Double Standards, Honey

As Thers noted below, there's not enough scorn in the world to heap upon the head of ABC News for their infuriating revelation thsat yes, for them, a decade later, it's all about the blue dress.They want to see the memos. Ummm, okay.

To: Thers
From: Molly
20 March 2008

RE: Toilet Seat

In future, please remember to replace toilet seat in down position, as per Family Agreement 369.12, clause 6.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.
...........

To: Thers
From: Molly
20 March 2008

RE: Coital Encounter

Let me express my most sincere appreciation for the coital encounter of Monday last. It more than fulfilled your responsibilities as laid out in clause 54, Section a.17 of the marital contract. I trust it was enjoyable for you as well.

Please contact my appointments secretary for future scheduling.

..........

To: Thers
From: Molly
20 March 2008

RE: Dishwasher

The contract rider you signed on August 15, 2002 clearly indicates that emptying the dishwasher and reloading it is in your purview, while I handle the washing of larger pots and pans. Yet on March 19, 2008, I returned home to find that clean dishes had not been replaced in their respective areas of the cupboards, and dirty dishes still sat on the counters.

Please address this situation immediately.

Oh noes! Thers has retained counsel!

To:  Molly
From:  Hugh Louie Dewey, of counsel
       Dewey, Cheatham and Howe

Re:  Family Agreement 369.12, clause 6

We represent Mr. Thersites in the above matter, and have received your communication thereupon.

Reserving the right to contest your claims because of lack of proper service, incorrect venue and objections as to form, be it noted that our client stands on Family Agreement 368.4, clause 4:

It is acknowledged by all signatories that males are, by virtue of inherent flaws and specifically excluding any notion of actual fault or malice, deficient in certain methods of conducting themselves in daily living, and that, while explicitly excluding any actual responsibility thereby, they respectfully request that their specially challenged circumstances be accommodated under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

We hope that this clarifies your correspondence cited above.

(h/t Prof Wombat)

UPDATE: This is getting ugly. My counsel, watertiger, recommended the imposition of fines, ratcheting up the memo war.

To:  watertiger
From:  Hugh Louie Dewey, of counsel
       Dewey, Cheatham and Howe

re:  your correspondence with Molly

We represent Thersites in the above matter, are in receipt of your correspondence as above referenced. Please be advised that fines levied would be unacceptable to our client, inasmuch as they would imply that Mr. Thersites is responsible for his deficiencies arising from the unfortunate chance of his possession of a Y chromosome. Our experience, and the legislative debate and case law surrounding the Americans With Disabilities Act, suggest that nothing is to be gained by needless fault finding. Rather, a solution which changes structures and organizations in such a way as to accommodate Mr. Thersites' handicaps in a way which preserves his dignity and independence, should be the goal.

Thank you.

...........

To: Hugh Louie Dewey, of counsel
From: watertiger
Date: 3/20/08

re: Imposition of fines

In re your correspondence regarding the categorization of men under the ADA, I would like to take this opportunity to note that the existence of a contract to which both parties were signatories.  If , as you are suggesting, Mr. Thersites was not compos mentis due to the existence of a "y" chromosome in his genetic structure, then such a condition would void the contract, and my client will no longer be subject to its terms, as well.

..........

To:  watertiger
From:  Hugh Louie Dewey, of counsel
       Dewey, Cheatham and Howe

Re:  your memorandum of 9 AM

While my client categorically rejects the notion that he is non compos mentis, he would note that the incapacity of the Y-chromosome afflicted to perform--let me rephrase that--to fulfil the terms of a contract such as you reference in your previous submissions is well-known, a commonplace in the legal, medical and Oprahish literature. Surely your client knew, or should have known, that this was the case. While the bargaining power of the parties to the contract is a matter of legitimate debate, we see no bar to litigating under the unconscionability doctrine, and seeking a reformulation of the contract in that forum, under such a premise, to reflect the just interests of our client.

As we, and you, would like to avoid the waste of time and resources, not to say the needless acrimony attendant upon such a course, we urge that you reconsider your suggestion.

Thank you.

Okay, this is getting silly. No sillier than thinking you can track communication between spouses by reading their papers, however.

Comments

[K. Ron Silkwood]

OMG. You retained watertiger? That's pretty harsh. Who gets custody of the blog?

[timquick]

I just sent the following e-mail to ABC news and to Brin Ross's email address (Brian.E.Ross@email.disney.com):

I'm disgusted that in the middle of some of the worst political corruption in history and the middle of the most important - and interesting - Democratic primary in a generation you figure that the best use of the ABC invesitgative unit is to pour through 10,000+ pages of documents to figure out here the First Lady was when her husband was a getting a BJ from one of his staffers. How is that even news? It's called fucking gossip.

Have you no shame?

The days of network TV news are limited. Thank god. Good riddens.

[actor212]

I dunno. John Adams and his wife seemed to do pretty torridly via post...just go watch "1776" if you don't believe me!

SALTPEEEEEEEEEETERRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!

[flory]

Does WT do divorces too?

[may]

I'm glad to see that the anti-bob and I do not have a unique relationship.

Do you also have a section and clause on the handling of mouse traps?

[skippy]

i'm sorry, but rubber v. glue, (1978) cal.app. 4th 704 sets obvious precendent.

[Ursula]

I wish I could find a way to mention this blog post in Contracts class on Monday. I'd further like to note that the doctrine of laches may bar the aforementioned disabled spouse from recovery, given his performance of various household tasks in the past without requesting dispensation for his 'disability'. (Equitable estoppel may also be applicable if the fully-abled spouse relied on his performance of said tasks to her detriment.)

[drip]

Its all about that little shriveled chromosome, isn't it?