Court of Appeals Releases Opinion in Chuck Norris Case
FOR THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT
---------------------------------------------------
Chuck NORRIS,
Petitioner,
v.
Bill BRASKY,
Respondent
---------------------------------------------------
Before INTOXICATED, J.
I. Background
The parties in this case are well known to the court. Chuck Norris, a master of all forms of killing that have ever existed, constantly renews the sun’s power with every blink. The defendant, Bill Brasky, is a man who once turned down the Papacy because he did not like the idea of playing second-fiddle to God.
The matter before this court arises out of a petition for a writ of domination in the district court below. In his petition, Norris alleges that “[he is] the Lord Chuck Norris, who led [Brasky] out of Egypt,” and seeks injunctive relief compelling Brasky to bow before him.
In response to this petition, Brasky, appearing specially, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, based on the fact that the law does not apply to him. The district court denied this motion after Norris performed a roundhouse kick at the hearing, sending a young law clerk’s head flying at five times the speed of light.
After the district court assumed jurisdiction over the case (and replaced the decapitated clerk), Brasky answered the petition, asserting several affirmative defenses. First, Brasky claims, his defecation smells like a grassy meadow in the springtime, and that several major fragrance companies are vying for the rights to his stool. Second, that he was the one responsible for letting the dogs out. Third, that he orchestrated the bloodiest revolt in children’s television history, leading the Doozers to violently overthrow their cruel Fraggle masters,1 and that he still uses Gobo’s head as a makeshift athletic support.
------------------------------------------------------
1 These events were depicted in an unaired episode of
Fraggle Rock entitled “Sic Semper Tyrranis.”
------------------------------------------------------
The district court reviewed Brasky’s accomplishments and found them to be most remarkable. After finding that the evidence was insufficient to declare that Norris’s testicles were substantially larger as a matter of law, the court toasted to the respondent and denied Norris’s petition. Norris appealed this denial, and, in a show of magnanimity, gouged out and ate only one of the judge’s eyes. Shortly thereafter, Brasky filed a cross-appeal on the question of jurisdiction. The issues presently before this court are as follows:
(1) Whether 69 U.S.C. § 481, which generally prevents any court from taking personal jurisdiction over Brasky, applies to a petition filed by Chuck Norris?
(2) Whether, as a matter of law, Chuck Norris has substantially bigger balls than Bill Brasky?
For the reasons stated below, we reverse the decision of the district court, grant Norris the relief sought, and offer our children as burnt offerings unto Him.
Discussion
A. The Brasky Act
Jurisdiction is the threshold question in any case. Giles v. Harris, 189 U.S. 475, 502-03 (1903). This is because without jurisdiction we are powerless to hear the action in the first place, and so we cannot render judgment for either party. Id. If a reviewing court finds that the lower court was without jurisdiction, we must direct it to vacate its judgment and dismiss the action. Id.
We are aware that Congress, in its infinite wisdom, has granted Bill Brasky a general exemption from the laws of this nation, commonly known as the “Brasky Act.” 69 U.S.C. § 481, et seq. (Brasky authorized to “do whatever the fuck he feels like”). This has been interpreted to preclude courts from exercising personal jurisdiction over Brasky if he does not wish to defend the action. E.g., I.P. Freeley, Inc. v. Brasky, 297 F. Supp. 3d 892 (E. D. Ak. 2001). Based on the plain language of § 481 and its subsequent interpretations, this would appear to conclusively dispose of the matter. However, Norris argues that this general exemption should be interpreted in light of the of the Brasky Act’s legislative history. Specifically, Norris argues that Congress did not intend § 481 to apply to excuse Brasky from responding to actions filed by his betters.
While we will not use extrinsic aids such as legislative history to override the plain language of a statute, we may use it to inform our interpretation of ambiguous statutory language. See U.S. v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2nd Cir. 2003). A statute is ambiguous if it can reasonably bear two different interpretations. See Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 536 (2004). The courts have consistently held that anything Chuck Norris does is reasonable. See, e.g., In re Anonymous Ninja Henchmen, 238 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. 1993) (Norris incapable of using “excessive” force in performing his duties as Texas Ranger). This implies that any interpretation Norris advances must also be reasonable. Hence, we are faced with the task of ascertaining whether Congress’s choice of the words “whatever the fuck” include avoiding a petition by a fellow ubermensch. We conclude that it does not.
The floor debates surrounding the passage of the Brasky Act make for relatively lively reading. Most of the remarks immediately preceding the unanimous vote involve relaying feats Brasky had performed in ages past. For example, Senator Specter stated that he had once seen Brasky perform Don Giovanni at the Sydney Opera House, and was so moved that he could not stop crying for six-and-a-half years. 115 Cong. Rec. at 60287. Similarly, Senator Clinton claimed that she would “gladly be willing to kill a man” for the opportunity to “give [Brasky] a blumpy.”2 Id. at 60311. Finally, and perhaps most telling, Senator John McCain offered to pay Brasky ten million dollars if he would do him the honor of impregnating his wife, so that he could raise the fruit of Brasky’s loins. Id. at 61499-01.
---------------------------------------------------------
2 We take judicial notice that this is both sick and wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------
Despite all of this hullaballoo, any mention of Chuck Norris is conspicuously absent from these debates. Had Congress intended to authorize Brasky to engage in such activities as weighty as speaking to Norris before spoken to, surely the subject would have come up. Further, it would be absurd to attribute to Congress an intent to allow Brasky to fornicate with Norris’s virgin daughter with impunity using language as broad as “whatever the fuck he feels like.” Rather, this debate shows that Congress intended to afford Brasky something akin to sovereign status, but only with respect to lesser mortals.
We therefore hold that 69 U.S.C. § 481, known as the “Brasky Act” does not permit Bill Brasky to escape jurisdiction on an action initiated by Chuck Norris, and affirm the lower court’s ruling regarding personal jurisdiction. We must now turn to the merits of the petition, and determine whether Norris was, in fact, entitled to a writ of domination.
B. Writ of Domination
At common law, a party could seek a writ of domination to have judicially determined “whether [he] has the biggest goddamn balls in the courtroom.” Wallace v. Longshanks, 103 Scot. Rep. 208 (1314) (“[T]hey may take our lives, but they’ll never take our FREEDOM”). Because of the writ’s extraordinary nature, we only issue a writ of domination upon substantial and incontrovertible evidence that the party seeking the writ is “so much more of a man” that he makes his adversary “seem like a little girl wetting herself in comparison.” Bauer v. Wayne, 91 Gthm. App. 281, 296 (2005). In Bauer, for example, the petitioner, an agent for the Counter-Terrorist Unit (CTU) sought the writ as against a purely local vigilante with a penchant for the theatrical. The Gotham Court of Appeals declined to issue a writ of domination, reasoning that:
Even though it is clear that, by thwarting the imminent detonation of a nuclear weapon on United States soil, Bauer has saved more total lives than Wayne, we cannot say that he has larger testicles as a matter of law. For example, whereas Bauer is known simply by his birth name, Wayne (in addition to his trade name) is commonly referred to as “the Dark Knight,” an intimidating appellation that strikes fear into the hearts of his enemies. Further, it is at least arguable whether standard terrorists, even those of the caliber faced by Bauer at the CTU, pose a substantially more difficult threat to overcome than a supervillain. Finally, although it is certainly impressive that Bauer accomplishes so much with only standard weapons, we cannot discount the sheer “coolness,” in a legal sense, of the many devices employed by Wayne in his crime-fighting pursuits.Id. at 299-301.
In light of this, we must examine the relative merits of the parties’ claims to badassmotherfuckerhood. We begin by noting that the respondent’s accomplishments are quite impressive. However, we are unable to accept that they are, as a matter of law, sufficient defenses to Norris’s petition. First, it was foretold by hieroglyphics written on the bronze tablets sitting astride the doors of time and space that Chuck Norris shall appear in every generation, born of a technical virgin and sired by a lightning bolt. It is his destiny alone to subdue his enemies with fists and feet made of pure energy, and nunchucks crafted from the very bones of the world. The god of fire, Hephaestus himself, forged a magnificent suit of titanium armor for Norris, decorated with scenes from Walker, Texas Ranger; Norris, however, disintegrated it with a single thunderous fart that toppled mountain ranges hundreds of miles away, simply because he knew his skin was stronger than any metal.
To gaze upon Chuck Norris for even a single moment is to know the answer to the eternal question “why?” He is the One and the Many, the Beginning and the End, the Cock and the Balls. Chuck Norris keeps the planets in their orbits by yelling at them. Instead of urinals, Norris pisses into black holes that he creates by punching through the fabric of the space-time continuum. Every morning, he sits at his breakfast table and pours whiskey into a bowl full of raw meat, scrap metal, and the cure for cancer; he calls it “cereal.” Norris has already slept with every attractive woman who has ever lived and ever will live. Twice.
While it may be true that Bill Brasky ended the Cold War by training an entire flock of bald eagles to set off fireworks that spelled out “U.S.A.” over the Kremlin, we find that this simply cannot compare to Chuck Norris’s single-handed victory in the First Punic War - Norris traveled back in time with a bazooka, but decided at the last minute to take on the entire Carthaginian army with nothing but a donut he made out of Play-Doh. Indeed, Norris grew this very courthouse by planting a strand of hair plucked from his majestic beard. We are satisfied by substantial and incontrovertible evidence that Norris “so much more of a man” that he makes Brasky “seem like a little girl wetting herself in comparison.”
The decision of the district court is fucking REVERSED, and a writ of domination shall be issued. Bill Brasky is hereby commanded to bow before Chuck Norris, the One True God.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
