Post by George J. Dance Post by Michael Pendragon Post by George J. Dance Post by Michael Pendragon Post by Chafetz Chayim haYehu'di Post by Usenet Editor
Maybe the winner should get a steak dinner. That should be incentive for Dockery. At least this time he will have to earn it and not steal from the pockets of a homeless man to get a steak.
Shalom & Boker tov, troll...proof. Do you have documentation for this lie?
You mean aside from the fact that Will is the one who told us all about it in the first place?
Another Psychodragon lie. In fact, Will said that his brother treated him and a friend to a steak dinner with the money J.O. gave the brother. Which pissed J.O. off and demand that the money be repaid, by Will.
Just to set the record straight. ;)
Just to set the record straight, Zod isn't Will's brother.
OK: so J.O. sent the money to the friend, who treated Will and his brother. That's good to know, for those interested.
Post by Michael Pendragon
Will treated himself *and* his brother to steak dinner on General Zod's relief money.
That's what you've said, though (since you lied by attributing that allegation to Will), it's not something I'd take your word on, either.
THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF SENETTO VS DOCKERY
Here are the known facts that *both* the prosecution and the defense agree upon:
1) Will started a thread describing Zen's desperate situation: he'd been badly injured in a car crash and unable to work, was waiting for his V.A. benefits to kick in (the check should come any day now), but was on the verge of being evicted due to outstanding back rent.
2) Jim volunteered to send Will $50., clearly expressing that the money should go toward Zod's rent or, if should the landlord prove unreasonable, toward food, clothing and supplies for Zod.
3) Will received the $50. and he, Brother Dave, and Zod used it to go out for steak dinner.
4) After dinner, Zod attempted to kill Dave by beating him over the head with an unspecified link of metal pipe.
THE CASE FOR THE DEFENSE
1): Will claims that his post was not intended to solicit funds for his friend, as he does not directly ask for money in any portion of it. He was merely sharing Zod's tale.
2) Will arranged with Jim to have the money sent and *after* Jim reported that the check was in the mail, Will mentioned that Zod was not to be trusted and would probably just blow the money on liquor and/or drugs.
3) Will reports that upon being presented with the $50., Zod decided to treat Will and Dave to steak dinner. Will said that Zod had expressed his desire to treat them as a "thank you" for all the cigarettes and beer they'd bought him over the past several months. And, since Zod would have just used the money for booze, drugs or hookers, it seemed like a win-win situation for everybody.
4) Will says that the after dinner fight was over some cigarettes and that Zod's uncharacteristically violent behavior must have been due to his long-term addiction to drugs.
THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION
1) Jim maintains that Will was soliciting for his friend, as the post was an obvious plea for monetary assistance, regardless of whether that plea was directly stated or implied.
2) Jim believes that the posts between himself and Will constitute a written contract, and that Will was responsible to make an effort to ensure that the money would be spent in accordance with Jim's wishes.
3) Since Jim had entrusted Will with both the money, and the responsibility to see that it was spent to Zod's benefit, he feels that Will was obligated to refuse Zod's invitation to dinner. Jim maintains that Will is both a con man and a thief.
4) While Jim probably feels that Zod should have whacked Will instead of Dave, he takes no position on the incident (the after dinner attack); however, since the incident figures into our decision on this case, it shall remain as relevant evidence.
WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE
1) The original posts regarding Zod's situation, Jim's offer to assist, and the discussions as to the arrangements are in the group's archives and shall be accepted as a factual record of the event.
2) Messages exchanged in a usenet group involving the exchange of money constitute a legal contract. The only questions pertain to the extent of Will's legal responsibility to ensure that the money was spent properly.
3) Will's story is suspicious at best. It is improbable that a man in Zod's distressed circumstances would use his "relief funds" to treat his friends to steak dinner.
4) Will's subsequent claim that Zod attempted to murder Dave was triggered by a dispute over some cigarettes is also suspicious.
JUDGE MICHAEL'S RULING
1) The court feels that Will's post constitutes "solicitation," and that it was intended to procure "relief funds" for General Zod.
2) The court rules that the messages exchanged between Will and Jim in this group constitute a "written contract," and that Will was responsible for seeing that the money was a) offered to Zod's landlord as an incentive to extend his lease another two weeks or so in anticipation of the promised V.A. checks, and b) if unable to reach an agreement with the landlord, to see that Zod was give food, clothing and supplies to help him survive the coming Winter.
Although the check had been made out to "Will Dockery," he had been instructed to deliver the money to Zod. His legal responsibility, therefore ended the moment he placed the cash in Zod's hand. However, since he had a contractual obligation to take whatever steps he could to ensure that the money was spent for Zod's best interests, he was legally obligated to turn down Zod's alleged dinner invitation. He would certainly have both a moral and ethical obligation to both Zod and Jim, but that is a matter for his conscience to resolve.
Furthermore, since Zod is not prone to outbursts of deadly violence, it seems strange that he would attack with intent to kill or to cause severe bodily injury to a retarded man he had just treated to dinner because the latter refused to give him some cigarettes. While the obvious scenario would be that Will had cashed the check and bought the dinner without telling Zod that the money had been for him, and that Dave accidentally let this slip out. This is speculation based on circumstantial evidence. As such, it would only be considered as evidence should the circumstances surrounding it leave no room for a reasonable doubt.
Now, under normal circumstances, there would be no reasonable doubt. However, as the participants in this scenario are three bums who haven't got a clean pair of pants between them, and at least two of whom share a long history of drug and alcohol abuse ... it may very well have happened as Will said.
However, regardless of whether Zod was aware that the steak dinner money had been slated as his "relief fund," Will failed to live up to his contractual obligations by accepting the dinner invitation.
And while his crime may not have been premeditated, he stole 2/3s of Zod's fund, and is therefore both a con man and a thief.
This has been a presentation of The Poets' Court, with Judge Mikhail ben Avraham presiding.
NEXT UP: The Case of the Poisonous Poesy -- The State vs Stephan Pickering for the murder of Faline Pickering by reciting Will Dockery's poetry to her as she lay on her deathbed.