public.
It appears that Sir Doggy was not the only affected by the oscilation on the rules and offers of Mrs. Molly, here you can see another citizen also affected by this and we quote:
“Whisppy on September 3, 2012 at 2:12 pm said:
Heh heh….that’s very very naughty indeed! Hey, so we had one token, we got this right so that makes two tokens, then you are giving one to everyone so that makes it 3 tokens….right? LOL.”
When asked if he would sue, Whisppy’s legal representation refused to release an official statement, but emphasized that he was undergoing therapy after learning that the token given by the defendant was not longer his.
This case has uproar the population, the page “Indian Givers no more” of Facebook has more than 2 millions of visitors and have collected digital signatures to make sure this injustice doesn’t remain hidden.
Closing statement from the defendant
Firstly I wood’s like to say, Sorry for Alfies abscence…although it waz mostly his idea to do the Paw Token game..He’z just devistated…
Whatz can I sayz ….Beings taken to courtz waz neffer in our fawghtz. Wez tried to come upz wiff a fun games for allz youz to play…( Oh I wish Alf waz here to helpz me, hez good at this stuff! Sob Sniff, Sob Sniff )
Wez been accused of some ink and I’mz not quites sure what it is… Wez loves Doggy, Wez phoned the President to get him a Knighthood..Now that’s weal love..
He’z saying Wez owe him a Paw Token..Wez did put on our blog..All those dat don’tz have one yet, can take one…to get ya started.. How fair of Uz waz that?? Wez wanted everyone tooz have a chance of winning.. He already had 3. Wez have commited a crime..finking to much of our furbuddies…Tryin to elp’s them all. Yez, that’s our crime..tryin to show, how much Wez loves you all, even by helpin Doggy win that uffer competition..getting him the Knighthood..for a deed wellz done. He’z given wiff one Paw and taken wiff anuffer!! ” Sorry your Honour, have youz a tissue? ” Remembering our Buddies Birfdayz, trying to surprize them….Wez been there, and tried to helps youz wiff ya problems and Wez alwayz tried to put’s a smile on yor face… It’z not about the winin wiff uz, it’s the takin part. If youz vote that Doggy should have that extra Token, that he haz not earned..then Wez will give it tooz him. You cannot sayz, that you neffer win our competitons, it’z not fair Doggy alwayz dose..If youz vote for him, yoz will neffer win a competition..Wez don’t cheat..bribe or blackmail..
ALF YA HERE:
Kitties and Doggies..Do Wez really need to prove our case? .It’s all there in BLACK and WHITE ! Wez nose the members of the jury willz do the right fing..WEZ REST OUR CASE!
Common Molliekins, lets go home and cuddle up..I lovez yoz, even though youz stuck me in the washin machine! )
A message from the Judge:
Members of the jury this is a very serious case and your decision must not be taken lightly. Please read the above carefully before forming your opinion.
If you find in favour of the Plaintiff, Doggy will be awarded an EXTRA paw token.
If you find in favour of the defendant, Doggy will NOT get the extra token.
The decision is yours.