The night before Christmas, legally speaking

[TexasTowelie]

Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2020, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Editor's Note: The information in this column is not intended as legal advice but to provide a smile during this holiday season. Any readers with a legal problem should lighten up this week, life is precious, so enjoy your family and friends now and join the real world after January 4, 2021.

It is time again for another great Christmas tradition. So, gather your parties around the fire or window unit (if in Texas), whether plaintiff or defendant, ad litem, guardian or children (natural born and adopted), to hear The Night Before Christmas, Legally Speaking.


Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter “the House”), a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to, a mouse.

A variety of foot apparel, e.g. stockings, socks, etc., had been affixed by and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick a/k/a St. Nicholas a/k/a Santa Claus (hereinafter “Claus”) would arrive sometime thereafter.

The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House were located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein visions of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did dance, cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.

Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as “I”), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the party of the second part (hereinafter “Mamma”), and said Mamma had retired for a sustained period of sleep. (At such time, the parties were clad in various forms of headgear, e.g. kerchief and cap.)

Read more: https://www.itemonline.com/opinion/the-night-before-christmas-legally-speaking/article_3c431a6f-c655-5390-bd80-896c7e40296b.html
(Huntsville Item)

[underpants]

1. Your point is moot! You have no standing in this matter.

[d_r]

2. Is it common in legal writing

To use "etc." After using "e.g."? In academic writing that is considered redundant and is avoided. The second use of e.g. (kerchief and cap) looks to be more appropriate for the term "i.e." because it lists every member of the set. "E.g." is used when giving examples, and so etc. Is not needed, whereas "i.e." is used when stating a specific example.

[Arne]

3. Would you do the 'Police Swat Raid' version.

[central scrutinizer]

4. The large print giveth

The fine print taketh away