Home | Literature Index | Movies & Broadway Index | Television Index | Music Index | Miscellaneous Index | Submit Your Own
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: Sauron ats Baggins
Dear Grima Crebain:
Thank you for your letter of reply dated January 8th,
last.
While we understand that the property in question may
be of great sentimental value to Mr. Sauron, your client
is, in fact, responsible for the burden of proof that
Mr. Sauron does, indeed, retain the claim of current
ownership of the property in question. We both know,
of course, that such issue will not only be difficult
to prove, particularly when one considers the length
of time involved in which said property was in the possession
of our client and members of his family, but that certain
mitigating circumstances which have become known to
us, will effectively cloud the issue of ownership to
the point that any efforts on your part to prove said
claim will be fruitless.
According to information provided to us by our client
and certain witnesses, Isuldur, the King's son, cut
the Ring from Sauron's finger during an openly declared
Act of War and, as such, the Spoils of War Rule will
apply, and effectively render your client's claim of
the alleged theft of such property from your client's
possession, null and void.
We are further informed that, after a time, Isildur
was also slain and the Ring fell into a river where
it was lost for many years. It is our understanding
that the ring came upon the possession of of the creature
Gollum, who bore it for five hundred years. He lost
it, and a travelling hobbit called Bilbo Baggins, our
client's uncle found same while on vacation.
I remind you that, the Statute of Limitation, with respect
to all matters generally are quite clear, as
set out in the Limitations Act, namely:
- a basic limitation period of 2 years which would start
from the day the person finds out, or should have found
out, about the injury, loss or damage he or she suffered
and who caused it; and
- an ultimate limitation period of 15 years after which
a claim may be barred, regardless of the plaintiff's
state of knowledge. The period runs from the day the
act or omission on which the claim is based takes place.
Given the fact that your client has not had possession
of the said property for well over 500 years, it would
seem prudent that not only would the Statute of Limitations
obviously apply hereto, it would therefore be all that
is necessary to declare your client's claim of ownership
null and void under the Law. Given the limitations of
all actions to a maximum of only 15 years, regardless
of such claims, your claim that your client's right
to claim not be tolled until he became aware of the
identity of the party in possession is likewise null
and void. We are entirely confident that no competent
Court would remove said property from my client's possession
and ae prepared to commence necessary legal action in
order to protect our client's claims.
Moreover, if your client persists to proceed to a legal
action before the Court in this matter, we are prepared
to bring forth a number of reliable and expert witnesses
who, under discovery, will show that your client is
clearly determined to use such property for illegal
and unethical means. In consideration of such obviously
odious use of the property in question, that your client
would undertake if he had possession of same, it is
clear to us that the Court will decidedly rule in our
favour.
Furthermore, we wish to inform you that, in any Statement
of Defence issued by our office, in addition to asking
the Court for costs on a solicitor-client basis, we
will also ask the Court to grant that extensive punitive
damages be levied against your client for bringing such
wrongful and malicious action against our client, for
attempting to obtain said property for the sole purpose
of conducting malevolent acts against others.
We recommend that you kindly govern yourself accordingly
and remain,
Yours faithfully,
Dewey Cheatem & Howe
Barristers and Solicitors
per:
I.M. Cheatem, Q.C.