Law v. Order
“If Law weren't so complicated then maybe it could get a date”
Law v. Order was a monumental case the defined the difference between whether Law actually was a proper word. Order challenge Law and the case made it's way to the Federal Courts in Kentucky, right next to the KFC head quarters.
But Law countered Order by saying: "If that were true, there world be no need for Order, and therefore Order wouldn't exist, but it does, it's in the dictionary and Wikipedia, so it really truly exists, and so does the word Law, wait..."
Order: "If Law were a true word, then it can tell me what it means, but before Law does, let me give examples of where law doesn't exist,":
and last but not least
To the surprise of the judge, this was a very effective move. Order scared the crap out of the jury, which lead to a hard comeback by Law, who was about to define itself:
Law: "The definition of Law is...to keep order"
Order: "That's it?"
Law: "Basically, why?"
Order: "That's the stupidest bullshit I've ever heard, I mean look, the jury are even shaking their heads in dismay"
So was the judge.
After 72 hours of testimony was presented and hundreds of exhibits explored, Law and Order's trial was ended by the jury's ruling, which concluded that:
Law: "Finds the do'er"
Order: "Books' em'
The Jury gave little wording on the subject and took only 2 minutes to decide the case. Though people thought they thoroughly went through explaining the difference between the two words during the 70th hour of testimony, people were left confused. Manly hippies, liberals and members of the green party were those people. These groups are always very confused with any jury's ruling.