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 2008RE: 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 2008RE: 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 2008RE: 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 HoweRe: 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 HoweRe: 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.