P.I.E Part Four

After this, I suppose anything is possible....

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:30:28 -0400
From: Peter Fournier
Organization: Samalander
To: Catherine Fernyer ,Matthew Fournier
Subject: PIE dispute: potential intervention by Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and
Ra LLC

Granny, Smith, Free, Stone, Mac, Lobo, Pecan, and Rasberry LLC have been requested by the court to stand in as "Friends of the Court" in the potential dispute relating to the Postsecondary Incentive Entitlement (PIE) program.

We are acting as friends of a lower court in that the court does not wish to have this case brought before it and to have the court arrive at a decision. This lower court does not feel that any resolution is possible under Canadian law.

To clarify the courts position in this matter we wish to point out that the dispute is in fact resolvable under a large number of statutes, but that any resolution based any one statute would be in conflict with another statute. This presents the Canadian legal system with the potential danger of infinite recursion (actually in this case, recourse) to the Supreme Court. To be precise, this lower court sees a danger of the case reaching the Supreme Court, being decided, and then being retried starting in a lower court, arguments being based on a different statute, eventually reaching the Supreme Court and being decided by that body wholly in contradiction to the first decision, and the process repeating itself all over again.
Gentlemen and gentlewomen, law is not designed to resolve cases such as this! Not only is the case complex in the extreme, but it seems more than society can demand of the Supreme Justices to remain impartial when the evidence submitted to the court are freshly baked apple, peach, rhubard, rasberry and pecan pies! The court risks conveying an impression of aloss of impartiality, especially if ( as is likely) during the discovery procedure the ddisputed award mysteriously disappears! We beg you, do not expose the Canadian people to a collapse of the very foundations and principles of law in our land!.

Therefore, Granny, Smith, Free, Stone, Mac, Lobo, Pecan, and Rasberry LLC wish to suggest at this point that perhaps there is some way of mediating the dispute before it is brought before the courts. To that end, we wish to raise the following point which, we earnestly believe, might raise questions in the disputants minds of the validity of their repsective cases, and perhaps make them more amenable to an itermediary settlement that falls beween "a butter tart, no raisins" and "35.25 pies".

Firstly, the PIE should realize that any mathematical system that allows for the determination of an entitlement to be "a butter tart without raisins" is indeed a complete, new and self-contained mathematical system in of itself. Furthermore, please note that no mathematical system can prove itself to be true due to the limitations imposed upon itself by it's own axioms (see "Goedel, Escher and Bach" for a layman's exploration of this disturbing mathematical fact).

Therefore, due to the fact that the initial award of ten (10) pies to Sarah Fournier seems to have involved few if any calculations and that the award of a "butter tart, no raisins" and "shipping not included" does seem to involve extensive calculations in a completely new mathematical system (since no known mathematical system or engine, mechanical or electrical, at this point of civilization's total history and apprehension of the cosmic ALL), the court is likely to focuss, each time the case is brought before it, on the precise methodoly and the actual axiomatic foundations of the calculations allowing such a result. This the court is manifestly not qualified to do, yet will manifestly try to do.

Extensive consultation with the leading mathematical minds currently active lead us to believe that the end result of this effort of the court will be an elaboration of the PIE mathematics that leads to a result in which, whatever the reward to Matthew or Sarah Fournier, individually or combined, that self same award will also be owed to the justices on the bench.

However, these best mathematical minds have also indicated that said award will owed by each plaintiff individually to the court. The cumulative total owed to the court will be therefore, potentially, 9 justices x 3 plaintiffs x 35.25 pies.

We furhther advise you that our mathematical consulters in this matter have indicated that they will demand to be paid in the currency established by the decision (that is the justices received pies, therefore they should be paid in pies) and that they can prove, indisputably, that the unit of currency thus established is in fact the pie (being a 10 inch pie made of rasberry, apple, rhubard, peach or pecan).

Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC cannnot but agree with the logic of this position and will therefore demand equal treatement and request that they be paid for their services as friends of the court in the same currency!

In conclusion, Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC, as friends of the court, wish the plaintiffs to *cease *all negotiations *immediately *and bring this matter to the attention of the courts immediately.

Yours, truly!
Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC

PS: There was a "secondly" but none of the partners involved in this "friend of the court" request seems capable of remembering what the substance of the "secondly" might of been.

PPS: One of the partners has suggested that the "secondly" may have been related to the total world supply of fruit, but that seems farfetched.

PPPS: After discussion with one of the mathematical consulters, it seems he can explain what the "secondly" was about, but demands to be paid in advance.

PPPPS: You may have heard on the news that the senior partner of Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Ma,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC, now Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC, has just sold his interest in Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC and has left a forwarding address beleived to be a village in the Okanagan. This developement will not affect Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC role as friend of the court.

PPPPPS: The remaining partners in Gr,Sm,Fr,St,Lo,Pe,Rh, and Ra LLC wish to inquire as to the adequacy of your stock of cinnamon. Do you, the plaintiffs have enough cinnamon? We realize that "enough" is perhaps a bit imprecise, but you know what we mean.

PPPPPPS: One of our mathematical consulters, this one with an additonnal qualification in physics, has just called and demanded to know if we are all aware of Schrodinger's work on pie. Apparently the uncertainty introduced by our questions may have some sort of impact on cats, if only we would care to notice. The impact is, apparently, related to the irrational certainty of pie despite the state of any individual cat. Do you, the plaintiffs, have any idea of what he is talking about?

PPPPPPPS: An author has called us claiming damages for theft of intellectual property. Apparently "Discworld" is a pie. It's essence is pie. We have no idea what he is talking about.

--
Peter Fournier