is that how it's told now?

i found a case on westlaw (U.S. v. Byrnes, 644 F. 2d 107) which contains one of the most hilarious excerpts of trial testimony ever. it's this dumb woman who is accused of rare bird smuggling...and she is talking about how all of these variants of birds are not in fact birds. observe:

On direct examination, the following testimony was given:

"Q. Mrs. Meffert, do you recall testifying yesterday about your definition of birds?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall that you said that the swans and geese were not birds?
A. Not to me.
Q. What do you mean by that, "not to me?"
A. By me, the swans are waterfowls."

Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Meffert was cross examined as follows:

"Q. Are sparrows birds?
A. I think so, sure.
Q. Is a crow a bird?
A. I think so.
Q. Is a parrot a bird?
A. Not to me.
Q. How about a seagull, is that a bird?
A. To me it is a seagull, I don't know what it is to other people.
Q. Is it a bird to you as well or not?
A. To me it is a seagull. I don't know any other definition for it.
Q. Is an eagle a bird?
A. I guess so.
Q. Is a swallow a bird?
A. I don't know what a swallow is, sir.
Q. Is a duck a bird?
A. Not to me, it is a duck.
Q. But not a bird.
A. No, to other people maybe."

words fail me. the entire opinion is a masterpiece of sarcasm and hilarity, but this excerpt from the transcript just had me dying. i've never actually heard of someone trying to deny that a duck was a bird before.

answers.

alright...no more comments on my itunes quiz, so i think it's time for...( answers!!! )

it's a god-fearing thief...

old and busted: the nigerian email scam.
new hotness: kenyan woman with no knowledge of grammar whatsoever wants her money distributed to churches before she returns to the bosom of the lord.

read it and weep. (or, at your own risk, contact her and stop her money from slipping into the hands of her husband's unbelieving relatives.)

( presenting: the nigerian email scam comes to jesus. )