It has recently come to my attention that I have been accused of crimes against you, my two younger sisters. Your complaints have been include in this official* court document.
*official, as this is officially my blog and I can pretty much say whatever I want...
I have been accused of laughing in delight when people think that I am the younger of the sisters. My response may have been immature but was not meant to be malicious in any way. I don't care what you told mom, "neener neener" is not technically a mean word.
It is my opinion that the statute of limitations has passed for the following list of your accusations;
ripping off ears of special stuffed rabbits, slamming doors in faces (or quickly sliding it shut, depending on what era you are referring to), ignoring requests to play, tattling, not showing you my super cool stuff, general teasing, and being too cool to even look at you.
If it pleases the court, I ask that all charges of face making, tongue protruding, and forty crow giving be stricken from the record.
In addition I would ask that my record be forever expunged of the charges of my using clever and witty words to "torment" said siblings. I ask the prosecuting parties to supply actual proof that I meant harm when I allegedly hid the plaintiff's eyeglasses in the cupboard with the drinking glasses and, to quote the plaintiff's petition in Wren v. Lark, "teased her, saying that she could find them where glasses are supposed to be".
I also ask for consideration in the case of Robyn v. Lark, where I allegedly called her dog a canine and her cow a bovine, in a "singsongy" voice, implying that it was a bad thing. I call into question her interpretation of those events. I will argue that I was merely attempting to teach her the proper nomenclature of said pets.
But for my final argument I would like to remind the court of Blood v. Water. That case has set the precedent for all future cases. Blood won that short court battle and forever stilled the argument that siblings may be convicted for alleged "crimes" against siblings and other family members. I believe that this case firmly follows in the precedent set forth by Blood v. Water as all alleged pranks, mischievousness, and teasing fall under the "no harm no foul clause".
Or in the case of Robyn and Wren v. Lark, the
"no harm no fowl clause".
With mostly sincere sincerity and truly profoundly profound apologies,
The Defendant (aka Lark)