An Apple a Day Keeps the…
Criminal Court is called to order. In front of us, we have the class action suit of People vs. Apple producers and distributors. The charges are as follows.
- Willing production of a product that is meant to encourage breaking rules
- Use of said produce as a potentially deadly object
- Unlawful transportation of said product over state lines without a permit
- False Advertising of said product as a miracle cure.
Judge: The prosecution may begin:
“We call to the stand Mr. Adam and Ms. Eve.
A strange pair of individuals take the stand dressed in naught but fig leaves. After some hesitancy, they do agree to take the oath.
Prosecutor: Is it true that the two of you were living in what could best be defined as paradise?
Eve: Yes, we were.
Adam: But we didn’t know it at the time.
Prosecutor: What changed?
Eve: We were given an apple to eat and share, which was forbidden at the time by our employer.
Prosecutor: And what followed?
Adam: Our employer banished us from our living quarters, forcing us to abandon our lives and never return.
Prosecutor: Did you know of the consequences before partaking of said fruit?
Eve and Adam: No.
Prosecutor: So because of an apple, you were evicted from your home and forced to survive on your own with nothing but whatever knowledge you could gain.
Adam and Eve: Yes.
Judge: The defense may cross-examine.
Defense: No questions.
Judge: Prosecution, your next witness.
“We call to the stand, Mr. William Tell.”
Prosecution: Can you explain to the court the situation you found yourself in, which involved an apple?
William Tell: I refused to bow down to the bailiff in my village and was forced to shoot an Apple off of the head of my son’s head or be executed.
Prosecution: And what happened next?
William Tell: I was successful. Had I not been, I prepared a second arrow to kill the bailiff, which I did anyway later.
Prosecution: So because of the apple, you were forced to kill your son potentially but actually committed an act of murder anyway.
William Tell: I guess so.
Judge: The defense may cross-examine.
Defense: No questions.
Judge: Prosecution, your next witness
“We call Ms. Snow White to the stand.”
Prosecution: We understand you resided at a house as the caretaker to seven miners.
Snow White: Yes, I did.
Prosecution: Can you describe what happened to you as a result of eating an apple?
Snow White: While my charges were at work I was encouraged to eat this apple by a kindly old woman, my stepmother, the Queen.
Prosecution: And what was the result?
Snow White: I was poisoned by the apple, fell into a coma, and luckily revived by a prince.
Prosecution: So the apple was used purposefully with malice aforethought.
Snow White: Yes.
Judge: The defense may cross-examine.
Defense: No questions.
Prosecution: Before we rest our case, we would like to submit statements by Mr. John Chapman attesting to taking seeds from apples and transporting them across state lines without the proper permits and planting this invasive species without required authority.
Also, we would like to add as evidence the rampant prescription given by numerous unqualified non-medical personnel: “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.” This has been scientifically proven not to have the medicinal benefits so stated.
The prosecution rests.
The defense can call its witness:
“We call Mr. Steve Jobs, founder of Apple Computer.”
Defense: Mr. Jobs, can you tell us the importance of having Apples in your home and the benefits of Apple-manufactured goods on the public and environment?
Prosecution: OBJECTION. This testimony is irrelevant to this suit. We are talking Apples to Apples here, not Apples to Computers.
Judge: Objection sustained. I will turn the verdict over to the jury if there are no further witnesses or testimonies in this case.
Prosecution and Defense: No further testimonies.
Judge: “Jury, that would be you reading or listening to this transcript. Do you find the growers and distributors of apples guilty or not guilty of utilizing their product for potential harm to others and for use in illegal enterprises? Remember that you are all under oath and must rely only on the evidence provided in this case, not your own opinions. This court stands adjourned.”