On the sweltering night of August 11 and bleak morning of August 12, the quasi-legal world was rocked by a series of frivolous trials involving the individuals D. Blunden, S. Kaye, and a wide host of offending parties in the cities of Amritsar, Tashkent, and Bishkek. Here, as briefly and as belatedly as possible, we offer a description of these proceedings.
Kaye and Blunden v. Royal Challenge
Having neglecting their fiduciary duty to complete the Royal Challenge, Mr’s. Kaye and Blunden found themselves thrust into the religious center of the Golden Temple, where the quenching of one’s thirst via godawful Himachal bilge-booze was frowned upon not only by multiple deities, but by the enforcers of those deities, who frequently carry enormous daggers in public. Faced with their impending red-eye to Kyrgyzstan, Kaye and Blunden were forced to fulfill the Challenge on the way to the airport. In a surprise instance of malum vino juris incogens, the plaintiffs were able to complete their task in a manner that the former Raj rulers would’ve most decidedly approved — by being driven around by impoverished Indians. Despite fierce resistance, the gag reflexes of the plaintiffs were finally subdued. Following the final swig of the case, the driver’s inexplicably-present companion turned around to witness Mr. Kaye grimacing in the back seat, bottle at his lips. After a few moments of deliberation, he offered his concluding statement: “Whiskey… whiskey.”
Kaye and Blunden v. Autorickshaw Drivers
A textbook example of a “No, we never agreed on that price” conflict, more often known by the Latin indus nonsensus flagrante, in which the defendants doubled the cost of the rickshaw ride upon its termination. Simultaneously artifically emboldened and embittered by the proceedings of the previous case, the plaintiffs were able to successfully argue that the driver was “a dickhead”, and paid the originally stated price. Later analysis of the case indicated that, rather than the status of the driver’s head, proceedings may have been prompted by linguistic issues, a central cause of the following trial:
Blunden v. Attractive Security Guard
Legal scholars could very well not debate this case for years to come, picking apart the nuances of this very-much precedented, “I’m going to say something in a language you don’t understand – oops, you understood that!” case that went something like this:
Kaye: Wow, this is a really nice airport. When was it made?
Attractive Security Guard: Ehh… (Makes gesture indicating that she doesn’t know what we’re talking about) I don’t… understand.
Blunden: You’re pretty.
Attractive Security Guard: Thank you.
Blunden: Shit. (Hurriedly shuffles toward the lobby.)
Uzbekistan Airways v. Kaye and Blunden
Upon check-in at the nice airport, the defendants were informed by the plaintiffs that — despite having read and fully understood the Kyrgyz Visa related websites of Travel Document Services, and the U.S. and Kyrgyz embassies, and the U.S. State Department, and a few travel forums — they would not be allowed to fly into Kyrgyzstan that evening without first obtaining a visa at the Kyrgyz consulate in New Delhi, twenty hot, smelly, cramped, impossible hours away. Using typical passive-aggressive rhetoric, the highly unnerved defense was able to persuade the plaintiffs to review their company’s own legal guidelines. Evidence weighed heavily against the defense, as the guidelines in fact stated that “U.S. Citizens must have a Visa to enter Kyrgyzstan”. The trial then took a sudden turn for the best when the plaintiffs discovered that, “Oh, there’s a page two of these guidelines”, where Kaye and Blunden were vindicated by the subtle ‘Kyrgyzstan offers U.S. Citizens visas-on-arrival’ clause that they had neglected to learn about since its creation several years ago. The defense received their boarding passes — pieces of paper with their names and seats handwritten on them in pen — and proceeded to their gate. On the way, they encountered yet another obstacle.
Amritsar Airport Food Court v. Blunden
The intricacies of this lengthy, extremely frustrating decision are too banal to relate, but the final analysis of the court set a precedent for later visits to said food court – that is, should an individual be trying to spend their last 90 Rupees, the best way to do so is by purchasing two coffees and a mini-pizza.
Kaye and Blunden v. The People of India
Representative of an ongoing series of conflicts between Kaye, Blunden and various aspects of the entirety of India, this trial was marked by moments of extreme annoyance and a mutual lack of cultural respect. The setting for this trial was the gaudy, Parthenon-esque transit lounge of Tashkent Airport, between the hours of 12:00 and 5:00 AM. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants, who formed a substantial portion of the assembled waiting passengers, were in violation of stringent airport social policies by producing an unending concert of various loud, repetetive, exactly-the-same Punjabi songs played on cell phones, the denial of adequate floorspace napping zones (mostly to the plaintiffs), not flushing large poos in the only available toilet, and drinking and/or spilling onto the floor all the nice, clean bottled water in the lounge. Justice was never delivered to the defendants, though various punishments were imagined in great detail.
Blunden v. Uzbekistan Airways Ticketing
This case immediately followed the lesser problematic Kaye v. Uzbekistan Airways Ticketing. Due to the plaintiff purchasing his tickets two minutes after his travel companion, Mr. Kaye, the decision was made by the defendant to suddenly disappear from Vayama.com’s ticket search. As the case unfurled, it was revealed that the outcome of Kaye involved the purchase of the last economy seat on the second leg of this journey. Blunden was thus coerced into an unwilling $112 upgrade to first class for a flight lasting less than two hours. The case hinged upon a presumed entitlement to “all the free booze [he] can squeeze from these bastards” in the first class seating area, which was to be consumed as restitution for the $112 damages. The defendant, being the airline wing of a nominally Islamic theocracy, was of course unable to provide this compensation, citing divine prohibition in the form of an embarrassed “Oh… uh, no” when the plaintiff requested whiskey in his coffee at 4 AM. Instead, Blunden was awarded with temporary control over onboard zoning regulation enforcement. After noticing that he was in plain sight of the lower class cabin, or “riff raff pen”, which was made up of seats and conditions indistiguishable from his own and located between 0 and 2 inches from him, Blunden insisted that the cabin staff put up the thin blue curtain that officially designated the arbitrary class boundary of the aircraft. His victory was greatly relished.
These cases, watershed events though they may have been, were ultimately dwarfed by the commencement of the lengthy, baffling, and oftentimes tremendously tiresome, The People, Foods, Customs, and Prices of Central Asia v. Kaye and Blunden, which would further draw out the heretofore unprecedented and shocking tendency towards ethnocentric, assholish behavior on the part of the defendants. Only time will tell if this development can be reversed by subsequent appeals from their experiences, retrospect, and thoughtful reconsideration of the four years of Cultural Anthropological study that purportedly crafted them into worldly dudes.