Who is the Criminal?

Your Honor,

I testify that my client, Miquiel Banks, has been charged with irresponsible and negligent blame.

The courtroom has heard the testimony of the taker, uh excuse me -- the plaintiff, who so boldly has convinced herself that her actions require no explanation and, in the absence of any hard evidence, she has deemed that her opinion can be trusted.

Her opinion, at best, is a soulless and jellified attempt to compartmentalize the accused of wreaking havoc in her life, when in actuality, it has been her own prejudices and PRIDE.

She has contractually obligated her soul to degrade from breathing pure, unrefined love to petty, malnutritioned plastic dosages of fear and resentment.

Her lofty, self-induced ideals of survival has numbed her senses and, in this pop culture syndrome state, she distorted reality until it mirrored a hellish-filmed documentary satirically plotted for infantile-minded women nestled
between love suicide and virtual lesbian polygamy.

I pose to you today, the jury, that my client has endured this psychoself-lobbyied propaganda far too long and today, I charge the jury to decide who is the criminal.

Holding the virtues of decency liable in this matter, I ask that we return to the scene of the crime to confront the real issue we face in this courtroom today.

It is not people we convene to judge, but rather the behavior of said-persons, whereby we are bound to question our own values of morality and ethics.

Before we can accuse or hold trial for blame and/or guilt, shouldn’t we first define what behavior, action, or infringement has occurred to bring this matter to trial?

The plaintiff emphatically denies any knowledge of misleading the accused, but in her testimony, we also hear the cotton candied verbiage of masculine persecution, vain attempts of a deranged vigilante seeking purity
through the subliminal moral-deadening of MEN until their calloused etiquette has suffocated from her espoused anatomically-efficient usage of conditional stimulus.

The condition?

Relating.

The stimulus?

Her anatomy.

By stimulating the accused’s attempts at relating, she created the virtual reality of relation, though decrepit at best, to fulfill an orphaned child’s dream.

That dream?

CONTROL.

Obsessed with her maniacal-charged enthusiasm, the plaintiff has subverted selfishness underneath vanity until it is neither selfish or vain, she has created something original.

This new monster, ventriloquist sex addiction, has fermented in her psyche until we cannot even justify it as behavior, but a mental state, the same mental state that motivated her to allow the accused access to her legs, access to her thighs, access to her back, but daring to eloquently stand in this courtroom and state...

This is my matrix and this is how it’s going to be...

Persons of the jury, under these circumstances, how can one find justice?

This is beyond anarchy, this is beyond the Nazis, what we are dealing with here is an unregistered CRIME, therefore I will not feign to define it, but merely respond to it.

She purports that laws outside of her own creation, her matrix as she states, hold no weight or bearing when in contact with her, though she is a citizen of the United States.

How can we judge such a person as this?

Whatever you decide, be aware that this mental state mildews the aroma of redemption from human beings and saturates our minds with such obtrusive and subversive conclusions until our brains are flushed with E. Coli-ed philosophies and cancered memories are digested beneath vacuum-sealed deposits of nefarious radiation.

---

We, the jury, find this situation common among minorities, especially those in the Southern States where religion and vehement behavior are dominant.

• For romantic idealism leading to false precepts of reality, we find the accused GUILTY.

• For behavior unbecoming of an AMERICAN MAN, we find the accused GUILTY.

• For naive innocence unbecoming of a MAN, we find the accused GUILTY.

• For playing games and leading the accused on, we find the plaintiff GUILTY.

• For nefarious behavior, we find the plaintiff GUILTY.

• For unscrupulous behavior unbecoming of a WOMAN, we find the plaintiff GUILTY.

• For stagnation, we find the plaintiff GUILTY.

• For misconduct unbecoming of an AMERICAN adult, we find both parties GUILTY.

---

This verdict concludes our trial and you may walk out of this courtroom single-file through the back doors of the courtroom.

Our judge, the honorable Jesse B. Semple, shall be available for press interviews in the Harlem Renaissance wing of this building in one hour.