• Victoria Nachos

Law and Order: Special Dating Unit

The following story is non-fictional

and depicts actual people and events.


(deep voice over):  In the Criminal Justice System, the People are represented by two separate yet equally important groups;  the Police who investigate crime and the District Attorney who prosecutes the offenders.  These are their stories.


Dun! Dun! (Law and Order sound)

Trial Part 4

Opening Arguments

Febrauary 20, 2010




Bailiff: Docket Number 492801 - People vs. Garbage Man


Prosecutor: In summation, I intend to prove that the defendant, Garbage Man, has committed the

                          crime of  “aggravated assault on future dates”. Pursuant to a conviction by guilty

                          verdict, We the people will be seeking damages in the case against TELUS Mobility

                          for “conspiracy to disrupt relationship formations” to the tune of $10, 000.

                          (for unreliable mobile service).





Dun! Dun!

Trial Part 19

Febrauary 20, 2010





Prosecutor:    Court reporter, would you please read aloud the messages which occured the day

                            after Victoria Nachos' "breezy" phone call. These messages occured between Garbage

Man and Ms. Nachos on plenty of fish, submitted as exhibits F and G in evidence.


Court Reporter: (reading the transcript aloud)


Garbage Man: All better. Have dinner plans Friday, want to hang out afterwards? Youcould come to my place or I could drive out to yours maybe? I’m busy rest of weekend. Our mobile phone companies are incompatible (read: TELUS sucks). Bye Sexy.


Victoria Nachos: Sounds good. I’ll come to your place (Ms. Nachos specified that she answered the message accordingly because she hasn’t given him her home phone numbers so she certainly was not letting him come over to her house). When were you thinking?


Garbage Man: Dinner is 7, so maybe 830 or 9?


Victoria Nachos: 9 is good. What’s your address again?


Garbage Man: I’m really looking forward to seeing you again. (sighing and "ahh"ing from the gallery) . Would it alright if we made it 930? Gives address.


Victoria Nachos: Yeah 930 is fine. Cya then.




(Court reporter is excused and SSD is sworn in)



Prosecutor:      (looking at Victoria Nachos)  and were you on time?


Ms. Nachos Well not exactly...you see I spent too much time primping and didn’t leave my house till

9pm...uh...and it’s about a 45 min drive to Garbage Man's place...and then the highway

was shutdown because of a huge accident...and so I had to take this endless

detour...but...but...I called him...(trails off)


Prosecutor:         Please describe the conversation


Ms. Nachos:       Well...can I have immunity first please...because I risked calling illegally from my cell

because I didn’t have hands free set up yet)


Prosecutor:         Granted...continue


Ms. Nachos:       Okay so it was like this...I called him and was like...blah blah traffic...blah blah

                          unavoidable...blah blah sorry...


                          Then he was like “You’re pretty punctual usually though aren’t you?”


                          Then I was like...(Flashback to first date and being a couple minutes late)...uh...yeah

                           I guess...sometimes I’m late though...(awkward laugh)...


                          And he was like...(not said in soothing voice, but more disappointed parental tone)...

                          oh well what can you do...if there’s an accident there’s an accident...blah blah blah

                          ...cya soon...then I hung up.


Prosecutor:               and how did that make you feel, Ms. Nachos?


Ms. Nachos:         Honestly I almost turned around and drove home. I mean Fuck this...oops *blush*

                          excuse my language Judge...so I was like forget this...I mean the proper response when

                          someone calls to tell you that they’re going to be late is...(even if it means sucking it up

                          and faking it)...no worries that’s fine...take your time and drive safe. I mean...we

                          barely know each other...not to mention he had been the one pushing the time

                          back earlier anyway right?


Prosecutor:          and so did you turn around?


Ms. Nachos:        No. (sighs).  I figured I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Plus I’d just spent like

                          2 hours primping for him...so I wasn’t going to waste it.


Prosecutor:          Tell us what happened when you arrived at his house.


Ms. Nachos:        So when I get to his house, admittedly it is almost 10:30pm and I felt hugely

embarrassed that I was so late...even though mostly it wasn’t my fault...and super

awkward because of how he acted on the phone...plus hello! second date jitters...and

then I knocked on the door...and he pokes his head out just a smidge...and I guess he was

trying to be funny but I kept thinking...yeah...we’re not tight like that yet that joking in an

awkward situation is a good idea...and then...you wouldn’t believe it?!?!


Prosecutor:          Oh, do tell us...please go on...


Ms. Nachos:        He was wearing jogging pants!!!



(Gasps are heard around the courtroom. Whispers, pointing and laughter ensue. Judge brings down gavel several times asking for “order!”)



Prosecutor:           And you were shocked at this drastic change in attire from the first date?


Defence:             Objection! Leading the witness!


Judge:                 Sustained


Prosecutor:           I’ll rephrase. What was your reaction to his attire?


Ms. Nachos:         I couldn’t freakin’ believe it! I had just spent 2 hours getting myself all super-sexified

and girly and he’s wearing sweat pants? I mean come on! And the thing is, it’s not like I’m

anti-sweat pants...heck I wear them myself when I’m at home...but this was supposed to

be our second date. A DATE FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!! And yes...I know...the date did take

place at his humble abode but that does not make practically wearing pyjamas

acceptable. Plus, what tool thinks he’s getting laid in sweat pants???


Defence:             Objection! The witness is using prejudicial characterizations of my client!


Judge:                 Overruled! Defendant wore sweatpants on a date...calling him a tool is not a

                           characterization it’s a fact.


Prosecutor:         Tell us what happened next Victoria...


Ms. Nachos:       Well...uh...I was so distracted by the whole phone call plus weird door opening plus

                            jogging pants that I barely said anything for the first...like half hour. Plus he didn’t

                            even have a movie or something planned to watch. He was watching the Olympics

                            when I showed up...and so we just kept watching them.


Prosecutor:          Thank you, that is all.  The prosecution rests. Your witness.


Defence:              So had you and the defendant discussed what would be happening on this second date?


Ms. Nachos:         Well...uh...no...I mean...I assumed...


Defence:              (interrupting) Ha! You assumed!


Prosecutor:          Objection! Badgering the witness you Honour!


Judge:                  The defence will please let the witness answer the question. Go ahead SSD...you may

                            continue.


Ms. Nachos:        so yeah...uh...I just assumed that he was aware that effort was required. I mean...I

                             figured after how amazing our first date had been...the second date would at least

                             attempt to compare...


Defence:               and the date did take place in his “home” and you after all said you wear sweatpants in

                             your “home” did you not?


Ms. Nachos:        Yes...but not when getting frisky is a possibility...


Defence:              And did you get frisky?


Prosecutor:          Objection!


Judge:                   Overruled...please tell us about the frisky activities (judge rests chin on elbows and

                             upturned palms and leans towards witness, very pervy-like)...yes do tell us all the

                             details!


Ms. Nachos:         (blushing) yada yada yada making out yada yada yada shirts off yada yada yada

                             uncircumcised yada yada never seen one before yada yada not ready to have sex

                             yet yada


Defence:                So...besides the attire...did he do anything else that “turned you off” or would

                               prevent future copulations?


Ms. Nachos:          Well (looks up quizzically and scrunches face)....he did sort of talk about meat during a

                              lull...


Gallery:                  (numerous voices) He did what? (Laughter) Can you imagine? (Laughter) What kind of

                               meat? (Laughter)


Judge:                    QUIET! Or I’ll have you all in contempt! Witness will continue and please...specify the

                                meat in question...


Ms. Nachos:       Well it was sort of after he found out he wasn’t going to get laid that night...but

                               before he figured out he could get a bit further than he already had...and we were

                               just talking and he brought up the fact that he had had sushi for dinner with a guy

                               from work...and then he was talking about eating healthier blah blah...and then he

                              started talking about how he’s started eating Bison...


Defence:              (interrupts with laughter) Bison? Seriously?


Ms. Nachos:       yes! (Annoyed) Bison!


Defence:               and yet...you still let him get further with you?


Ms. Nachos:        well...yeah...I mean...we kind of laughed at the topic and then got it on again...


Defence:                The defence rests.


Judge:                     The witness may be excused.




Dun! Dun!

Trial Part 36

Closing Arguments

February 20, 2010





Defence:          The Prosecution has not been able to prove its burden for the crimes charged. At best,

they may argue that my client gave future dates a dirty look but certainly not

“aggravated assault on said dates”. In addition, my client lacks the intelligence to

formulate the “intent to cause confusion” about whether or not he likes the witness.


Prosecutor:     The Defence has spun tales about the appropriateness of casual attire and tried to

                             distract you with notions of “the clothes do not make the man”. They have claimed

                             that abuse using the weapons of bad pants and meat talk are not vigorous enough to

                             justify an “aggravated assault” charge but they forget this comes after the weeks of

                             pummelling, while my client waited to hear about the defendant's health and a second

                             date. Finally the defence asserts that the accused lacks the intelligence to intentionally

                             cause confusion, which in itself proves his guilt in “grand stupidity”. They cannot have

                             it both ways. The jury must convict this man before he causes further harm to

                             innocent daters everywhere. It is your duty!!




Dun! Dun!

Trial Part 45

Verdict

February 20, 2010




Judge:                        And does the jury have a verdict?


Presiding Juror:      We do your Honour.


Judge:                         And what say you


Presiding Juror:      On the charge of “aggravated assault on future dates” we find the defendant guilty.

                                   We would also like to make the recommendation to the Court, that the charges be

                                   ammended to include “intent to cause confusion” and “grand stupidity”.


Judge:                         That is highly unusual...hmm


Presiding Juror:     We know, Your Honour, but we felt that it was justified to speak out on behalf of

                                   the victim.


Judge:                        Very well...the Prosecution is advised to consider the jury's statements for future

                                   charges.  And how say you on the charge of "conspiracy to disrupt relationship

                                   formations" in cahouts with TELUS Mobility.  On the issue of damages, we

                                   award the claimant, Victoria Nachos, on behalf TELUS Mobility, a total of $10,000

for time wasted and anxiety and uncertainty suffered.


Judge:                      Deputies, please remove the defendant. The Court would like to thank the jury for

                                   its time.  Court is adjourned.





*originally published 20/02/2010

 

Subscribe Form

©2020 by Something She Said. Proudly created with Wix.com