The World V. Santa Claus

PETA V Santa Claus [a]Cocaine smuggling Yeti:”. .the CIA they were unable to thaw Santa out. .. ” If Santa is dead according to the witnesses (which is untrue), then the charges must be dropped since the witnesses are obviously unreliable. [b]Legless CometIn regards to ‘Legless Comet’, lack of training/insufficient training (to which the defense does not concede) is irrelevant to actions which would not be covered by training. Grenades would not be covered by any reasonable training course on the delivery of gifts and/or rescue missions. Santa has furnished all the necessities for the reindeer to thrive and is not guilty of abuse. [c] Yankovic’s testimony “Santa has gotten out of Jail, this is just a list of complaint against Santa and things to discredit his good behavior. ” You have forced our hand, Pro. In fact, Santa was acting on behalf of the US government as a matter of national security. According to intelligence reports, the elves and reindeer were plotting attacks in multiple locations in the continental United States in with improvised explosive devices and dirty (radioactive) snowballs. Santa was cleared to eliminate them with extreme prejudice. If you have ever seen the damage high velocity candy cane shards and yellow snow can do, then you understand the clear and present danger to the citizens of the United States. Santa’s actions in this matter should be perceived as that of a hero. Your Honor, the defense request a gag order to be placed on all parties involved in this trial. [d] Elf training video (PETA)The reindeer are trained to protect sensitive areas. If anyone enters these clearly marked areas, they do so at their own risk. Here are a few of the signs marking these areas: [e] World War IAttack dogs are often used in an aggressive manner in all types of situations, including war. Santa has found the temperament of the reindeer to be spectacularly well suited for support in wartime with the proper training. The reindeer are properly trained and equipped (as necessary) for this activity. Corporations V Santa Claus The prosecution has failed to present any valid evidence of Santa’s patent infringement. In round 1, Pro presented a picture of an individual partially dressed in a Santa suit engaged in apparent criminal activity. The activity does not appear to be patent infringement nor does it appear to be Santa. In the second round, Pro proceeds as if this picture is evidence, and suggests ways in which Santa’s alleged patent infringement is detrimental. The defense demands dismissal due to lack of evidence. CPS and OSHA V Santa Claus [a] JaidenJaiden’s mom and Jaiden both attacked Santa. He feared for his life, and defended himself according to his training as a secret agent. At any rate, this is not a matter of child abuse or workplace safety. It would be a matter of homicide, and that is outside of the scope of these trials. [b] Elves are children? Pro has provided no evidence Santa actually kidnaps children. More specifically, the prosecution has not met its burden of proof. Defense moves for dismissal. [c] Sexual predation Discrimination 1. It would be inappropriate for Santa to encourage the celebration of Christ’s birth by Jewish boys and girls who do not believe Jesus is/was the messiah. This is clearly out of respect, not hate. 2. Santa owns no properties outside of those for his own personal use, and does not act as a property manager on behalf of other homeowners. Therefore, Santa does not have the authority to evict anyone from their home, and any binding eviction notice left as a pseudogift for a child was not done by Santa. The defense submits these actions were likely done by a malicious parent, guardian, or sibling. 3. The fact that there is a “from: Santa” is not conclusive evidence these gifts are absolutely from Santa. 4. Santa cannot be held responsible for the criminal activities of other individuals. Also, Pro has claimed a tortius claim against Santa, but has established no actual damages from the parties which are suing Santa (CPS and/or OSHA) nor that Santa has been negligent. This case should be dismissed outright. [d] Elf training video (OSHA)The natural environment in the North Pole is dangerous, but that is due to no fault of Santa. By analogy, the Bering Sea may be dangerous to crabbers, but that is not by the design or negligence of the ship captains. Conclusion The prosecution had the burden to make a case in respect to patent infringement, workplace safety, child abuse, or animal abuse. No evidence was provided for patent infringement. Pro has shown the natural work environment to be dangerous, but has not established this is through any negligence of Santa. The prosecution has established someone is treating children unfairly, but again, he has not shown this someone is Santa. Lastly, Pro has failed to show Santa’s animals have not been given an environment in which they can thrive. The charges of slavery, rape, plagiarism, theft, bestiality and racism are irrelevant to these court cases since they are outside of the purview of the respective governmental agencies represented here. The defense has shown the case against Santa to be lacking. I thank the Jury for its time!