Saturday 16th December 2000
Yafa the Hamster Comments on Saturday's New Court Pronouncements
[Editor's Note - Yafa the hamster isn't a staff writer for
the RW and we are deeply appreciative that he's allowed us to transcribe this
text from a speech recently delivered at a businessmen's lunch in Nevada]
Florida (SATURDAY) - Do you feel confused? As if
the entire world which you'd once found security in is crumbling all around you?
When those well established parameters are challenged and cast down to the
ground, only to be trodden under foot by a herd of stampeding rhinos?
Me, too.
But I don't think that elections were meant to be
like that. In the dim and distant past, I think they were supposed to be over in
a couple of days at the very most and even recounts were settled by lunchtime
the following day - at least, that's the way of it in the UK where my master
lives.
I feel it my duty, however, to try and simplify
what's going on for everyone. I mean, it's only right that I bring some sanity
to the proceedings - so I felt it my duty this afternoon to speak on what's
currently the state of affairs in Florida.
As most of you will be aware, there are presently
37 lawsuits and articles of litigation taking place in 20 local jurisdictions,
four separate state courts, a federal appeals court, and Leon county court and
most of these are holding on to their pronouncement until the outcome of other
appeals are made known in the other cases. I'm not quite sure if there's one
particular court that they're all waiting for but, if they aren't, we may have a
stalemate and no decision will ever be reached. That would be the 'best case'
scenario, of course - no new President for the next four years. It would also
favour the appointment of a neutral overseer such as Diddley Squat IV, the
hamster Presidential Candidate.
Even if we do get just the one decision from any
of those 37 lawsuits, you can be sure that it will be appealed against and
litigated against for an immediate injunction by at least 6 other interested
parties who will attempt to cloud the issue at stake by claiming that it's all
being done in the public interest or 'that the will of the people might be made
known in their selection of a President'.
Oh, and the term 'disenfranchisement' will also
be used - not that anyone really knows what the word means but because it's a
long word, makes the speaker seem intelligent and undermines the position of any
opposition when it's claimed. A bit like claiming something is 'racist' when it
obviously isn't - it always has the effect of undermining the other side's
authority and credibility.
After the injunction - this is where we stand at
the moment with one of the cases which ordered to count all Florida's undervotes
even though neither of the two appellants wanted such a thing to happen. It's a
bit like finding someone guilty of robbery when they're being tried solely for
murder, but this is the beauty of the legal system.
Anyway, after the injunction, the appeal is thrown
back into the jurisdiction of a lower court to reconsider its verdict - which
implies error. There may be nothing wrong with the decision that the lower court
made but usually the higher court does such a thing simply because they don't
understand a word of what was said in the decision - after all, it's couched in
legal jargon and most of the words can mean five or six different things.
Then comes the declaration of 'a significant
victory' by both sides in the dispute - the plaintiff claims that what's
transpired is what they were hoping for all along while the defendant comments
that it was what their lawyers were targeting the court for. This is quite
natural and no one should be confused by the claim from both sides that they've
won the day - in actual fact, no one's won simply because no one understands
what it all means.
If you're listening to CNN, they don't know what
it means either and they usually argue amongst themselves in programs such as
'Burden of Proof' about where the courts will be going next - only for some
other, unknown, court to step into the breach and declare another case as
binding upon the procedure which is immediately appealed against.
Well, I think that's about it. I hope I've
simplified the position we're in. None of this will be of any use on Tuesday, by
the way, when the 25 representatives will be selected by the State of Florida
itself and so bypass the Nov 7 election. But that will be appealed against, as
well.
That's the problem with political legalities - you
can never be sure of finality. They're so eager to proclaim themselves right but
are so often wrong that their characters are blackened and trashed by the
very...
[Editor - we had to cut the rest of the speech as
it turned out to be libelous]
Yafa the Hamster doesn't
write for the Rodent Weekly.
This article appears courtesy of that
paper.
