A Flaying
In 1987 my first wife moved in with the boyfriend she'd been seeing for, apparently, a rather long time, taking with her everything she could fit into my − and his − car. She also took my car. She filed for divorce the next day. I was left with $45.23. To celebrate, I wrote this black allegory.
I was in Mensa at the time and sent it to the editor of the local newsletter and it was published there. From that point it somehow, and quite inexplicably, managed to find its way to my ex-wife's loyyer, who then made a point to provide it to the judge overseeing the perverse beast of marital dissolution in St Petersburg FL.
Hizonner took great exception to how his area of law [sic] was being characterized, and even greater exception to how I responded to his direct challenge to explain myself. I effectively told him, "This is just a story about a chicken farmer; if you find yourself reflected in it, that's your doing."
He denied me visitation on the spot and made me get a psychiatric evaluation. So the story was not simply a mirror of procedural abuse, but prophetic as well.
Here it is:
I was in Mensa at the time and sent it to the editor of the local newsletter and it was published there. From that point it somehow, and quite inexplicably, managed to find its way to my ex-wife's loyyer, who then made a point to provide it to the judge overseeing the perverse beast of marital dissolution in St Petersburg FL.
Hizonner took great exception to how his area of law [sic] was being characterized, and even greater exception to how I responded to his direct challenge to explain myself. I effectively told him, "This is just a story about a chicken farmer; if you find yourself reflected in it, that's your doing."
He denied me visitation on the spot and made me get a psychiatric evaluation. So the story was not simply a mirror of procedural abuse, but prophetic as well.
Here it is:
A Flaying
©1987 Ross Williams
A Hen who had contracted to a
farmer’s henhouse to produce six eggs a week over a period of time was
imperfectly satisfied with her living conditions. “I don’t like this particular grade of straw,”
she declared. “I shall require pillows.” The Farmer purchased the finest cushions of
satin and displayed them to the Hen.
“These are of satin. Unacceptable,” she pouted, fluffing her feathers. So the Farmer had them resoled with silk.
“You jest!” she cackled. “I refuse to recline on that which was made by worms.” The local velveteer was called in to apply his craft.
“These are of satin. Unacceptable,” she pouted, fluffing her feathers. So the Farmer had them resoled with silk.
“You jest!” she cackled. “I refuse to recline on that which was made by worms.” The local velveteer was called in to apply his craft.
“What’s this?! Velvet?” the Hen shrieked. “Why must I continue to endure these
outrages??” And so saying she vaulted
her roost and defaulted her portion of the contract.
The Farmer was much distraught
over the occurrence, until some days later when an Officer of the Court
appeared before him. “Sir,” began the
Officer, “I am required to take possession of your property and remand same to
a Hen most recently in your employ.”
Baffled, the Farmer could only
muster a “?...?...?”
“Oh, Sir,” pleaded the
Constable, “please do not put up such a struggle, for I should look upon you as
belligerent and hostile toward the judgment of the Court and suffer you thereby
unto protective custody.”
“Kind Server,” responded the
Farmer’s refound tongue, “there is no cause for such dire ultimatums. In truth, I pose no threat to anything save
the fox who charges my henhouse.”
“Correction, Sir, your former henhouse,” interrupted the
Magistrate.
The Farmer swallowed. “Would you be so kind as to enlighten me of
the nature of the charges, the criminal law which applies, the process of my
appeal, and the reasons why I wasn’t notified of this egregious affront to my
property rights and why I wasn’t allowed to respond with counsel?”
“Again, Sir,” replied the
Functionary, “I must warn you that you are perilously close to assaulting an
Instrument of the Court. However, I
shall endeavor to respond to your insulting cross examination.
“Briefly, no criminal charges
were filed, which is why you were neither notified nor given time to
respond. That which you label an ‘egregious
affront’ is the enforcement of Jurisprudential Propriety in such cases, as seen
in countless precedent. Your rights are not required to be protected in these
matters and indeed are not even considered.
If, though, you had committed some atrocity upon the Petitioner, your
rights would have been undeniably and zealously defended.
“As regards your possibilities
for appeal, there are none. The Judgment
levied against you is immutable and eternal.
“Insofar as the actual charges against you, again, there are none. As I’ve said, this is not a criminal case. The Petitioner filed in accordance with the Law of Gruntlement, as is her right, and stated that her disgruntlement would be assuaged with certain assets that, until most recently, were of your sole use and possession. Allow me to quote from the record: ‘To wit: Any liquid assets, or any solid assets; Any real property or any imaginary property; Any furniture or fixtures located here, or any furniture or fixtures located elsewhere.’
“Insofar as the actual charges against you, again, there are none. As I’ve said, this is not a criminal case. The Petitioner filed in accordance with the Law of Gruntlement, as is her right, and stated that her disgruntlement would be assuaged with certain assets that, until most recently, were of your sole use and possession. Allow me to quote from the record: ‘To wit: Any liquid assets, or any solid assets; Any real property or any imaginary property; Any furniture or fixtures located here, or any furniture or fixtures located elsewhere.’
“The Law of Gruntlement does
not require, and in fact discourages, any litany of reason or justification for
making the claims against the property of another. The Petitioner has every right to make any
claims she desires, and for you to claim otherwise is not your right, for it would deny her her right. The Law has been
properly applied every step of the way.
So you see, Sir, that you are most clearly out of line to question the
Authority of the Court, or its Functionaries, in this matter. Also, as of six minutes ago, you are
trespassing.”
The Farmer blinked twice and
spoke with a dry rasp. “Do I at least
have time to collect my things?”
“Si-i-ir,” started the
exasperated Thug, “I shouldn’t need to remind you that you have no ‘things’. And if you leave this bailiwick with those
clothes still on your person, I shall, however reluctantly, be left with little
alternative than to arrest you for burglary.”
The Farmer sat down and began
to remove his shoes. “Doesn’t it even
matter that my Hen is technically in breach of contract?”
“She may have been. At one time,”
replied the Grand Factotum, stuffing the shoes and socks into his satchel. “But, Sir, the Law of Gruntlement, as everyone knows, assumes
post-rationalization of prior commitment, thus negating any contractual
obligations otherwise enforceable against a Petitioner.”
“But what if…” began the
Farmer.
“Ah, Sir, I wouldn’t do
that. For if you were to counter-claim
Gruntlement against this Petitioner, the Court, by provision of this self-same
Law, would be obligated to issue a Writ against you citing harassment. In these matters it is commonly a capital
offense.”
“Well,” affirmed the now-naked
Stoic, “even though all seems bleak, I shall succeed, for I take with me an
abiding love of chicken farming.”
“Oh my dear, dear Sir,” frowned the Bailiff, “how I do so wish you hadn’t said that.” And he cut out the Farmer’s heart.
“Oh my dear, dear Sir,” frowned the Bailiff, “how I do so wish you hadn’t said that.” And he cut out the Farmer’s heart.