This is so funny that I am breaking one of my own rules and reproducing another blogger Pazuzu’s post here, verbatim and in full. You can see more of his satire at

http://www.thefloatingturd.blogspot.com/

The Drunken Indian Defense

Okay. So you've seen the video. The one that, if you listen to members of the Legal-Community, should bring the Judiciary down to its knees, forcing many judges to turn-in their black housecoats and comical wigs in shame.

Of course, you could argue that it is in fact more shameful to actually want to wear the black housecoat and comical wig to work everyday, but you would be - as you often are - wrong.
You see, in the Upside-Down World of the Law, where Black is sometimes White, Right if often Wrong and Guilty is always referred to in legal terms as Not Guilty, this otherwise-ridiculous attire is a symbol of Honour and Justice and stop laughing, dammit!
I'm being serious here!

Fine.
Read it yourself.

It clearly states in Article 20.2/:( of The Constitution of Malaysia that:

"The Wearer of The Black Housecoat and Wig shall, at all times, discharge his duties with Honour and serve the needs of Justice, insofar as insofar, even if He (or if no Hes are available, She) is laughed at by people wearing normal attire."

There.

So, in light of the revelations in the Lingam Video, The Legal Community is up-in-arms over something or other that besmirches the integrity of the Black Housecoat and Comical Wig.
I like saying besmirches.
Besmirches besmirches besmirches.

Members of the Legal Community are so convinced that this video is whatever, that 2000 lawyers, mistakenly believing that the Prime Minister can read, actually marched to Putrajaya the other day to present a memo to him demanding that Action Be Taken and that Prima Facie Verily Deo Ipsum Loqouituresque!

Imagine that! 2000 lawyers to deliver one memo! Boy, I'd hate to be the sorry schmuck who's going to foot that legal bill. Bloody thieving lawyers.

Meanwhile, The Government, in a response that can only be described as nincompoopy, has appointed a Special Three-Man Panel to ascertain what any pimply-faced Playstation-humping teenager can tell you within minutes:

Whether the tape is authentic or whether it is actually a Pixar-Animation production with the part of VK Lingam played by a guy in a blue-suit, probably the same guy who played Gollum so convincingly in The Lord of The Rings Trilogy.

But let us, you and I, not be morons for a moment and assume that the tape is indeed authentic. Come on. Let's. It's safe. Really.
There are people, usually balding manager-types, who will tell you that it's wrong to assume. They will tell you that when you ASSUME, "you make an ass out of u and me".
Then they will look at you expectantly, like they want you to applaud their superior intellect or something.
These people are idiots and you should point out to them you cannot really make an ass out of u and me. You can make an emu out of u and me. You can make meu, mue, uem, ume or even an eum. But you cannot, no matter how hard you try, make an ass out of u and me.
So the correct phrase should, in fact, be "U, me and an ass can make Assume" which sounds really stupid if said out loud by anyone who isn't Arnold Schwarzenegger.

So, having ascertained that both u and me cannot be made asses, we'll just go right ahead and assume that the tape is authentic. Okay?

Right.

My question to you now is this:

So bloody what?

Look at the video again. Look at the foreground. See that bottle there? Well, let's just say that it's not a bottle of Chili Sauce.

Hah!

Get it?

Chili Sauce?

Because his name is Lingam, you see. And there's a brand of Chili Sauce called fuck it never mind. You're a humourless lot, you are.

Anyway, if my years' of watching CSI have taught me anything, it is that the bottles in question are, in alphabetical order:

1) Dewars (probably White Label, subject to DNA results)
2) Red Wine
3) Sprite (probably to be used as a mixer for the Dewars)

So now let me ask you this:

Which Indian man do you know, having consumed copious amounts of alcohol, has NOT, at some point in his life, called someone up and promised him the Chief Justiceship of Malaysia?

This could've happened to anybody, dammit! And I should know.
This video of me that you're about to see was secretly filmed by some bastard whom I can't remember while I was happily drinking at some place that I can't remember:

Now does this mean that I'm guilty of anything?
Of course not!

Because according to unreliable sources who were also drinking at the time, this conversation was recorded while I was calling a cab to take me home. And I have a vague memory of listening to hold-music (I think it was The Yellow Rose of Texas) throughout the time I was talking.

So all I'm saying is that we should give Lingam the benefit of the doubt. For all we know, he could've been talking to his mother. Or attempting, in his inebriated state, to order a pizza.

Disclaimer:
I'm not suggesting that Lingam was drunk while he made the call. It is entirely up to you to figure that out for yourself. You can mathematically calculate the drunkeness of an Indian using the following formula - 3.14(circumference of hand waving) X voice decible level + number of times the word correct is used.
The higher the number, the more drunk he is.

And if Lingam was, in fact, drunk at the time, then even if he was talking to the judge, he can simply use The Drunken Indian Defense to fight his case.

The Drunken Indian Defense, of course, has been used for years to absolve Indians of any wrongdoing whatsoever by allowing them to quickly plead "I was drunk" when caught. It has successfully been used in many cases where Indians have uttered such damning words as:

"Of course I can sing on stage!"

"I'll pay you back next week"

or, worst of all:

"I, take you to be my lawful wedded wife, to have and to hold, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part."

Note:
The Drunken Indian Defense, as the name suggests, may only be used by Indians. Chinese people can't use it because they usually pass out after two drinks. And Malays can't use it because, as everybody knows, they...ahem...don't drink.

So, in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we can deduce, using The Drunken Indian Defense, that Lingam is Guilty, which as you already know, according to The Law, actually means Not Guilty.
And with that, the defence rests its case.

Posted by: Dave Avran / 4:00 PM