Docket ending 2275, Megan Tate vs Spellbook Slaves, Honorable Judge Stone presiding.
Ms. Tate? Care to make your first remarks? I understand this is a conversion legality case. Care to explain why you don’t think it was a legal conversion?
Yes your honor. It’s quite simple, in the three cases of sex in question I was the dominate mistress, and Rose should not have been granted Person of Personal Contact status vs me.
Mr. West, your statement.
Yes your honor it’s quite simple. Rose Patton, our client, engaged in three separate lesbian sex acts with Ms. Tate, while wearing a strap on device. In none of the sex acts did Ms. Tate wear a strap on device. The White Slave Act of 2000 act, as amended in 2016 is quite clear, the women wearing the strap on device is the Person of Personal Contact.
But I’m the dominate! I’m the mistress!
Your honor, Ms. Tate is not a mistress as defined by the WSA2000 and Oklahoma law. She is only a dominate in sex games she played with Ms. Patton. We do not dispute that Ms. Patton is, or was, the submissive in their partnership, what we do state, however, is that in the relationship the one with the device was Ms. Patton, not Ms. Tate.
Can I see the proof of penetration that you accepted for the conversion?
That’s not what a strap-on device normally looks like Mr. West.
We submit that the law only says strap-on device, and doesn’t say where the device must be placed on the person wearing it.
But your honor, you can clearly see that I was the person in command during those sex acts. I should be allowed to sell Rose, not the other way around.
Ms. Tate, I can see by the proof supplied that you have no ground to be a Person of Personal Contact as defined by the White Slave Act of 2000, as amended, However I will need to reflect on Ms. Patton status. 10 minute recess.
Mr West, what do you think our chances?
Well, the possibility that you would be enslaved went out the window when he said that Megan had no standing as a PPC, so if you were worried about that, we are clear on it. And if he does find in your favor, well, she’s famous now, that will probably triple her resale value, assuming you want to sell her.
ALL RISE, THE HONORABLE JUDGE STONE
As I previously stated, I find no grounds for Ms. Tate to claim to be a Person of Personal Contact under the White Slave Act of 2000, as amended. I do find that Ms. Patton was, in fact, wearing a strap-on device designed as a sexual device as defined by the White Slave Act of 2000 and therefor does have standing as a Person of Personal Contact as defined by the White Slave Act of 2000 as amended. Ms. Tate’s motion for improper conversion is deigned. The conversion stands.
2 thoughts on “Test case trial.”
And so Mistress certification applications increased 600 fold that day!
Comments are closed.