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
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).
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)
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!
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
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?
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
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
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
Gallery: (numerous voices) He did what? (Laughter) Can you imagine? (Laughter) What kind of
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.
Trial Part 36
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!!
Trial Part 45
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
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