The Ambitions of Levi

I remember the day that I met Levi.  I had, at first, mistaken him for a ball of down feathers that had escaped from a nearby pillow. He was about the size of a grapefruit, impish, as most puppies are, and brilliantly white. But amongst his other traits the subtlest of all was ambition.  As he glanced up at me with the blackest of eyes he was rewarded with a grin because it was at that point that I knew this animal was like none other.

I, personally, have a strong distaste for most animals.  It isn't that I despise the companionship or warmth that they bring to a home.  It isn't that at all.  Throughout most of my childhood my house functioned as something of a private zoo and it was because of this that I developed a slight aversion to pets.  But as I have stated Levi was different.  His eyes held wisdom beyond his years as if when he was brought into this world he instantly knew just what his purpose was. As I said he is an ambitious pup and that has become more apparent over time.  Levi has expressed his intention to become a stage actor on more than one occasion. 

Levi's favorite holiday is Christmas.  For this photo, to test out his abilities as an actor, I asked him to appear pensive yet retain an air of humility.  I think he pulled it off nicely.

Though I have told him that the world of acting is quite competitive, especially for pets, Levi refuses to yield to my advice and give up on his dream.  He has expressed that the one role that stands out in his mind is that of an American war general. Levi practices everyday by peering out of windows for long lengths of time as if he is about to issue a command that will turn the tide in favor of American forces.

This mindset emerged soon after watching "It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown".  Seeing Snoopy portray a World War II flying ace was the catalyst that ignited his passion to become the best canine thespian to trot the globe.  Aside from aspiring to become an actor Levi has delved into writing quite a bit.  Currently he is working on a biopic of Mark Twain called, "A Dog's Tale", drawing the title from Twain's 1903 short story.  Levi has cast himself to play the lead character and though he may look like the legendary author I feel as though he lacks the emotional depth to accurately capture the essence of Mark Twain.  He may also want to avoid placing himself as the main character of the film because he has always feared being typecast as a 20th Century American writer.

I have always told Levi to follow this very ambitious dream because even if it never comes to fruition he can at least reprise the role of the Wampa in the live action stage version of "The Empire Strikes Back".

Deposition of Charlie Sheen

Deposition

Charlie Sheen

[Excerpt from deposition taken on March 11th, 2011]

Q: What is your current address?

A: 253 Memory Lane and I’ve got alzheimer’s.  Irony right.

Q: We need your real address Mr. Sheen.

A: Lighten up.  1845 Olivera Dr. Agoura Hills, CA 91301

Q: Mr. Sheen this is a deposition and it is under oath.  This is highly important especially if you want to keep your children.  How would you describe your relationship with your children?

A: Stellar, phenomenal, intergalactic.  We couldn’t be more right for each other.  Sometimes I look at them and I think to myself, Charlie.   Charlie, Charlie, if you didn’t have kids think of where you could be, you know.

Q: So are you saying if you never had kids you would be better off?

A: Don’t twist words.  You twist words you make the devil happy.  The twisting of a word is the torturing of a word you know.  Then they resent you.  Then how can you win.  You can’t.

Q: So do you or do you not think that your children are a hindrance?

A: All children are hindrances.  How could they not be?  Does that mean I don’t love them?

Q: Do you believe that all children need is love?

A: Yes.  All we need is love.

Q: Are you implying that you are a child Mr. Sheen?

A: We all have children within our heart.  Mine just happens to be a 45 year old booger.

Q: Who do you live with?

A: I live with my kids, a dog named Samuel, a ferret named Jamal, a bunch of fish in an aquarium all named Pickle, and we have an iguana we haven’t named yet but it’s a coin toss between Carol, Margaret, Elizabeth, Mary, and Pete.  We really aren’t sure whether it’s male or female yet.  Or yeah and “the Goddesses”. 

Q: Who are “the Goddesses”?

A: They are my live in sweethearts so to speak.  Girlfriends you know.

Q: How do your children feel about your relationship with the women that live with you?

A: Well how do you think they feel.  I’ve got two boys.  Do the math.  Math much?
 

Q: How often do you show intimacy with these women when your children are present?

A: Part of being a father is showing your boys how they should act.  Lead by example they say.  Lead by example.  If I have a need I fill it and most of the time the need is women.  There is a pun in there somewhere.  I expect the kids to do the same honestly.   I’ve got big plans for my kids and my women, big ones.  Big Kahunas ready to be surfed. 

Q: What is your relationship to these women that live with you?

A: Mostly business. Joke. Joke. Joke.   I kid.  They are to me what Adam was to Eve.  Reverse that.  And at the same time they are to me what Oompa Loompas were to Willy Wonka.  But sometimes I’m the Loompa.  I think we can all agree.  Are we clear on that? 

Q: Not at all. So sometimes they are a benefit and sometimes they are a burden?

A: We are all burdened.  We’ve got our own demons and I don’t purport to know that.  I purport to live that. Write that down. That’s good.  Look at my skin.  Life’s harsh winds have weathered it.  Weathered it deeply.  Thompson's would have helped.

Q: Just so you know Mr. Sheen, everything is being written down.  This is a deposition.  Do you think your children would be better off with your ex-wife?

A: I’ll make an analogy.  It’s like I’m drinking the tiger blood.  But then someone comes along and says, “ Look at this, cheetah blood.  Fast, strong.”  Duh, no brainer.  I take it.  I drink it up.  Then I look back and you’re still on the tiger blood.  Now who’s winning. 

Q: How much time do you spend with your children each day on average?

A: Good question.  Therein lies the answer.

Q: You haven’t answered the question, how much time do you spend with your children each day on average?

A: Sometimes I just sit in the room with them and I stare.  I stare at them for hours until one of them breaks and this teaches them something I think.  It teaches them that no matter what they do in life they cannot live up to the accomplishments of all other people.  And most of these other people are Charlie Sheen.

Q: What would you say the most important thing in the world to you is?

A: Winning.  Scoreboard tells me what I need to know and the one in my room says, Charlie-1, the world-zip.  And on the megatron there is a picture of me clipping my toenails.  I’m transcending humility.

Q: Other than winning what is the most important thing to you?

A: Guiding light.  Best show on television.  By the way why isn’t this being taped?

Q: Depositions do not have to be filmed, it is up to the attorney’s discretion.

A: Well I need people to see this.  To look into my eyes.  The eyes are the windows to the soul and I need people to know that these windows aren’t stained brown with bull crap. 

Q: Mr. Sheen, what is your income?

A: Income doesn’t matter.  My outcome is awesome.  Awesome is actually all I produce.   

Q: It does matter Mr. Sheen, because we need to know if you can support your children.  What is your income?

A: Alright I’m an actor, I’ve got coin. 

Q: What do you see in store for the future for you and your children?

A: The future.  Oh I see a freakin’ revolution man, a movement.  This thing is grassblade style you know.  Free thinking through me, the captivating exogenous force.  You can’t even begin to imagine what the future is because you can’t grasp it.  You pick it up and you are like, “Dude it burns, hot potato.”  I pick it up, peer into it and see a world of endless light bulbs and I’m holding the switch.  I flick that sucker and there you go, power to the people!

(Disclaimer:  This is obviously not a real deposition excerpt and is at best a sad attempt at parody.)

Calrissian v. Vader (1 D.T. 2)

(1 D.T. 2)
2011

Calrissian v. Vader

Dickered Terms Supreme Court

February 28th, 2011, Heard in Supreme Court

Factual Background

Plaintiff Lando Calrissian, the Chief Administrator of Cloud City gas mining colony on the planet of Bespin, contracted with Defendant Darth Vader to facilitate the capture of rebel fugitives Leia Organa, Han Solo, and Luke Skywalker.  The original agreement was only for the capture of Han Solo, a mercenary who was wanted by both the Galactic Empire as well as the ruthless mobster Jabba the Hutt.  Organa would be free to leave once Skywalker was captured and she was to receive a pardon from Emperor Palpatine.  The offer was for Calrissian to "aid in the capture of Han Solo and Leia Organa in an effort to lure Luke Skywalker to Cloud City to also be captured."  In return for this, Lord Vader was to "ensure the gas mining colony of Cloud City's economic autonomy", away from the regulatory hand of the Galactic Empire.

Lord Vader later altered the agreement by stating that Organa must never leave Cloud City and that Solo was to be taken by the bounty hunter known as Boba Fett instead of the original agreement which only involved temporary custody on Cloud City.  Calrissian stated, "That was never a condition of our agreement, nor was giving Han to this bounty hunter!"  Lord Vader responded with, "I have altered the terms of the deal, pray I do not alter them any further."  Calrissian exclaimed, "This deal is getting worse all the time."  The District Court held for Lord Vader and the Court of Appeals affirmed.  Calrissian appealed.

Any claims stating that this contract should be unenforceable, due to unconscionability or matters of public policy,  have been granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant considering this is a legitimate act pursuant to Galactic Law and in furtherance of the Galactic Empire.  The only issue on appeal regards the pre-existing duty under contract that Lord Vader owed to Calrissian and whether modification of that contract can be allowed.

MR. JUSTICE MARTIN delivered the opinion of the court.

Quite rare is it, as well as noble, to bring suit against the Galactic Empire, a much formidable adversary.  These courts of law rarely hear cases involving suits against the Empire, most likely because of the efficiency, fairness and peace that it brings to our coalition of transgalactic nations.  During the years of the Republic the courts were overwhelmed with cases and controversies against the government due to its lack of rigidity and overall uncontrolled order.  The Empire in one swift motion can hear the concerns of the people and immediately address them without experiencing the political gridlock that seemed to be an all too common flaw of the democratic Republic.  

In the present case we see at issue the hallmark of a contract, a duty owed to another through a promise.  That promise was for Cloud City’s economic society to be left untouched by the government and in exchange for this Lando Calrissian was to aid Lord Darth Vader in obtaining only temporary custody over Leia Organa and to arrest the mercenary Han Solo for his crimes against the Empire.  Lord Vader then altered the agreement by ordering that Organa must remain in Cloud City for the remainder of her life and that Solo was to be taken prisoner by the bounty hunter Boba Fett until he would be delivered to Jabba the Hutt.  These facts are not disputed by the Empire and neither is the fact that this alteration of the contract was without new consideration.

What is at issue here, however, is whether Calrissian consented to the alteration and if so whether this consent was brought about through duress.  Calrissian contends that he never consented to the modification of the contract and therefore Lord Vader was in violation of a pre-existing duty as a party to the contract.  Lord Vader alleges that Calrissian accepted the new terms to the deal impliedly.  We agree.

Acceptance of an offer to contract can be presented in many forms.  An offeree needn't climb to the top of the mountains of Mustafar and exclaim, "I ACCEPT".  One of the recognized formats of assent, at least in Imperial courts of law, is implied acceptance.  By stating "This deal is getting worse all the time,"Calrissian gave his opinion that he was not pleased with the arrangement. 


But as we have seen before complete contentedness is not a necessary element of assent.  Offerees oft dicker over terms with an offeror and come to an agreement through compromise.  This statement by Calrissian amounted to a compromise, and though he was not entirely pleased with the agreement he did not rescind the contract because he still wanted to enjoy the benefit of the bargain.


Partial rescission of a contract is a lawful way to modify a contract as long as there is mutual consent of the parties that hasn't been brought about through duress. Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Domenico, 117 F. 99 (1902).  That brings us to our second issue, whether duress brought about the manifestation of assent on the part of Calrissian.  In order to show duress four elements must be satisfied: there must be a threat, it must be improper, it must induce the manifestation of assent and it must be "grave enough".  


Calrissian alleges that Lord Vader's statement, "I have altered the terms of the deal, pray I do not alter them any further" amounted to an implied threat of further alteration of the contract and the political power that Lord Vader holds at his disposal should be taken into account when deciding this case.  We disagree.  The purpose of Lord Vader's statement was not a threat, it was not improper and it was not to bring about the manifestation of assent.  It was merely a statement to inform Calrissian that the terms of the deal were being modified and that if Calrissian disagrees with this then he must object, otherwise, he would be impliedly accepting the new terms of the agreement.  


But even if this statement satisfied the first three elements of duress the last element cannot be met.  No judge or jury throughout the systems would find that Lord Vader's statement was grave enough to amount to duress.  It has been held that a party that yields to a new contract, without a hint of protest, to the slightest threat of Force shall not be protected. Watkins & Son v. Carrig, 91 N.H. 459, 21 A.2d 591 (1941).  Calrissian has rights and he should have stood on them instead of rolling over to the mere presence of Lord Vader.  




SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE, we hereby AFFIRM the lower court's judgment.

JUSTICE HICKS dissents from the majority opinion.

It is with a trembling hand that I hold this gavel.  Once the Republic was dissolved and the Empire was forged all branches of government became a single entity and though this dictatorship has been viewed as more efficient than the Old Republic it should be noted that this efficiency arrives through the usurpation, as well as death, of democracy.  


It is no wonder that this court's majority holds, "No judge or jury throughout the systems would find that Lord Vader's statement was grave enough to amount to duress."  This statement proves too much.  It confirms the problems that the rebels mentioned in the facts of this case are fighting to eradicate.  These courts of justice are at the end of a leash held by one man who sits at the Grand Palace in Coruscant. A well placed conclusion to the majority's opinion would include the phrase, "Quite frankly our lives are at stake..." Democracy dies with fairness, justice and humanity.  There is no more convincing document than today's decision.

Aftermath of Calrissian

Three days after the judgment was announced and the decision was published Justice Hicks was found dead.  Autopsy results indicated that he died of strangulation. When asked what Lord Vader thought of the dissenting opinion in Calrissian he stated, "The dissenting opinion was at the very best conclusory and completely devoid of reason.  It only becomes more clear that the rebels must be eliminated, as a threat to the Empire, after realizing that their presence was felt on our very courts of law."

Campen v. Snow (1 D.T. 1)

(1 D.T. 1)

2011

Campen v. Snow 

Dickered Terms Supreme Court

February 24th, 2011, Heard in Supreme Court

Factual Background

It was a dark and stormy night.  Mr. Campen had met with The Snow in a pub down Roxie Blvd.  The meeting was casual and brief, but it had a sole purpose.  Mr. Campen was to enter into a gentlemen's agreement with The Snow.  The offer was made by Mr. Campen for The Snow to specifically, "fall to the ground on the following Wednesday night at 7:00 P.M., look beautiful and get everyone out of school."  The Snow accepted this offer by shaking the hand of Mr. Campen for the consideration of Mr. Campen's "companionship, love and care" on the following Thursday.  Mr. Campen was to perform snow angels in The Snow, make The Snow into a man and throw the snow at others showing them how marvelous The Snow could be once it interacted with a human.

Both The Snow and Mr. Campen agreed to a stipulated damages provision that stated that if The Snow was to breach the contract in any way, Mr. Campen would be entitled to three "White Christmases" at some point in his life.  However, The Snow didn't arrive until 4:00 A.M. the following Thursday and in much less quantity and in much less magnificence.  This caused Mr. Campen to attend school that day and amounted to a breach of contract.  Mr. Campen brought suit against The Snow, the trial court held for Mr. Campen, and this was affirmed by The Court of Appeals.  The Snow appealed.

MR.  JUSTICE CARLIN delivered the opinion of the court.

And it was a deal that had been stricken betwixt a chilled, blistery and callous individual and a source of winter merriment on an ominous eve.  The chilled individual holding his hand out on behalf of indolent students in the region struck a deal with our beloved flurry as he had once done with The Snow's icy brethren.  In return for the offer the black-hearted soul would merely spend time with our beloved flurry the next day, a much gratuitous consideration if there ever was.

The purpose of this deal was to allow the black-hearted soul to be free the following Wednesday night to avert his crusty peepers from the text of learned judges across the nation and to free himself from the incarceration of knowledge.  However, our beloved flurry was forced into inaction by the intervening cause of the resilient warm air that facilitated this litigation.  And now as an award for this inaction the black-hearted soul wants in return three white December 25ths so he can turn his eyes to the clean snow in a hope that it will bring life to his colorless existence.

The primary issue that should be before us today is whether this contract is a valid one. But this is a settled fact and the parties do not contend that, even though the lack of consideration or even the questionable mutual assent of the parties would be enough to discredit this chilled agreement.  But our beloved flurry has a pure sole and it is with tremendous candor that he comes to the court not contending the existence of a contract that he honors but yet only asking for a release from the darkened hand of the stipulated damages provision of this agreement.  It is our judgment on the matter of the enforceability of this provision that our beloved flurry seeks and it is that judgment that he shall be awarded.

When a court is asked to look to a liquidated damages provision within a contract, whether it be oral or written, it must juxtapose the differing effects of such a provision.  Much like statutory interpretation involves looking to both the criminal or civil effects of a law, we must decide whether the effects of the provision are penal in nature or if they are regulatory.  If this provision does function as a penalty then it is entirely unenforceable. Wasserman's Inc. v. Township of Middletown, 137 N.J. 238, 645 A.2d 100 (1994).  And if it was unreasonably unrelated to the probable damages that a court would settle upon then it is equally unenforceable. Dave Gustafson & Co. v. State, 156 N.W.2d 185 (1968).

In addressing the effect of this provision we must begin with its language.  The provision states that the black-hearted soul would be entitled to three "White Christmases" should our beloved flurry breach the contract.  Our beloved flurry would be forced to venture from it's quaint abode upon the wintry hillside away from its family and settle upon the weathered dirt patch that the black-hearted soul calls home.  It would require our beloved flurry to perform at least three times before the black-hearted soul ceases.

Requiring a performance such as this and of such great magnitude is not only a penalty, because it subjects  our beloved flurry to vile puppetry at the hands of the black-hearted soul, but it is also completely unrelated to the contract in question and equally unreasonable in that it does nothing to arrive at the fruition of the agreement.

To decide in this case for one that hasn't the moral fortitude of a tangerine would be a terrible disservice to this land.  But it is not that reason that we reverse the lower courts decision on this matter.  The agreement between our beloved flurry and the black-hearted soul  involved a stipulated damages provision which is entirely unenforceable as a matter of law, because it's effects are penal in nature and it is unreasonable unrelated to the contract at issue.

SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE, we hereby REVERSE the lower court's judgment.