As a Barrister Defends

[Hawkman]

I represent the wind
and argue in its cause,
so I decry the evidence
as circumstantial.

‘Can you identify
the zephyr on the stand,
pick out the guilty gust
from all its brothers?
Is it distinguished in its stance
from any others?’

‘I saw it rip the roof from off my house,
wreck ships on rocky coasts,
run off with papers that I spilled,
I felt its touch upon my cheek,
It was the wind,
its guilt is incontestable.’

‘But can you name this wind
Abroholos or Kali Andhi,
Barat, Bise or Boreas,
Cers, Chergui, Cierzo,
Föhn, Haboob or Ghibli?
How can we arraign a breeze
unless it takes its name from these?’

‘I did not stop to ask its name
but merely caught it in the act
and that’s a fact.
You might as well interrogate a sneeze,
and anyway, when questioned,
it only rolls its eyes and sighs.’

‘And so you think the wind has eyes?
M’lud, this witness tries the patience of the court.’

‘Objection!
Do not hurricanes have eyes?’

‘Sustained! Indeed they do.
You can’t go on to argue that,
you’ll have to try another tack:
(my metaphor is drawn from yachts).’

‘As it please M’lud, I chart my course anew.
And who are you,’ I say, ‘to interrupt
the passage of the air. It don’t seem fair.
By what authority detained
and how, indeed, did you retain
this barometric shift?
With millibars perhaps?’
A titter tinkles through the court.

‘It was a citizen’s arrest
and I captured it off guard,
contained it in a sail,
channelled it within the glass
and in a single pass,
stored it in the bottle on the stand.’

‘Are you then Aeolus
to constrain and bend it to your will?
We only have your word to say
this sorry wind is in there still.’

‘Pull out the cork
And you shall have your fill.’

‘M’lud, now what are we to do?
The only way to verify
the prisoner is in the dock
would seem to be to let him go.
Shall I direct the bailiff
to approach and then unlock
his vitreous cell?
He might do well.’

“Being mindful of the fact
the second test is on at Lords,
with Gooch in bat,
it is so ordered. After that
we shall recess. Bailiff!
Do your duty.’

Warily he pulls the cork
with all attendant sound
and hands it round.
No scent, no stirring of the air
to mark a fugitive’s escape -
so case dismissed.

Unconfined,
air celebrates its laws.
On distant shores
cyclones strike, tornados whirl their winds
and hurricanes demolish everything.

But I won my case,
went home with a smile on my face.
A cause céllèbre. I do declare,
I have more than my fair share
but won’t complain;
can’t wait till I’m in court again.

[Charles Darnay]

This is very amusing. Almost a dejected sequel to Shelley's windy poem.

"(my metaphor is drawn from yachts).’"

This line seems out of place in the poem, and doesn't help the flow

[PrinceMyshkin]

The odd thing to me was that beneath the frisky surface of this I came more and more to sense something serious, and it moved me.

[Charles Darnay]

The odd thing to me was that beneath the frisky surface of this I came more and more to sense something serious, and it moved me.

Hm. A critique on the legal system and supposed absurdities therein?

[Hawkman]

"(my metaphor is drawn from yachts).’"

This line seems out of place in the poem, and doesn't help the flow

Goes to show character, your honour. A divice indicating the aloof complacency and detachment from reality of a certain species of judge. There is precident, "Entirely a Matter for You, (Peter Cook) and Doctor Chasuble in the Importance of Being Ernest - (Oscar Wilde).



Prince: thanks for reading, enjoying and commenting.

Live long and prosper - H

[mazHur]

I represent the wind
and argue in its cause,
so I decry the evidence
as circumstantial.

‘Can you identify
the zephyr on the stand,
pick out the guilty gust
from all its brothers?
Is it distinguished in its stance
from any others?’

‘I saw it rip the roof from off my house,
wreck ships on rocky coasts,
run off with papers that I spilled,
I felt its touch upon my cheek,
It was the wind,
its guilt is incontestable.’

‘But can you name this wind
Abroholos or Kali Andhi,
Barat, Bise or Boreas,
Cers, Chergui, Cierzo,
Föhn, Haboob or Ghibli?
How can we arraign a breeze
unless it takes its name from these?’

‘I did not stop to ask its name
but merely caught it in the act
and that’s a fact.
You might as well interrogate a sneeze,
and anyway, when questioned,
it only rolls its eyes and sighs.’

‘And so you think the wind has eyes?
M’lud, this witness tries the patience of the court.’

‘Objection!
Do not hurricanes have eyes?’

‘Sustained! Indeed they do.
You can’t go on to argue that,
you’ll have to try another tack:
(my metaphor is drawn from yachts).’

‘As it please M’lud, I chart my course anew.
And who are you,’ I say, ‘to interrupt
the passage of the air. It don’t seem fair.
By what authority detained
and how, indeed, did you retain
this barometric shift?
With millibars perhaps?’
A titter tinkles through the court.

‘It was a citizen’s arrest
and I captured it off guard,
contained it in a sail,
channelled it within the glass
and in a single pass,
stored it in the bottle on the stand.’

‘Are you then Aeolus
to constrain and bend it to your will?
We only have your word to say
this sorry wind is in there still.’

‘Pull out the cork
And you shall have your fill.’

‘M’lud, now what are we to do?
The only way to verify
the prisoner is in the dock
would seem to be to let him go.
Shall I direct the bailiff
to approach and then unlock
his vitreous cell?
He might do well.’

“Being mindful of the fact
the second test is on at Lords,
with Gooch in bat,
it is so ordered. After that
we shall recess. Bailiff!
Do your duty.’

Warily he pulls the cork
with all attendant sound
and hands it round.
No scent, no stirring of the air
to mark a fugitive’s escape -
so case dismissed.

Unconfined,
air celebrates its laws.
On distant shores
cyclones strike, tornados whirl their winds
and hurricanes demolish everything.

But I won my case,
went home with a smile on my face.
A cause céllèbre. I do declare,
I have more than my fair share
but won’t complain;
can’t wait till I’m in court again.

I think one should know the name of his opponent in a legal battle of civil nature. If winds had eyes they would obey the traffic laws!!:)

[Delta40]

This was highly entertaining and witty. Very imaginative with enough drops of sarcasm to remind us what a litigious society we are becoming. Excellent Hawk.

[Hawkman]

Thank you Maz and Delta :)


I think one should know the name of his opponent in a legal battle of civil nature. If winds had eyes they would obey the traffic laws!!:)

Maz, The name of the wind is almost certainly dependent on the location in which it was captured ;) Oh, and why would sighted winds obey the traffic laws? - After all, sighted people don't! :D

Delta, You might be surprised to learn that society's litigous nature is not a modern phenomenon. I can cite examples of legal lunacy going back to medieval times (with dubious certainty) in which on one occasion I believe a cloud was prosecuted, found guilty and ordered to be stoned to death. There are various instances where animals have been tried for and convicted of various crimes too. And then there was that occasion in some depraved quarter of these islands when a monkey was hanged for being French, even though it probably wasn't - lol.

Live and be well - H

[mazHur]

a related poem and review!!


Report Of An Adjudged Case
by William Cowper

Between Nose and Eyes a strange contest arose,
The spectacles set them unhappily wrong;
The point in dispute was, as all the world knows,
To which the said spectacles ought to belong.

So the Tongue was the Lawyer and argued the cause
With a great deal of skill, and a wig full of learning,
While chief baron Ear sat to balance the laws,
So famed for his talent in nicely discerning.

In behalf of the Nose, it will quickly appear,
And your lordship, he said, will undoubtedly find,
That the Nose has had spectacles always in wear,
Which amounts to possession time out of mind.

Then holding the spectacles up to the court, -
Your lordship observes they are made with a straddle,
As wide as the ridge of the Nose is, in short,
Designed to sit close to it, just like a saddle.

Again, would your lordship a moment suppose
('Tis a case that has happened and may be again),
That the visage or countenance had not a Nose,
Pray who would or who could wear spectacles then?

On the whole it appears, and my argument shows
With a reasoning the court will never condemn,
That the spectacles plainly were made for the Nose,
And the Nose was as plainly intended for them.

Then shifting his side, as a lawyer knows how,
He pleaded again in behalf of the Eyes,
But what were his arguments few people know,
For the court did not think they were equally wise.

So his lordship decreed, with a grave solemn tone,
Decisive and clear, without on if or but, -
That whenever the Nose put his spectacles on,
By daylight or candlelight - Eyes should be shut.


http://www.shvoong.com/books/poetry/2021281-summary-william-cowper-nose-verses/

[Hawkman]

Thanks for the reminder of a delightful poem Maz, and for the link. A poetry review in legalese - Now that is fun and requires practice, skill and dedication - lol

Live and be well - H

[mazHur]

Thanks for the reminder of a delightful poem Maz, and for the link. A poetry review in legalese - Now that is fun and requires practice, skill and dedication - lol

Live and be well - H

Thank you

Here is another dilemma which needs to be solved..can you try to resolve the dispute!

The beheaded cadavers of Two identical married sisters (twins) were lying in a jungle and their husbands were disputing over which one was one of their wives. the matter was brought for 'adjudication' before the judges/jury. What did they decide?? Frankly I have no idea!!

Cheers!!

[Hawkman]

I'm unsure of the details of the case. Were the heads present or missing, were the bodies naked or clothed and had they been robbed and their jewllery removed? If all else fails, bury both women in the same grave and put both their names on it. Seems the simplest solution. It should be noted, however that this supposedly trick question has been worded in such a way as to invalidate the trick. Besides, As implied by my response, identification is not soley confined to facial characteristics.

[mazHur]

I'm unsure of the details of the case. Were the heads present or missing, were the bodies naked or clothed and had they been robbed and their jewllery removed? If all else fails, bury both women in the same grave and put both their names on it. Seems the simplest solution. It should be noted, however that this supposedly trick question has been worded in such a way as to invalidate the trick. Besides, As implied by my response, identification is not soley confined to facial characteristics.

Yes, heads and bodies of both the women were there lying apart and the women were naked too. Also, tribal custom forbids other people (strangers) to inspect the cadavers for apparent marks or signs. This is a Tribal quiz from North Pakistan (the tribal area of the Taliban) where men wouldn't rest without resolving the matter in each other's favor. If both were buried together, their husbands would then assert their claim on the tomb and fight over it until death!(or perhaps generations!!)
Irony is that even today's scientific age doesn't provide any solution to such silly 'quiz' posed by such old tribal customs. Doesn't that prove that things are not the same all over the world and we should have sight to view things with some kinda 'kaleidoscopic' vision??:)

[Hawkman]

Presumably then neither man may inspect either body for fear that he is looking at the other man's wife. Are not even Mullahs or doctors permitted to examine the cadavas? However, as both women are sisters, surely the dead women's mother or father or another sibling would be able to examine the bodies as they would not be strangers. Simple finger printing would certainly resolve the matter and this could even be performed by someone blindfolded. Both men could provide an independant adjudicator with samples of items touched by their wives. Even Identical twins do not have identical fingerprints. Assigning the correct head to the correct body might be a problem I suppose but surely the women wouldn't have identical hair styles.

[mazHur]

Presumably then neither man may inspect either body for fear that he is looking at the other man's wife. Are not even Mullahs or doctors permitted to examine the cadavas? However, as both women are sisters, surely the dead women's mother or father or another sibling would be able to examine the bodies as they would not be strangers. Simple finger printing would certainly resolve the matter and this could even be performed by someone blindfolded. Both men could provide an independant adjudicator with samples of items touched by their wives. Even Identical twins do not have identical fingerprints. Assigning the correct head to the correct body might be a problem I suppose but surely the women wouldn't have identical hair styles.


True, only sisters, mothers and women are allowed to inspect female dead bodies. But in tribal North, the Tora Bora, there are no labs to check finger prints and the tribesmen won't allow any lab to do that to their women!! ( too jealous and possessive of their ''chattel''!!). since both the sisters died in a barren area far from any helping area and the husbands disputing their bodies I don't think they could resolve the problem at all without killing each other in a duel!!

Your suggestion is right but unfortunately not applicable where tribal law prevails in a remote area away from civilization!!...

wouldn' t it be fit if NATO intervened and flew away the cadavars for a neat and befitting burial and captured their disputing hubbies and sent them to Gitmo??;)

[Haunted]

Compelling arguments on both sides but glad you won the case. I'd like to hire you as my attorney :D

[mazHur]

Compelling arguments on both sides but glad you won the case. I'd like to hire you as my attorney :D

That's a compliment, sir??
There is a famous stanza in Urdu which when translated in English reads as

Satan exclaimed when a lawyer was born
Lo! I have also gotten children now!!

So, think before you leap,friend!!:)

[Hawkman]

True, only sisters, mothers and women are allowed to inspect female dead bodies. But in tribal North, the Tora Bora, there are no labs to check finger prints and the tribesmen won't allow any lab to do that to their women!! ( too jealous and possessive of their ''chattel''!!). since both the sisters died in a barren area far from any helping area and the husbands disputing their bodies I don't think they could resolve the problem at all without killing each other in a duel!!

Your suggestion is right but unfortunately not applicable where tribal law prevails in a remote area away from civilization!!...

wouldn' t it be fit if NATO intervened and flew away the cadavars for a neat and befitting burial and captured their disputing hubbies and sent them to Gitmo??;)

Nothing so sophisticated as a lab would be required. Merely plain paper, some sticky tape a piece of glass and a lens. :)

I rather suspect that the preferred option from any authority under US Military domination would be carpet bompbing with B52s. Actually this is probably unfair in the 21st Century. Much more likely that, as you suggest, rendition protocols would be invoked, but only on the survivor after the duel. :devil:

Haunted: As Maz suggests, perhaps a back-handed compliment - lol but remember, the law is the willing servant of the guilty rich. If you're destitute and innocent it's far better to husband your megre resources and make a will. :D Still, thanks for reading ;)

Live and be well - H

[mazHur]

Nothing so sophisticated as a lab would be required. Merely plain paper, some sticky tape a piece of glass and a lens. :)

I rather suspect that the preferred option from any authority under US Military domination would be carpet bompbing with B52s. Actually this is probably unfair in the 21st Century. Much more likely that, as you suggest, rendition protocols would be invoked, but only on the survivor after the duel. :devil:

Haunted: As Maz suggests, perhaps a back-handed compliment - lol but remember, the law is the willing servant of the guilty rich. If you're destitute and innocent it's far better to husband your megre resources and make a will. :D Still, thanks for reading ;)

Live and be well - H

Right, but what to do with tribal folk who wouldn't believe in thumb impression? What if people still believed that the Earth is flat?? No way,man, no.....:)

I take your point in that law is mainly for the rich....to serve their end.
There are laws everywhere but hardly some justice is found in many cases.
I am contesting a civil case since 1991 and I know how LAW destroys weaker litigants and how Lawyers here mostly use 'technical methods' to knock others out!! More emphasis is given by the Judges (we don't have jury system here)to the style and format of the Statutes rather than Merits of the case....that's a pity..at least in my country. Now my son has grown up to be a Lawyer and it is he who is now contesting the case! God knows how many centuries more it will take to decide....fairly?

Making a will is okay but it scarcely works in my country (and people). Mainly cultural problem coupled with lack of rule of law.

Off-hand compliment, if any, will not make a rose a daisy, anyway!!;)

[Haunted]

That's a compliment, sir??

Yes. I wasn't commenting on the judicial system but the ingenuity of the lawsuit and brilliant testimony and cross examination.

No, I'm not sir, sir.



Haunted: As Maz suggests, perhaps a back-handed compliment - lol


no back hand here, it's a high five.

[Hawkman]

Mistress Haunted is too kind, I look forward to receiving her brief and generous retainer :D

H

[mazHur]

[QUOTE]Yes. I wasn't commenting on the judicial system but the ingenuity of the lawsuit and brilliant testimony and cross examination.

Your point noted, thanks.


No, I'm not sir, sir.

Sorry, I must have been under the mistaken gender impression, your honor!!:)



no back hand here, it's a high five.

Great!!:)

[tailor STATELY]

Sirocco.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[mazHur]

Sirocco.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

i don't think sirocco blows in gold country, does it??:)

[Hawkman]

That would be Maria - :D

[blank|verse]

I suppose having a pop at lawyers is shooting fish in a barrel in a way... but this is a barrel of laughs, Hawk and rattles along like, er, a barrel that's fallen off the back of a lorry?? I'll stop now. Very good, anyway.

(And I do wish you'd stop changing your avatar every five minutes! etc, etc. :))

[Hawkman]

Hi b/v and thanks. You are, of course, correct in that lawyers are an easy target, but it's nice that they are - it should make it less difficult to control their numbers - lol.

Live and be well - H

[tailor STATELY]

i don't think sirocco blows in gold country, does it??

Lol. Second thought, no... just a lot of hot air being bloviated up into my hills from Sacramento. Maria will do nicely :)

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[mazHur]

Lol. Second thought, no... just a lot of hot air being bloviated up into my hills from Sacramento. Maria will do nicely :)

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

Do you have simoom as well??:)

[Jack of Hearts]

Tailor... you live in that Gold Country? We're neighbors.






J

[tailor STATELY]

Do you have simoom as well??
Lol... giving my Meriam Webster a workout. No, no simoom's. Perhaps a "sundowner" might make it up this'a way in winter.


Tailor... you live in that Gold Country? We're neighbors.
95633: South of Cool and kiss'n Kelsey; where many a nugget from our hills made their way into the S. fork of the American River.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY