It appears I’m back just in time to save Santa Claus from incarceration.
While I do love and admire the greatest police chiefs on planet Earth, I also love and admire Mr. Claus, so I am fully prepared to argue, if not for his innocence, at least his freedom.
Advocate readers, I submit to you that Mr. Claus has been unfairly accused and I will prove that, legally, there is no cause for my client to be in this courtroom today.
First of all, the State is not entitled to argue Constitutional violations. To date, none of the 1.9 billion children who got exactly what they wanted complained about privacy rights.
Second, the prosecution may not charge my client with DUI or speeding due to the fact that there is no blood evidence (because he’s never been caught), nor has humankind developed a radar detector that registers speed in six digits.
Next, I ask to court to take notice that Texas may not prosecute federal matters; to wit, the FAA manages airspace within the United States and Santa may not be in violation of Georgetown municipal airspace.
As well, Santa has been working with these livestock for 1737 years, and there has been no documented disease to date.
Regarding the charge of disturbing the peace and destruction of property, the state has provided no eyewitness accounts or forensic evidence to prove guilt on either charge. They have admitted no security video, reindeer hairs or fibers from a sack that carries 2.3 million tons of gifts.
It also follows that Santa can not be proven guilty of criminal trespass because there is no evidence that he was ever here.
Breaking and entering is erroneous because the prosecutor can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, without consent of the owner, the defendant entered the home with the intent to commit a felony, theft, or assault.
While the property indeed was locked at the time, my client received inquiries from their children and the owners left cookies and milk and a note with specific instructions, to wit, an invitation to come into the home.
Secondary to this argument, there was no intent. To the contrary, Mr. Claus brought items with him, which he left at the scene. The only items he removed were cookies left for him and carrots to fuel his primary mode of transport.
Finally, I ask you, given the whopping number of deer that currently and continuously inhabit Georgetown proper, did the HOA do DNA testing on the droppings to indicate the offending samples were from deer originating in the mountainous regions of northern Europe, Siberia, and North America? I submit that they did not.
Despite any validity attached to previous charges, I further submit that, from the start, Mr. Claus has been a victim of selective prosecution. Each charge here applies in multiple situations but do you see the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy at the defense table? Nay, you do not. You must let the Fat Man go!
