Suddenly, a Canon InkJet 4-in-1 WorkStation, which has always been in the room where this conversation was taking place, starts to whir and click with the sound of printing...

After a lot of hubbub and one refill of toner, a single sheet of paper rests atop the station, reading as follows...

Quote:
From the Desk of "The Music Man" Christopher K. Clinton, Esq.

Upon referral from a close friend, I have opted to take on Ms. Robyn Gonzalez, hereafter referred to as “Latina Submission Machina” or “LSM”, as a client, pro-bono.

If Big Money Oswald's overpaid Ivy League lawyers insist on taking this to court in a frivolous lawsuit, I shall be obliged to make them look like the inexperienced fools that they are.

In an attempt to avoid that awkwardness, and to allow Big Money Oswald to continue to believe his Big Money is being spent on quality legal representation, I shall make my case below: That case being that Latina Submission Machina has NOT violated or altered the BDC rules in a way that alters the spirit of the documented rules or the championship belt.

Firstly, we recognize the six, and only six, clauses of the original BDC rules and compare them to LSM's new rules.

Clause 1 originally states that not defending the BDC championship a sufficient number of times in a calendar year will surrender the championship. Oswald declared these rules on his last week as Champion, and thus would be the last champion. LSM would prefer that the next titleholder on title vacancy be drawn out of a sombrero. While this change is… atypical, if one of the names in the hat is Big Money Oswald’s, then this change does not NECESSARILY violate the original rules as Big Money Oswald may still retain possession of his championship. THUS, until acted upon IF and ONLY IF LSM vacates the championship, this does not violate the spirit of the original rules.

Clause 2 originally states that the champion may choose any stipulation for their title defenses. LSM has opted that every title defense will be a submission match, which falls under the umbrella of ‘any stipulation’. Thus, under no argument, would Clause 2 have been altered in a way that violates the original rules.

Clauses 3 through 5… Jeez… Okay… Hold on.

Sifting through my records...

Yes, here it is. Citing the Supreme Court case Elonis v. United States, a written declaration or public speech made is not legally actionable until it is acted upon and a “threat” to the existing Billion Dollar Championship Rules by implementing a rule change is not sufficient for legal action but instead requires “proof of subjective intent”. In short, if I declare myself at war with Norway, until I start sending troops or writing emails to private military companies… Until there is PROOF of SUBJECTIVE INTENT that I intend to wage war with Norway, my declaration is insufficient to incur legal action. Similarly, while LSM’s rule changes may alter the original rules, UNTIL she actually schedules a meeting with a terminally-ill child or obtains an auction listing to sell the belt… Big Money Oswald’s legal team lacks the PROOF of SUBJECTIVE INTENT necessary, at this juncture, to pursue legal action. And until LSM violates the original rules with PROOF of SUBJECTIVE INTENT, she cannot be stripped of the belt, seeing as there is no Seventh Rule stating that you cannot say you're changing the Billion Dollar Championship rules, lest ye forfeit aforementioned championship. In short, Saying you MAY break the rules at some point is insufficient to punish you for breaking the rules. This is United States Law, not the movie Minority Report.

Which brings me to clause 6… Which only requires a rematch against the former champion via ladder match. LSM’s new clause 6 does not circumvent or alter the rules, only provide an addendum clause to her title defense’s stipulations WHICH SHE IS PERMITTED TO DO in Clause 2 of Big Money Oswald’s original six rules, which state the champion may set any stipulation for her title defenses. The original Clause 6 states the defense must be a ladder match, but does NOT state the only stipulation is that it must be a ladder match, NOR does it state that the reigning champion cannot add additional stipulations to the rematch, as LSM has done. It is only written that the champion has "no authority" which is linguistically murky and open to interpretation, which LSM has interpreted to mean she may still adhere to Clause 2 while adhering to Clause 6.

You’ll find the above defense is watertight and it logically follows that LSM is CURRENTLY adhering to the spirit of the original rules document. If Big Money Oswald and his Big Money lawyers are still interested in pursuing this matter, we will see you in court (OOC: the 24/7 Interactions board) under the supervision of an impartial judge (OOC: A poll).

Sincerely,
Christopher K. Clinton, Esq.
Dictated But Not Read