[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zem *
**WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: Sauron ats Baggins
Dear Mr. Crebain:
We acknowledge receipt of your letter and the Complaint described therein, dated today’s date. Please note that we have been authorized by our client to accept service of this Complaint on his behalf, and hereby confirm that we have done so, pursuant to the Rules. We advise therefore that there is no need for your process servers to pursue our client further, as service upon him personally is not necessary in this regard. We trust that these terms are acceptable to you.
Please be advised further that, for reasons of personal security, compounded by your client’s efforts to compel our client to release the disputed property to his representatives against his will, our client has vacated his residence, and is currently residing with companions who are known to us, and that we are in direct contact with our client for the purposes of this Litigation.
We also wish to inform you that, inasmuch as:
-
the Defendant is resident in the Judicial District of Rivendell; and
-
the disputed property in question is held, and was likewise obtained, and subsequently conveyed between parties by means of various legally binding transactions (the legitimacy of which your claim disputes), within the Judicial District of Rivendell; and
-
our client has instructed us to proceed to Counter-Claim against your client in this matter with respect to this matter;
we have applied to the Superior Court of Justice in the Judicial District of Rivendell to have this matter adjudicated before the Court in Rivendell. We trust that such application is satisfactory to you. In the meantime, we have also filed a Notice of Postponement in the District Court of the Principality of Mordor, in order to delay procedure of this action, subject to the Ruling of the Superior Court of in the Judicial District of Rivendell as to the issue of juris prudence in this regard.
We enclose a copies of the Notice of Postponement, the Notice to Defend and Counter-Claim, plus the Application to the Superior Court of Justice for adjudication of this matter before the Court.
Please note that, in our Notice of Defense and Counter-Claim, we have asked the Court to dismiss all of your client’s claims outright, pursuant to the matters of Statute as described in my earlier letters to you, and the issues of legal ownership as set down in case law and supported by the affidavits of Messrs. Gollum and Baggins. We also enclose copies of the affidavits of Messrs. Gandalf and Elrond, relating to the incident of the alleged robbery of your client, further disputing your client’s claim of rightful ownership.
We advise that we have also asked the Court to levy extensive punitive damages against your client for the wrongful, willful and malicious pursuit of this claim, as well as punitive damages claim for psychological “pain and suffering” brought upon our client by your client’s representatives, and fees and costs on a solicitor/client basis.
Please also note that, under the Rules of Civil Procedure, you have 45 days to respond to this Notice to Defend and Counter-Claim, after which a summary judgment will be issued by the Court against your client, in absentia.
[etc]
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. I. M. Cheatam, Esq., Rivendell Office
FROM: Ms. A_A Dewey, Esq., Washington, DC Office
DATE: Jan 10, 2003
RE: Proposed change of venue, Sauron v. Baggins, et al.
CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Mr. Cheatem:
Please be advised that the associates in the Washington office have reviewed the correspondence in this file (which is getting rather thick) and have advised me that a change of venue to the American Federal Courts pursuant to the Federal Rules is quite possible if the client can be persuaded to bring the Ring into the States; once declared at Customs as the client’s property, a Federal Question pertains as to the validity of hte Customs documents.
Inasmuch as the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant in the above-referenced action is currently incorporeal, and unable to appear (and would likely be declared an undesirable by the United States Department of State and thus denied entry to the country at any rate), and inasmuch as he would have to, at some point, appear live to testify at trial, I am advised that it is likely that he would eventually have to default to our client’s claim.
This is only a suggestion, but it does seem to propose a rather elegant solution to our client’s dilemma, and would certainly save on attorneys’ fees, which, again considering the incorporeality of the Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, we are unlikely to be able to collect in any event. While the Baggins family is a long-standing client base of the firm, we must not allow sentimentality to overrule fiscal sense.
Furthermore, as I understand that the eventual intent of our client is to destroy the ring in the molten lava of a volcano, it would seem to me that bringing the ring into the States at Hawaii would kill two birds with one stone, and solve the additional problem of a long and presumably dangerous trek through Mordor.
Yrs. sincerely,
A.A. Dewey, esq.
