I'm opening up this blog again because I don't know where else to host this for people to see if they choose to. A few people know I attended a short scriptwriting course to see if I was as good as writing comedy scripts as I thought I was after Uni.
All I said is that I wrote a short sketch/play about dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia set in a hypothetical courtcase that's as ludicrous as a Monty Python sketch. This is the third draft and the performed version was altered, edited for actors with some excellent suggestions and line changes, for a readthrough. This version is all my writing about two subjects I feel very strongly about, one; Dyslexia and it's spectrum, two: Comedy. It's not long, it's not really a play, but it stretches to about 10-15 minutes of direct character dialogue and it's quite personal.
I'll try to put up the final script for the actors that was passed on by the teacher/stage director up some other time, as I don't know how to insert a viewable PDF into a simple blogger post. But for anyone who wants to read what I worked on and challenged myself to in brilliant workshops with hugely creative people I thought I could barely keep up with, here it is.
All I said is that I wrote a short sketch/play about dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia set in a hypothetical courtcase that's as ludicrous as a Monty Python sketch. This is the third draft and the performed version was altered, edited for actors with some excellent suggestions and line changes, for a readthrough. This version is all my writing about two subjects I feel very strongly about, one; Dyslexia and it's spectrum, two: Comedy. It's not long, it's not really a play, but it stretches to about 10-15 minutes of direct character dialogue and it's quite personal.
I'll try to put up the final script for the actors that was passed on by the teacher/stage director up some other time, as I don't know how to insert a viewable PDF into a simple blogger post. But for anyone who wants to read what I worked on and challenged myself to in brilliant workshops with hugely creative people I thought I could barely keep up with, here it is.
The Court of Fools...?
By Martyn Eker
Scene: A jury case in a courtroom with a judge, defendant’s lawyer and opposing lawyer. The jury are unseen and only referred to. Four characters are on stage.
A moment of silence occurs as everything comes to a standstill as the judge walks to the podium.
Judge: The court is in session. All rise.
The judge sips from a glass of water. The defendant seems to clumsily trip into place as their lawyer keeps their balance.
Judge: We are all here today, the court AND the jury, to ultimately decide if the defendant is...
(Pause) ...stupid or not stupid.
Defendant: Not stupid, Sir.
Defendant’s Lawyer: My client proclaims not stupid!
Defendant: (Mutters) I just said that!
Judge: The defendant has claimed they are ‘not stupid’(speaking to defendant) We have noticed that you seem to have difficulty grasping simple concepts that most, would, shall we say, find...unchallenging. In a matter of a fact, this very case was adjourned last time, because of your failure to turn up.
Opposing lawyer: To not even bother turning up to your courtcase is careless, but stupid beyond all reason.
Defendants Lawyer: My client was unable to attend due to personal reasons.
Judge: When we contacted you, you claimed to be in…Glasgow?
Defendant Lawyer: That is correct, my client was in Scotland…for family reasons.
Defendant: Actually, I have no family in…
Defendants Lawyer: …Shh!
Judge: But this court is in London! Exactly the other side of Britain!
Opposing lawyer: What kind of idiot manages to end up in Glasgow when this court is exactly the opposite direction? How do you even explain that, I ask of you?
Defendant: I was late for my original train, it, it, just threw me right out for the day.
Defendants Lawyer: What my client means, is that they had to systematically plan out a new navigation route. The GPS led them the wrong way. As you’ve heard those stories about people driving into lakes when they should be in villages. I’m sure this has happened to all of us once.
Defendant: Umm, actually, my bus was late. So that’s not my fault.
Defendants Lawyer: The…BUSES…GPS system must had been incorrect due to realignments of the planets blocking…the…signal, perhaps Mars was in the way. You hear of this all the time the misplacement of Mars, and being in the constellation of Gemini or Aquarius. These things happen. I’m sure it mus have some side effect, such as public transportation being late.
Defendant: What?!? That’s complete nonsense! Can I get another lawyer or something? Is this like when you get a goofy substitute teacher!
Opposing lawyer: Listen to them! Not only were they carelessly late, but they failed to turn up to their own court case, because their client was enjoying theirselves in the pub in Glasgow!
Defendant: I got lost! my phone was low on power, because I stupidly forgot to charge it, so I couldn’t tell the time with my digital clock and I couldn’t use the app I’m used to planning train routes with. A nice gentlemen pointed me to a train and there I was on a non-stop train to Glasgow! I should had planned better. I have to plan things so much more for journeys like this, it’s not just as simple as booking a train and getting on a station for me, the changes are confusing and…
Opposing Lawyer: Wait, you couldn’t tell the time, because your mobile was low in power, ALL DAY? What about all the massive, huge clocks conveniently in train stations for that EXACT purpose? Using your head and actually taking some responsibility and TALKING to normal people and asking them their time on THEIR watches, a quick glance of their wrist and this wouldn’t be an issue!
Defendant: I can’t tell the time on a normal, analogue clock face. Can’t read them, they just read like mystical runes. Like some kind of code you need to figure out. Most people just show their watch and expect you to know the time on it. Asking what it says is awkward and embarrassing, because to that person, it seems like you weren’t paying attention the first time.
Judge: We’ll move onto the next case in point. Please bring forward, Exhibit A. Dudley, if you please?
A member of the court (Dudley) slowly walks down carrying a plastic Scrabble piece board as if it was some kind of royal importance showing it to all sides or the jury simultaneously looking smug heading towards the defendant.
Defendant: What is this?
(Pause) ...stupid or not stupid.
Defendant: Not stupid, Sir.
Defendant’s Lawyer: My client proclaims not stupid!
Defendant: (Mutters) I just said that!
Judge: The defendant has claimed they are ‘not stupid’(speaking to defendant) We have noticed that you seem to have difficulty grasping simple concepts that most, would, shall we say, find...unchallenging. In a matter of a fact, this very case was adjourned last time, because of your failure to turn up.
Opposing lawyer: To not even bother turning up to your courtcase is careless, but stupid beyond all reason.
Defendants Lawyer: My client was unable to attend due to personal reasons.
Judge: When we contacted you, you claimed to be in…Glasgow?
Defendant Lawyer: That is correct, my client was in Scotland…for family reasons.
Defendant: Actually, I have no family in…
Defendants Lawyer: …Shh!
Judge: But this court is in London! Exactly the other side of Britain!
Opposing lawyer: What kind of idiot manages to end up in Glasgow when this court is exactly the opposite direction? How do you even explain that, I ask of you?
Defendant: I was late for my original train, it, it, just threw me right out for the day.
Defendants Lawyer: What my client means, is that they had to systematically plan out a new navigation route. The GPS led them the wrong way. As you’ve heard those stories about people driving into lakes when they should be in villages. I’m sure this has happened to all of us once.
Defendant: Umm, actually, my bus was late. So that’s not my fault.
Defendants Lawyer: The…BUSES…GPS system must had been incorrect due to realignments of the planets blocking…the…signal, perhaps Mars was in the way. You hear of this all the time the misplacement of Mars, and being in the constellation of Gemini or Aquarius. These things happen. I’m sure it mus have some side effect, such as public transportation being late.
Defendant: What?!? That’s complete nonsense! Can I get another lawyer or something? Is this like when you get a goofy substitute teacher!
Opposing lawyer: Listen to them! Not only were they carelessly late, but they failed to turn up to their own court case, because their client was enjoying theirselves in the pub in Glasgow!
Defendant: I got lost! my phone was low on power, because I stupidly forgot to charge it, so I couldn’t tell the time with my digital clock and I couldn’t use the app I’m used to planning train routes with. A nice gentlemen pointed me to a train and there I was on a non-stop train to Glasgow! I should had planned better. I have to plan things so much more for journeys like this, it’s not just as simple as booking a train and getting on a station for me, the changes are confusing and…
Opposing Lawyer: Wait, you couldn’t tell the time, because your mobile was low in power, ALL DAY? What about all the massive, huge clocks conveniently in train stations for that EXACT purpose? Using your head and actually taking some responsibility and TALKING to normal people and asking them their time on THEIR watches, a quick glance of their wrist and this wouldn’t be an issue!
Defendant: I can’t tell the time on a normal, analogue clock face. Can’t read them, they just read like mystical runes. Like some kind of code you need to figure out. Most people just show their watch and expect you to know the time on it. Asking what it says is awkward and embarrassing, because to that person, it seems like you weren’t paying attention the first time.
Judge: We’ll move onto the next case in point. Please bring forward, Exhibit A. Dudley, if you please?
A member of the court (Dudley) slowly walks down carrying a plastic Scrabble piece board as if it was some kind of royal importance showing it to all sides or the jury simultaneously looking smug heading towards the defendant.
Defendant: What is this?
Judge: The…OTHER part of exhibit A, please, Dudley?
The member of the court quickly runs back with a small tied green sack in the palm of his hand.
Judge: These are Scrabble letters.
The member of the court quickly runs back with a small tied green sack in the palm of his hand.
Judge: These are Scrabble letters.
Defendant’s Lawyer: My client is not here to play games, besides. There seems to be a lack of a board. This game is incomplete. It simply cannot be used against him. It’s like playing Monopoly without the little hat your cousin can fit up their nose and the iron nobody really ever wants, because everyone hates ironing. But I ask you, we ALL want the little shiny dog, don’t we? My client is that little misunderstood shiny dog. Woof woof, good boy!
Defendant: I AM NOT a shiny dog. What on Earth are you even talking abo…
Opposing lawyer: OH, MY, GOD, GET ON WITH IT!
Defendants Lawyer: (directed at Opposing Lawyer) I bet you were the old boot!
Opposing Lawyer: I’m more of a cat person (does cat scowl with hand)
Judge: Please be quiet, We’re going to use proven scientific and psychological methods to put something to the test. With these letter tiles.
Defendants Lawyer: GHERKINS!
Judge: What is this?
Defendant: I do NOT know this man. This is the FIRST time I have ever had him by my side…
Defendants Lawyer: It’s a small pickle, made from an immature cucumber. It’s a 180 pointer if placed correctly!
Opposing Lawyer: YOU’RE an immature cucumber…
The judge pulls out a top hat from behind his podium.
Judge: We’re not actually going to play Scrabble at that would be silly and incredibly time consuming. It’s more about using the letters as a visual aid for spelling. A independent adjudicator is going to pick a word from this hat. Dudley, if you may?
Dudley walks up to the jury (a member of the audience, breaking the Fourth wall) and they pick a word from the hat. (there is only one word in the hat for theatrical reasons).
Dudley wanders back up and passes the word to the Judge.
Dudley: Y-Y-Your sire…
The judge is passed the word from the hat on a bit of paper and checks the top hat.
Judge: Dudley, why did you only put one word in the hat, there’s plenty of space for more…
Dudley: (with arms out wide) Well, it’s quite a big word. I didn’t think we needed any more…
Judge: Dudley. What did we say about taking words and phrases too literally?
Dudley: I didn’t. You did. You took the word. I just gave it to you. Would you prefer it if I took the word back? (leans over)
Judge: No, that’ll do Dudley, that’ll do.
Dudley stands in silence.
Judge: Could you…perhaps move Dudley?
Dudley moves a few steps to the right.
Judge: Dudley! Just leave, vacate the area! go for a break! I’ll call you IF you’re needed again!
Dudley walks offstage.
Judge: The word is, by coincidence and not at all for theatrical reasons…’Jurisdiction’. Please spell this with the pieces provided without assistance.
The defendant attempts to spell the word with Scrabble tiles to the Countdown gameshow tune.
Judge: Please reveal your spelling.
The defendant turns the scrabble piece holder around
Judge: Riggghht. You have spelt ‘Jurys’ as in the plural or jury and, oh my, I didn’t expect that word to come up in the middle. Jurisdiction has no K in it. I didn’t expect that word to pop up and reveal itself. That word has no place in this court!
The opposing lawyer stands up folder under arm.
Opposing Lawyer: This person is clearly stupid. They seem incapable of spelling a simple word in front of the public and has resulted in signposting immature words for all the jury to see! There is no way that this person cannot pass as not-stupid. Because not being able to spell is a very thick thing indeed and these visual aids? Pah! This person should be capable of spelling the word aloud in a spelling bee. This is a waste of time for everyone involved (facing jury) is it not?
Defendant’s Lawyer: Objection!
Judge: Sustained...Go on...
Defendants Lawyer: In daily life, (turns to jury) do we spell aloud as a general everyday skill, in everyday conversation?
No we don’t. We don’t need to.
Opposing Lawyer: That is ridiculous. Have you heard what this person is trying to say? This person is clearly telling us that spelling isn’t important, the most integral part of the English language and it’s just not important! What rubbish. Imagine reading books with the incorrect spellings! You wouldn’t be able to understand them! Littering literature! You might as well remove words!
Defendant: Can I… just…spe…
Defending lawyer: Picture books! Pop up books! Flashcards! Plenty of literature has no words! You don’t need words for books!
Judge: That is true.
Opposing Lawyer: Rubbish, total poppycock.
Judge: Language!
Defendant: Can… I… just…please…say…bring…up…someth…
Laywer: Jury, this person doesn’t even have an idea how to string a simple sentence together. I’m sure the majority of us, in the RIGHT mind can say this person is, stupid. His lawyer is like a translator. If it wasn’t for him, they’d be utterly incomprehensible!
Defendant: …OBJECTION!
Judge: This is interesting, an objection from the defendant? I’ll let this pass.
Defendants lawyer: You don’t have to say anyth….
Defendant: Okay, say you can’t spell a word.
Judge: ...Yes?
Defendant: Where do you look to find the spelling?
Opposing Lawyer: Oh, reaaaally. What a pre-posturous question. Obviously, a dictionary.
Defendant: How do you find it?
Opposing Lawyer: Alphabetical order. As if YOU would know anything about things in order. This case is all over the place, a total farce!
Defendant: But how do you look it up if you don’t know how it’s spelt?
Defendants lawyer: I believe my client is talking about phonetics, the way a word is pronounced…
Defendant: Yeah, phonetics, that’s the word, it was on the tip of my tongue.
Judge: I am aware of phonetics.
Defendant: Sometimes a word is spelt totally different than it sounds. There’s annoying things like the letter C, and the ocean, also a sea, see?
Defendant: I AM NOT a shiny dog. What on Earth are you even talking abo…
Opposing lawyer: OH, MY, GOD, GET ON WITH IT!
Defendants Lawyer: (directed at Opposing Lawyer) I bet you were the old boot!
Opposing Lawyer: I’m more of a cat person (does cat scowl with hand)
Judge: Please be quiet, We’re going to use proven scientific and psychological methods to put something to the test. With these letter tiles.
Defendants Lawyer: GHERKINS!
Judge: What is this?
Defendant: I do NOT know this man. This is the FIRST time I have ever had him by my side…
Defendants Lawyer: It’s a small pickle, made from an immature cucumber. It’s a 180 pointer if placed correctly!
Opposing Lawyer: YOU’RE an immature cucumber…
The judge pulls out a top hat from behind his podium.
Judge: We’re not actually going to play Scrabble at that would be silly and incredibly time consuming. It’s more about using the letters as a visual aid for spelling. A independent adjudicator is going to pick a word from this hat. Dudley, if you may?
Dudley walks up to the jury (a member of the audience, breaking the Fourth wall) and they pick a word from the hat. (there is only one word in the hat for theatrical reasons).
Dudley wanders back up and passes the word to the Judge.
Dudley: Y-Y-Your sire…
The judge is passed the word from the hat on a bit of paper and checks the top hat.
Judge: Dudley, why did you only put one word in the hat, there’s plenty of space for more…
Dudley: (with arms out wide) Well, it’s quite a big word. I didn’t think we needed any more…
Judge: Dudley. What did we say about taking words and phrases too literally?
Dudley: I didn’t. You did. You took the word. I just gave it to you. Would you prefer it if I took the word back? (leans over)
Judge: No, that’ll do Dudley, that’ll do.
Dudley stands in silence.
Judge: Could you…perhaps move Dudley?
Dudley moves a few steps to the right.
Judge: Dudley! Just leave, vacate the area! go for a break! I’ll call you IF you’re needed again!
Dudley walks offstage.
Judge: The word is, by coincidence and not at all for theatrical reasons…’Jurisdiction’. Please spell this with the pieces provided without assistance.
The defendant attempts to spell the word with Scrabble tiles to the Countdown gameshow tune.
Judge: Please reveal your spelling.
The defendant turns the scrabble piece holder around
Judge: Riggghht. You have spelt ‘Jurys’ as in the plural or jury and, oh my, I didn’t expect that word to come up in the middle. Jurisdiction has no K in it. I didn’t expect that word to pop up and reveal itself. That word has no place in this court!
The opposing lawyer stands up folder under arm.
Opposing Lawyer: This person is clearly stupid. They seem incapable of spelling a simple word in front of the public and has resulted in signposting immature words for all the jury to see! There is no way that this person cannot pass as not-stupid. Because not being able to spell is a very thick thing indeed and these visual aids? Pah! This person should be capable of spelling the word aloud in a spelling bee. This is a waste of time for everyone involved (facing jury) is it not?
Defendant’s Lawyer: Objection!
Judge: Sustained...Go on...
Defendants Lawyer: In daily life, (turns to jury) do we spell aloud as a general everyday skill, in everyday conversation?
No we don’t. We don’t need to.
Opposing Lawyer: That is ridiculous. Have you heard what this person is trying to say? This person is clearly telling us that spelling isn’t important, the most integral part of the English language and it’s just not important! What rubbish. Imagine reading books with the incorrect spellings! You wouldn’t be able to understand them! Littering literature! You might as well remove words!
Defendant: Can I… just…spe…
Defending lawyer: Picture books! Pop up books! Flashcards! Plenty of literature has no words! You don’t need words for books!
Judge: That is true.
Opposing Lawyer: Rubbish, total poppycock.
Judge: Language!
Defendant: Can… I… just…please…say…bring…up…someth…
Laywer: Jury, this person doesn’t even have an idea how to string a simple sentence together. I’m sure the majority of us, in the RIGHT mind can say this person is, stupid. His lawyer is like a translator. If it wasn’t for him, they’d be utterly incomprehensible!
Defendant: …OBJECTION!
Judge: This is interesting, an objection from the defendant? I’ll let this pass.
Defendants lawyer: You don’t have to say anyth….
Defendant: Okay, say you can’t spell a word.
Judge: ...Yes?
Defendant: Where do you look to find the spelling?
Opposing Lawyer: Oh, reaaaally. What a pre-posturous question. Obviously, a dictionary.
Defendant: How do you find it?
Opposing Lawyer: Alphabetical order. As if YOU would know anything about things in order. This case is all over the place, a total farce!
Defendant: But how do you look it up if you don’t know how it’s spelt?
Defendants lawyer: I believe my client is talking about phonetics, the way a word is pronounced…
Defendant: Yeah, phonetics, that’s the word, it was on the tip of my tongue.
Judge: I am aware of phonetics.
Defendant: Sometimes a word is spelt totally different than it sounds. There’s annoying things like the letter C, and the ocean, also a sea, see?
Judge: I see.
Defendants lawyer: What my client is trying to bring forward is the issue of say, for example the phonetics of the word such as ‘Psychology’ but how is the ‘Psy’ bit spelt?
Opposing Lawyer: Psychology is a word that really doesn’t come up that often. It’s a specialist field, you don’t talk about it everyday conversation...have you heard this jury? This person is playing psychological games! GAMES! Like a CHILD! A child defending a childlike mind! Ridiculous!
Judge: It’s spelt with the prefix ‘P...S...Y’ , as in PSY .Your point is, defendant?
Opposing Laywer: The defendant’s Lawyer is clearly bringing up a terrible choice of music artist and using is trademark ‘Gangham Style’ in order to distract and derail the court and jury. I myself have more class and would had chosen Madonna, whom would have you chosen? Only an idiot would choose Psy. Does the defendant wish to get his boombox and cassette out now? Dance like the fool that he is in front of the jury?
Defendant: But phonetically and hypothetically....
Opposing Lawyer: Those are big words for you, do you know what they mean?
Defendant: Yes, I looked in a dictionary, which is what dictionaries are actually used for, looking up the definition of words. Not spellings.
Defendants Lawyer: That’s true. A dictionary is for looking up a definition and meaning of a word. But it sometimes does double up as a way to look up a spelling...if you know where to begin. My client is simply saying, they do not know when to begin.
Defendant: Yes! Exactly or a thesaurus which is for the opposite...
Opposing Lawyer: We’re talking big purple dinosaurs now! A thesaurus...is that in the new Jurassic World film? Starring your friend....Chris...(points at defendant) Pratt?
Judge: Sit down! A thesaurus is a book to look up alternate meanings for words or phrases, you fool! Not a dinosaur!
It may SOUND like a dinosaur, but it sure isn’t!
Defendant: Hey! Let me finish what I’m trying to say here. You’re really distracting with your trashy pop culture references!
Look, it’s possible, probable, that the word ‘psychology’ could be spelt with an ‘S’ and an ‘I’. Because it sounds phonetically like it, right? Or ‘Cy’ like the word ‘Cyber’ in Cyberman.
Judge: It isn’t. But that is true. I guess it could. But that doesn’t mean you can bring in pop culture references as you accuse the opposition of overusing them.
Defendant: I don’t. I only remember the spelling of the word ‘Cyber’ because I like Doctor Who and I see, ‘Cyberman’ as a name, opposed to a...thing...object...you know the word, it’s on the tip of my tongue.
Defendants Lawyer: I believe my client is referring to a noun.
Defendant: So I take away the ‘man’ bit and I know that they’re robots, computers and voila! Cyber!
Judge: A noun. Yes, I see. So what you are proposing is that anybody after HEARING a word could spell it incorrectly because of the SOUND OF the word. It can be very confusing. Very clever. I can see how that works. Spelling aloud is skill, not a necessity and I can’t honestly say it’s proof of intelligence after that convincing argument.
The judge takes a small breath moving onto the next subject
Judge: It also says here you can’t work out simple math and addition. Don’t you know your times table?
Defendant: No. I can’t remember it, never been able to.
Opposing Lawyer: The defendant doesn’t know their times table! Imagine that! The pure ignorance to never pick up such a simple method, imagine all the hours those teachers wasted on you that could had been used for capable, competent pupils!
Defendant: It’s not like it’s table manners or something, you say it as if it’s MY fault that I can’t remember something that YOU expect me to! As if I’m a little boy with my elbows on the table. Times table may have the word Table in it, but it’s nothing to do with manners!
Defendants lawyer: What my client is trying to bring forward is the issue of say, for example the phonetics of the word such as ‘Psychology’ but how is the ‘Psy’ bit spelt?
Opposing Lawyer: Psychology is a word that really doesn’t come up that often. It’s a specialist field, you don’t talk about it everyday conversation...have you heard this jury? This person is playing psychological games! GAMES! Like a CHILD! A child defending a childlike mind! Ridiculous!
Judge: It’s spelt with the prefix ‘P...S...Y’ , as in PSY .Your point is, defendant?
Opposing Laywer: The defendant’s Lawyer is clearly bringing up a terrible choice of music artist and using is trademark ‘Gangham Style’ in order to distract and derail the court and jury. I myself have more class and would had chosen Madonna, whom would have you chosen? Only an idiot would choose Psy. Does the defendant wish to get his boombox and cassette out now? Dance like the fool that he is in front of the jury?
Defendant: But phonetically and hypothetically....
Opposing Lawyer: Those are big words for you, do you know what they mean?
Defendant: Yes, I looked in a dictionary, which is what dictionaries are actually used for, looking up the definition of words. Not spellings.
Defendants Lawyer: That’s true. A dictionary is for looking up a definition and meaning of a word. But it sometimes does double up as a way to look up a spelling...if you know where to begin. My client is simply saying, they do not know when to begin.
Defendant: Yes! Exactly or a thesaurus which is for the opposite...
Opposing Lawyer: We’re talking big purple dinosaurs now! A thesaurus...is that in the new Jurassic World film? Starring your friend....Chris...(points at defendant) Pratt?
Judge: Sit down! A thesaurus is a book to look up alternate meanings for words or phrases, you fool! Not a dinosaur!
It may SOUND like a dinosaur, but it sure isn’t!
Defendant: Hey! Let me finish what I’m trying to say here. You’re really distracting with your trashy pop culture references!
Look, it’s possible, probable, that the word ‘psychology’ could be spelt with an ‘S’ and an ‘I’. Because it sounds phonetically like it, right? Or ‘Cy’ like the word ‘Cyber’ in Cyberman.
Judge: It isn’t. But that is true. I guess it could. But that doesn’t mean you can bring in pop culture references as you accuse the opposition of overusing them.
Defendant: I don’t. I only remember the spelling of the word ‘Cyber’ because I like Doctor Who and I see, ‘Cyberman’ as a name, opposed to a...thing...object...you know the word, it’s on the tip of my tongue.
Defendants Lawyer: I believe my client is referring to a noun.
Defendant: So I take away the ‘man’ bit and I know that they’re robots, computers and voila! Cyber!
Judge: A noun. Yes, I see. So what you are proposing is that anybody after HEARING a word could spell it incorrectly because of the SOUND OF the word. It can be very confusing. Very clever. I can see how that works. Spelling aloud is skill, not a necessity and I can’t honestly say it’s proof of intelligence after that convincing argument.
The judge takes a small breath moving onto the next subject
Judge: It also says here you can’t work out simple math and addition. Don’t you know your times table?
Defendant: No. I can’t remember it, never been able to.
Opposing Lawyer: The defendant doesn’t know their times table! Imagine that! The pure ignorance to never pick up such a simple method, imagine all the hours those teachers wasted on you that could had been used for capable, competent pupils!
Defendant: It’s not like it’s table manners or something, you say it as if it’s MY fault that I can’t remember something that YOU expect me to! As if I’m a little boy with my elbows on the table. Times table may have the word Table in it, but it’s nothing to do with manners!
Defending Lawyer: You can’t complain expecting someone to know something if they don’t remember it in the first place.
Defendant: (turning to opposing lawyer) Okay, then, what’s your work mobile number if I ever wanted to hire you?
Lawyer: O7...uh, 07...I can never remember these things. Look, here’s a business card. IF YOU CAN READ IT.
Defendant: You can’t remember your mobile number can you?
Lawyer: No. It’s not like I need to!
Defendant: So what you are saying...right?...what you are saying...
Judge: What is he saying?
Defending Lawyer: …What are you saying?Maybe I should take it from he…
Defendant: What you are saying is...
Lawyer: WHAT?!?
Defendant: You can’t remember a bunch of numbers.
Defendants Laywer: I have reason to believe, in this context my client is referring to the term, ‘sequence’.
Defendant: Yes! That’s the word!
Lawyer: No. I cannot. What has this got to do with it?
Defendant: Well, nor can I. I can’t remember a sequence OF A sequence of numbers. So imagine having up to 12 individual mobile numbers of your own to be expected to, just INSTANTLY remember. That’s what it’s like.
Defending lawyer: To an outside observer, I guess that could be seen as nearly the same. Wouldn’t you say?
Defendant: Besides, knowing times tables isn’t even needed these days, calculators are everywhere. Even on the smartphone that you can’t remember your number for!
Defending Lawyer: (Leans over to Opposing Lawyer) Burrrrrrrrrrrnnn.
Opposing Lawyer: I have a simple test to prove your client is stupid.
Defending Lawyer: OBJECTION!
Judge: Overruled. Opposition, if you may.
Opposing Lawyer: Put your left hand up. Then your right hand.
Defendant puts hands up in wrong order.
Opposing Lawyer: AHA! You hesitated and got your left and right mixed up! Obviously a sign of idiocy if I’ve ever seen it.
Judge: You did. Why did you hesitate?
Defendant: I occasionally get them mixed up. I sometimes, get things back to front, the wrong way round.
Defending Lawyer: My client simply means, they occasionally get things in the wrong order. We all get a bit pressured sometimes…like this job.
Defendant: I need more time to think things through like that. I can get mixed up between what my head says and what my body says.
Opposing Lawyer: Listen to this lunatic. They say their body talks. Their body talks...hot air, more like.
Judge: ORDER! The defendant is explaining their selves. Order in the court! Have some respect!
Defendant: I had to think for a moment which was which, but I suddenly realised I was wrong first time.
Opposing Lawyer: Now, if the defendant was as clever as he claims to be, they would had recalled, this is my RIGHT hand I WRITE with, and this is the one LEFT...
The whole courtroom falls silent except for gasps.
Defendant: But...I’m left handed, so I write with my left hand.
The whole courtroom falls silent once more.
Opposing Lawyer: ...Oh. Right then.
The Opposing lawyer sits back down.
Defendants Lawyer: No, my client clearly moved their left arm, not the right.
Judge: Your client claims to have a condition called ‘dyslexia’ that creates all these mistakes and moments of absent mindedness.
Defendants Lawyer: Correct. With parts of dyscalculia and dyspraxia in the same mental disability spectrum. Which each causes issues with numeracy and loss of direction and body motor functions, such as the tripping at the beginning of this case, in part to the fact they struggle motor based tasks such as doing up their shoelaces properly.
Defendant: But I don’t let that define me! But at the same time I would be someone else if I didn’t have those things! I would think differently, I might be clearer and seem more confident but right now, you are arguing over ME! ME! My identity. This is who I am!
Opposing Lawyer: And how do you spell all THREE of those nonsensical words your lawyer probably just pulled out from where the sun doesn’t shine which you seemed to have gone along with?
Defendant: I don’t know. Look in a dictionary, you might UNDERSTAND the meaning too.
Defending Lawyer: Dooooubbble buuurn! Is it getting hot in here, or is it me? I think I need a glass of water.
Judge: Court adjourned. The jury will now decide independently if the defendant is a fool or not a fool.
The defending lawyer and the defendant are left on stage as everyone else walks off stage
Defending lawyer: You’re pretty good at this! I’m beginning to completely understand where you’re coming from. I think we’ve got this in the bag! Being in court, it’s as easy as riding a bike, isn’t it?
Defendant: Ha! Wouldn’t know, I can’t ride one!
Judge: (shouting offstage): Dudley!?! Have you been stood exactly here in the way all this time?!?
Both defendant and defending lawyer roll eyes
No comments:
Post a Comment