Supreme Court Ruling: People Don’t Kidnap People. White Vans with no Windows Kidnap People.

Van Hungry.

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court on Tuesday, they ruled that people do not kidnap people, but white vans with no windows kidnap people.  This argument has been around for years and years and has gone back and forth with merits to both sides of the argument.  Well, today we finally have an answer, or at least one from the highest ruling court in the United States and one that will be followed, most likely for days to come.

This came from a case, that in terms of kidnapping small children, is rather unremarkable.  A forty-four year old man named Carl Strutts, address 9021 Merry Ln, Hollywood, Ca (do with this information as you please), attempted and succeeded in kidnapping seven year old Mary Lane.  No relation to the street.  She was walking home from school as she does on most days because her parents thought it best that her fat ass get some exercise and quit eating cookies like they’re not going to make her fat some day.  Most days she says she can make it home in forty-five minutes flat, but on this last occasion she did not make it home at all.  Half-way through her walk, Carl pulled his white van with no windows up to the curb, grabbed Mary with extreme ferocity and tossed her into the van leaving within twenty seconds of his arrival.  It was almost as if the van wanted her to come inside the van.  Nay, needed her to come in the van.

Mary did not have to endure the van for long though, as the white van with no windows was quickly pulled over about a half an hour later.  White vans with no windows are, by law, mandated to be pulled over once a week, just in case (Cookie Monster v. Nestle).  This particular white van with no windows was two weeks overdue.  Johnny Law soon pulled Carl over and when he heard a young voice yell “I’m being kidnapped and I’m a little helpless girl please save me,” the officer knew something felt off.  The Officer said that “the driver seemed nervous, but so does everyone who drives a white van with no windows regardless of their standings with the law.”  He decided to take a look around the van and when he did he saw a pile of Slim Jim wrappers that he had snapped into but not finished, a jug of Aquafina that was clearly not filled with water, it was filled with urine, and a tied up young girl.  Still, Officer Jughead could tell something was awry.  It wasn’t until the driver finally exclaimed, “Are you [expletive] kidding me?  You don’t see the [expletive] little girl I have kidnapped and tied up in the back of my white van with no windows?!” that the officer cracked the case, saved the girl, and became the new American hero for the day.  Step aside Sully because Officer Dewey Jughead has saved a girl.  Carl Strutts was taken into custody and sent to prison to await trial.

The first case, Little Girls v. Strutts, Carl and his attorney chose to blame his current mental state on abandonment he experienced at a young age when his mother deserted him only two months before he was to be born.  When the prosecution claimed that this was not possible, Carl retorted with “you don’t know what I’ve been through.”    So with insurmountable evidence against Carl, he was found guilty of kidnapping.  But as any lawyer will tell you, the first case is never the end of it.  Carl’s lawyer filed for appeal on the grounds that people don’t kidnap people, white vans with no windows kidnap people.

“I threw a curveball out there because I did not think there was any other chance of him [Carl] winning.”  Though this is not the first time someone has attempted to shift blame onto the white vans with no windows.  Early 1995, in the case Stoney McStonerson v. Men who call weed ‘dope,’ Stoney argued that it was not him growing the marijuana, it was his white van with no windows.  But this was not in the same way that Carl Strutts is arguing.  He literally thought his van’s name was Henry and that it was majoring in herbology at UC Merced.  Which is insane because there isn’t even an herbology course at UC Merced (source Wikipedia UC Merced).  So he was convicted and is now serving a life sentence at San Quentin.  For weed.  But Carl Strutt’s future will not be the same as it is for Stoney.

Because Carl is from Texas (where even the white vans with no windows are bigger), and he kidnapped the little girl in Arizona, this case goes straight to the federal courts.  So the next stop was a federal intermediate court where the argument was put forth but it was quickly turned down.  Next stop was the Supreme Court.  The initial argument by the prosecution was that the defense would put forth is absolutely ridiculous and it’s incredible their argument made it even to the Supreme Court’s desk.  The defense retorted with “Nah-uh.”  This is how the argument went for at least an hour with the prosecution claiming “Yah-huh,” and the defense claiming “nah-uh.”  The nine Supreme Court Justices deliberated for three days and came back with a 9-1 ruling in favor of Carl claiming that white vans really do kidnap people instead of what had originally been ruled, that people kidnap people.

This will most likely cause countless appeals and a ridiculous world where inanimate objects are blamed for the wrongdoings of humans.  Next weeks story: hydrogen arrested for causing nuclear explosions.


About Rawful News
I write satire and gossip. Check it out at Or Tweet me @Kendoggydog28

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: