In Re: Writ of Pony


My name is Meggie. I am a writer and I have contributed to various blogs. I wanted to talk to you about contributing an article on your blog.

I’ve been working on a couple different articles that I think your audience would find enlightening. I’m curious to know which one you think might be a better fit:
Neighbor Lawsuits For Nuisance And The Fear Of Future Injury
California Real Estate Law: The Perpetual Lease

Whichever one you pick, I can have completed and ready to go in a timely fashion. Feel free to shoot me an email about either of these (or another topic altogether) and we can get the ball rolling.

Thanks for your time,

Meggie Haneckow
Gtalk : meggie.haneckow


This is a friendly follow up message in regards to my last email.

I have some good article's those will be best for your blog.

Let me know if i can send you for review.


My dear Ms. Haneckow,

I apologize for not responding to your previous email. I was fully engaged fortifying the southern portion of my property against certain threats raised by an eight-year-old neighbor's "birthday party."

Your inquiry intrigues me, and comes at an ideal time. Land use — and the limitations thereon imposed by civilized and prudent Americans — is a topic of increasing interest to our readers. The one about nuisance lawsuits particularly appeals — though the issues that concern me are, I fear, not adequately captured by such a gentle term.

Would it be possible to discuss a slight modification of focus — a sharpening, if you will — of the proposed article?

Very truly yours,

Ken White

Hi Ken

Thanks for the email.

I am happy that you have suggest your own topic.

I will get an article written on Land use — and the limitations thereon imposed by civilized and prudent Americans.. and I will share it with you once I complete it.

Please allow me 2-3 days for the same. Hope you don;t mind. :)


Dear Meggie:

Wait! Stop! We haven't yet discussed the specifics!

I spoke only in the general, Meggie, to see if you might be open to exploring specifics — to see if you dared trod softly where rank peril capers.

Meggie, can you write about how land use jurisprudence can be employed to stand against the Pony Menace?

To date our feeble, milky courts have failed me, Meggie. When I come to them asking that they issue writs prohibiting the presence of ponies in our community, they scoff and demand that I produce "evidence." When I produce it — in heaps, in great drifts of paper, in reams, Meggie — the judges step closer to their bailiffs and say that I have not produced evidence of the nuisance caused by the specific pony I am complaining about.

This suicidal punctiliousness will spell our doom, Meggie. Specific evidence? Ludicrous! If I proposed to place a loaded handgun into the hands of a sweet young child, would you hem and haw and say "well, that particular handgun has not been proven to be dangerous." NO! You would snatch the handgun away and hustle the child off to some safe linen closet or attic space. Read Marcus Aurelius, Meggie. "This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature? And what is it doing in the world?" Ponies are in this world to rend, Meggie. They are in themselves death, and with them comes the substance and material of misery, and suffering, and hoofprints on the carpet.

So: your guest post, should you wish to write it, must address how we can establish binding precedent that ponies are an inherent nuisance, a self-evident dangerous condition that should not be permitted in any locale zoned for residential or light commercial use. Let them have the bleak high places and the grim deserts and the remote fastnesses. I suppose that a measure of patriotism would permit our brave military forces to continue their attempts to weaponize ponies, but let such efforts continue in forsaken bases like Area 51 and Baltimore.

Moreover, I must insist that your article address how just and proper prohibition on ponies may be expanded to cover what I term pony program related activities. Would we tolerate a television program that taught our children that it is a "hoot" or a "gas" to turn on the stove and press their pink little hands firmly upon the burner? No we would not. Not even on basic cable. So — with the menace of ponies a given, an acknowledged prime mover of woe — how do we permit their continued glorification? There are shows that celebrate ponies and portray them as trustworthy, entertaining, and sympathetic, Meggie. No, I was shocked as well. And there are pony toys. Toys, Meggie. Now, I could see the utility of a pony toy that abruptly snaps tiny jagged teeth onto the fingers of unwary children. Toys should teach a lesson, like that Operation game and lawn darts. But the only lesson these toys teach is to warmly embrace the utter destruction of our culture. What kind of toy is that? Would we allow the manufacture of a whimsical silky-haired Mr. My-The-Fluids-In-Jugs-Under-The-Sink-Taste-Delicious? Would we employ a notorious rapist to soothe our children with sweets? No. Ridiculous. Land use law must change, Meggie. It must change to acknowledge not just the menace of ponies, but the menace of the Pony Fifth Columnists and all of their accoutrements.

So. This is grim, I know. It is not the happy, carefree piece on land use regulation that you hoped to pen. Are you equal to it, Meggie? Are you the one to write the Anti-Pony Land-Use Modification Court-Instructions Despite Various Restraining Orders manifesto?

God go with you.


Last 5 posts by Ken White


  1. BJC says

    I'm with David Crisp above. Next time I want to plug a website, I will start sending unsolicited pony-menace blog posts (mentioning my site, of course), to Ken & Co.

  2. Alan says


    Would you be open to an article that covers two areas of interest – specifically how, despite Beauharnis v. Illinois, you're still allowed to commit libel against ponies? :)

  3. Jim Tyre says

    My Dear Kenneth:

    Finally, I have begun to understand why you have so many problems with this issue:

    To date our feeble, milky courts have failed me, Meggie. When I come to them asking that they issue writs prohibiting the presence of ponies in our community, they scoff and demand that I produce "evidence."

    Writs are reserved for extraordinary relief, not ordinary relief, and what is extraordinary is determined by moderately objective criteria, not by your feelz. In the eyes of the law (who knew that the law had eyes, especially if justice is blind) what you want to accomplish is quite ordinary. Thus, after reviewing all you learned in Civil Procedure 101.79(a)(2)(B), you may wish to modify your tactical approach.

    Respectfully yours,

  4. Jason says

    It is not safe to drink pop while reading these posts. These should come with some sort of warning, something like "do not read while imbibing fluids as they may then shoot out your nose".

  5. Gary Tyrrell says

    May one presume that the continued allowance of ponies in heavy industrial areas is to facilitate the crucial pony grinding-and-rendering industry?

  6. En Passant says

    dp says September 4, 2015 at 7:58 am:

    You would think that the people in that "industry" would know by now.

    You have naively assumed that they would care a rat's hind end even if they did know.

    Just as Newton's laws, Ohm's law, Kirchhoff's laws, Joule's law, and many other empirically derived laws describe various phenomenon adequately to understand and make fairly accurate predictions about them, there are also laws or rules of spam.

    The laws of spam are newer, and derived from observations about spam and spammers made since the phenomenon of spam was first observed. You can find these laws or rules in various places on the intarwebz. They are, to a first order approximation:

    Rule #0: Spam is theft.

    Rule #1: Spammers lie.

    Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1.

    Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.

    Rule #4: The natural course of a spamming business is to go bankrupt.

    There are also many corollaries and lemmas which provide more detail.

    I hope this has answered the question implicit in your comment.

  7. says

    This is the first guest post spam I've seen where the writer is actually proposing to write something actually related to law. That said, it's the wrong type of law…

  8. recherche says

    @En Passant

    Quite like your set of rules about howto clarify spammers. However, there is
    one item that I believe needs correcting, and I have enough hubris to add
    another rule of thumb:

    A. Correction:

    Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.

    I've seen discussion that the apparent typos/naivety in spam posts is not
    just to avoid spam filters or because of lack of skill on the sender's part,
    but that the post is deliberately crafted such that people that miss cues
    such as those provided by these items are more likely to fall into the hands
    of the spammer — in other words, the typos atc are a specific filter that
    shows that the respondent is perhpas more worthwhile than a random
    Internet user to be profitable for the spammer. This feeds nito the
    workload selection by the spammer… grooming suckers takes resources,
    and they want to optimes their time/resource expenditure for maximum

    B. Short Rule of Thumb:

    As soon as a request for money to be transferred by wire services,
    (Western Union and the like), run like crazy away from the situation.
    Interpol has juristiction over international banking transfers, but has no
    juristiction over wire transfers. Spammers rely heavily on this loophole.



  9. Squirrels Without Borders says

    I am reminded of Chekhov's Pony. If there is a pony around, someone is going to get nibbled by the third act.

  10. Joel says

    Ken's cadence and word use here reminds me of John Hodgman–enough so that halfway through, I realized I was reading it in his voice. Not sure how Ken would feel about that comparison, but I found it amusing.

  11. parkrrrr says

    @recherche: that spammers are stupid is self-evident, for they freely choose to go into the business of spamming, about which see Rule #4.

  12. Phil Carta says

    I am more and more tempted to utilize this same technique against the myriad "SEO"(?) people who think my one-page placeholder website is "deficient in effective HTML." Or those others who insist I need to try out their universally "totally proven" mailing lists.

    I need to think of a good alternative to ponies…..

  13. barry says

    I have some good article's those will be best for your blog.

    If given the choice, I'd go with the good ones. But the others might also have advantages you shouldn't overlook.

  14. EPWJ says

    I can only imagine if Ken picks up his home phone and there is someone on the line, informing him he's been chosen by the Federal Government in his area that he has won a 90,000 grant……

  15. OrderoftheQuaff says

    "rank peril capers…" Surprised you didn't go with "rank peril CANTERS".

    No, I don't want to read about "Neighbor Lawsuits and the Fear of Future Injury", I want to read about "Pornstar Secrets of Multiple Seismic Orgasms", tyvm.

  16. Shachar says

    Every time I read one of those posts I am tempted to write an article about ponies, loaded with links to some bogus lawyer's site or another, and then send you an email posing as a spammer, and see if you'll publish.

    Just saying…


  17. says

    It's no joke. Ponies killed my Pa and my little sister. It was her birthday. We got her an easy bake oven. Ma had to drive down to the police station to identify their partially digested remains. Ken is doing the Lord's work.

  18. Leo Marvin says

    How virtuous of a La Cañada Flintridge elitist to throw those of us in the remote fastness of Santa Monica under the hooves.

  19. ZarroTsu says

    Somewhere, someone has a pile of books and their head in their hands doing research to write such an article as professionally as possible.

    The pen never hits the paper.

  20. Jeff says

    Now I'll be hearing a faint clop-clop-clop in the hallway behind me all day… This entry needs a Trigger warning:

  21. I Was Anonymous says

    I have some good article's those will be best for your blog.

    Let me know if i can send you for review.

    (Emphasis is mine)

    I suspect she might have better results (elsewhere, not on PopeHat), if she used proper capitalization and punctuation.

  22. Roger says

    The pony menace is real and growing—as is the willingness of judges to minimize it. Just a cursory look through the case books shows attacks by ponies causing motor vehicle accidents (Wilson v. Shea, 393 A.2d 565 (N.H. 1978)(where, sadly, a New Hampshire Supreme Court apparently under the sway of the pony lobby absolved the pony owner of liability)) as well as countless instances of children kicked or thrown by ponies. See, e.g., Miller v. Snipes, 183 S.W.2d 270 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971), where a pony that, according to plaintiff’s evidence, had bitten people, thrown riders, and broken through fences was described merely as “frisky and unpredictable.”

    In light of the far-too-prevalent tendency of our activist judges to ignore the pony menace, mad props to the great state of Nebraska, home of federal judge Richard Kopf of Hercules and the Umpire fame, which held as a matter of law that a mother was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law when she purchased a pony ride for her daughter. Huber v. Timmons, 171 N.W.2d 794 (Neb. 1969). If only all of our courts shared Nebraska’s willngness to take judicial notice of pony danger.

  23. Edward J. Cunningham says

    In one of your responses detailing the Pony Menace, you're going to have to mention the danger of time-travelling ponies. Specifically time-travelling ponies with nearly indecipherable Glaswegian accents.

    Dr. Whooves

  24. Dave B says

    She's probably researching the pony menace, little realizing that most links will point back to here :-)