Mara vs. Household: a summary

Plaintiff: Mara
Defendant: Household

The plaintiff sues for wrongful confiscation of personal property.

On the evening of October 18, 2010, on a regularly scheduled post-bedtime check, a duly appointed representative of the Household discovers Plaintiff wetting Freddy One (see Exhibit A) in her mouth and “painting” her headboard with saliva. Household reminds Plaintiff that she has been instructed to abstain from smearing spittle on her headboard and commences action toward the Removal of both Freddy One and Freddy Two.

Exhibit A: Freddy One, one of two identically manufactured but unequally worn miniature blankets.

Plaintiff exhibits distress in the form of tears, wailing and garbled speech — becomes, in a word, fitful.  Household requests a repeat of the communication, whereupon Plaintiff asserts that Household does not have authority to remove the Freddies, that she needs them to sleep, and that she was not told in advance that Removal of one or both Freddies would be a consequence of further infractions.

Noted that Plaintiff has never spent a night of her life without at least one of the Freddies.

Household acknowledges the regrettability of the situation but follows through with Removal Proceedings.

Plaintiff insists that she “forgot about that other time”. Household offers the opinion that she will not forget again, because the Freddies are going away for the night. Heightened distress on the part of Plaintiff ensues. Plaintiff wonders what if she promises not to do it again, but Household reminds Plaintiff that that’s what she said the last time.

Household withdraws with the Freddies amid much crying and pleading. Duly appointed representative of the Household reports confusion about whether his actions were justified and whether a more lenient consequence might have been arrived at.

Plaintiff quiesces after one and one half minutes, then asks cheerfully when the other duly appointed representative of the Household will get home.

After eight more minutes, Household returns with intent to soothe hard feelings and engage in empathetic discussion of what has transpired. Plaintiff is already asleep.

Upon deliberation with the other duly appointed representative of the Household, it is decided to return the Freddies so that Plaintiff can be soothed by them during sleep (see Exhibit B).

Exhibit B: Sleeping Plaintiff clutching the properties in question.


12 Responses to “Mara vs. Household: a summary”

  1. 1 Louis October 19, 2010 at 00:56

    Iustitia omnibus. Even for Freddies.

  2. 3 mpg October 19, 2010 at 08:08

    Dear Sir:

    As retained pro bono counsel for the Plaintiff and as lead counsel for a class action suit currently pending in in the 3rd circuit for similarly aggrieved minority plaintiffs, please consider this comment to be your written notification that said plaintiffs plan to file today for injunctive relief against further unjust enrichment of aforementioned Freddy(TM) or Freddies(TM) by Household or any actors statutorily deemed to be under the purview of Household.

    My client regrets the necessity of taking this action, but the unilateral and unprecipitated actions of Household require my clients to exercise their rights in this matter.

    I remain,
    -mpg, esq.

  3. 5 Louis October 19, 2010 at 09:22

    oooooooooooo, I hope this is going to be on one of those court tv shows!

  4. 6 Kip October 19, 2010 at 14:33

    While it is regrettable that Plaintiff finds fault with Household, it would seem that Household is in the right. It is Households responsibility to create and enforce all rules, especially those regarding the redistribution of spittle, via Freddy(s) or other method (not including illness; and distributions, namely involunatry, relating thereto). And, while I imagine there is every attempt at fairness and negotiation, Household does not rule over a democracy. I also see that Household struggled with the decision, and even spoke to other Household representative regarding actions, and was vindicated, and every attempt was made to discuss further with Plaintiff. It is not the fault of Household that Plaintiff succumbed to slumber, and both Freddies were returned before Plaintiff returned to a wakened state. Therefore, I request that all actions against Household be dismissed, and there be ice cream for all parties involved, including council.

      • 8 Ben October 19, 2010 at 18:55

        Said Household did wait the proscribed 9 minute “cooling” period as prescribed in the Household’s Manual of Parenting,

        “…and the said Father would delay his return to yon boys domicile, just down the hall. And the boys would wait, smarting the while, counting the standard 9 minutes to his return…

        Boys, …I’m sorry I had to punish you..”

        Copyright 1961. Household’s Parenting Manual, F—- Publishing House, South Bellevue. 1975 ed.
        pg.465., second paragraph.

  5. 9 jstwndrng October 19, 2010 at 20:30

    Hey Ben, sorry I had to take scissors to your comment, but you used the last name. I know it would not be difficult for strangers to ascertain my identity and address, but I also don’t want to make it easy for anyone to do so. Bob’s your uncle!

  6. 11 Marni October 21, 2010 at 15:14

    I admire your resolve in the face of Plaintiff’s distress; sometimes justice is emotionally taxing on all concerned! I tend to have a similar problem in my Household, but unfortunately my Plaintiff only understands the words “sit”, “stay”, and “dinner”, and not the words “please stop licking THAT”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


The Great Seattle Gargoyle Hunt


%d bloggers like this: