64: The Zookeeper Love Triangle

Hello everyone and welcome back to the Rebuttal Podcast where we break down case law, comedy, and chaos in the legal field. I am your host, Reb Mazel. I am feeling so ill. I don't know if it is some kind of February 2026 sickness that's going around. I feel like death. Um you could not have paid me money to put makeup on for this episode. I did a lip glass. That was all we got. Okay. So in addition to me being ill, I need to be Oh I don't know.

amused by whatever we talk about this episode, or I will go insane because anything sad will probably just make me even sicker. So without any more gabbing about how sick I am, if you're also sick, uh my condolences. Let's just go through some of the cases that I want to talk about today. That's that's your intro. In 2015, a former Meerkat expert at a London zoo was ordered to pay compensation to a monkey handler she attacked with a wine glass in a love spat over a llama keeper.

That is a real headline. Exquisite. A judge at Westminster Magistrate Court said in October 2015 that Caroline Westlake, the former Meerkat expert, must pay 800 pounds, which is$1,235. to Kate Sanders, the monkey handler, for assaulting her in a dispute over colleague llama keeper Adam Davies, who had dated both women. So why aren't we blaming the man? Is that too feminist of me to say, why doesn't he have to pay some reparations? Why is he playing in their faces?

Why is he dating several coworkers at a zoo? Everyone knows you don't date your coworkers, much less the ones at a zoo. I can imagine that zoo keepers are very lovely people, but I I I can also imagine there are some weirdos who are attracted. to such a profession because you do have to be extremely intelligent, extremely smart. And you hang out with anim animals all day, right? Like that's your jam. That's your niche. I I appreciate it. I accept it.

Love it. But yeah, if you told me, hey, the mere cat expert, the monkey keeper, and the llama keeper, they're just getting into some major drama. I would believe you. Those don't feel like demure professions. I digress. Every news article describes this woman as a former Meerkat expert, but I assume that she's still an expert on Meerkats. I don't think that you suddenly lose all of that info in your head. I just think she's a mere cat expert that is between jobs at the moment.

Judge Jeremy Coleman also sentenced thirty year old Westlake to twelve months community service for assault. The scuffle occurred at a zoo Christmas party on december eighth. 2014. Both women had been romantically involved with zookeeper Adam Davies, the llama keeper who dated Sanders for five years before starting a relationship with Westlake. So he's just bouncing around departments.

Please. In court, the judges heard that Meerkat expert Caroline Westlake was in a toilet cubicle at the zoo Christmas party when she overheard monkey handler Sanders say to her friends that she looked, quote, much better than Caroline. Have you seen the state of her? Later that evening the two women met at the cloakroom and Sanders tried to apologize. The pair started arguing and the monkey handler said, quote, in a British accent,

Nobody likes you, everyone thinks you're mad. Westlake responded, Everyone thinks the same about you. Sanders, who worked on the Mammals South section of the zoo, said as she tried to leave, Merecat handler Westlake smashed the glass into her cheek.

leaving her face covered in blood. Westlake accepted that the injury to the monkey handler came from her glass, but denied causing it either deliberately or recklessly. Sometimes glasses fall out of your hands and shoot into someone's cheek. Perfect defense. No no. The judges ruled in September 2015 that Meerkat expert Westlake did not act intentionally, but she was guilty of assault because she had been reckless and quote,

failed to see the risk of injury to Sanders while holding the glass close to her. Again, no mention of the llama keeper in these articles. I feel like that's a bit of an oversight. Where is the llama keeper? Where is the man who's been playing around at work? Who's been messing around? Why wasn't he fired? I have to ask, little inappropriate, is llama keeper in the hierarchy of zoos, is llama keeper technically your superior? Like does it go llama keeper, monkey handler, meerkat expert?

Or are they all on an equal playing field? Because I would posit that if this man, this lama keeper, keeper of a yamas, was in any respect their superior. should have been fired from jump. Okay, from jump. I'm not saying that a smashed glass to the cheek of of a colleague in, you know, a mammal mammalian department, uh, wouldn't also get you fired. But I just think that we need to, you know, question men a little harder here. I don't know.

Is that too pro women of me? I do not support all women. Some of you are dumb, but in this scenario, I think that a lot of strife was caused by yes. Some emotions that are running high between these two women, but hey, to make a triangle, you need a third point. Okay, and the third point is missing from these articles. Let's talk about him. I'm tired. But just a few months later, in February of 2016, exactly 10 years ago, her conviction was thrown out by an appellate judge.

A Lord Justice Laws and Justice Nickel again. that says, London. So a lot of Lord And powdered wigs going on in the courtroom. They ruled that the lower court applied the wrong legal test for recklessness and they quashed the conviction because of it. Later, our former Meerkat Expert's legal representative, Suzanne Kelly of Ventors solicitors.

Said, quote, Miss Westlake's life has been destroyed by something that was no more than an unfortunate accident. In particular, Miss Westlake was unfairly dismissed from her position as zookeeper at ZSL London Zoo and has suffered significant psychological damage. As a result. In any event, said the judge, she had already completed her sentence of 80 hours community service.

And with that, I hope that all zookeepers involved in this case are not bouncing around to the reptilian department to find their new girlfriend or boyfriend or situationship or lover. Whatever you you want to call. Zoos are drama. I'm sure. Imagine, imagine, imagine everyone, if you are the janitor attending the zoo Christmas party, if you're just the girl who works at the gift shop, okay, pulling up for the zoo Xmas Parte.

And you get to hear and witness this drama. Two pe just assault, wine glass. thrown in the face, bleeding, yelling, the whole thing, you mess with my man, you're not even cute, you're ugly, blah blah blah. Like that, that is something that I think is priceless. It really is. Don't ever do that, but it really is.

The next case I have comes out of Australia. In 2002, a court found a man not liable for strapping pork chops to his feet. And I'm not joking, that is not hyperbole. That's exactly what happened. Let me explain. Hi everyone, I wanted to take another quick break to thank Skims for sponsoring this episode. It is very hard for me to find undergarments, underwear, and bras that really make me feel

As comfortable as I can possibly feel when I'm in the office, when I'm in court, when I'm in heels, if my feet are killing me, if the day isn't going great. I don't want to also. Feel my bra digging in to my skin and my underwear chafing. The Fits Everybody collection from Skims is unlike anything I've tried before, truly. The underwear and bras in this collection are not only buttery soft, yes.

Buttery. They mold to my body without cutting into me or my skin. I've tried no show panties before, seamless panties before. I've ordered cheap ones, alternatives from random websites. just because I thought, oh, they're all the same. They are not all the same. These are the no-showyest, softest of them all. Every pair feels like they are custom made just for me. My favorites from the collection by far are the scoop bralette that I'm wearing, the crossover bralette.

Amazing, divine. It has a bra clasp on the back, so you can adjust the sizing, but it still feels Again, I keep saying buttery, but you guys, buttery, soft feel. I also adore the fits everybody regular thong and the high-waisted thong. I have both. I can wear all of these pieces all day without constantly readjusting, without them irritating my skin. Seamless.

Buttery. I keep saying buttery, but I promise you, if you just try them, you'll believe me. Shop Skims Fits Everybody collection at skims.com. After you place your order, be sure to let them know that we sent you. Select podcast in the survey and be sure to select our show in the drop-down menu that follows. I'm watching y'all. Go do it. You won't regret it.

New Maybelline Serum Upon winning the meat tray raffle at his local hotel on November 30th, 1997, and with at least 15 beers warming his belly, Mr. Ross Lucock strapped pork chops to his feet. when told he would be barred from buying more beer because he wasn't wearing shoes. Now we're gonna take a pause here. How did he get the first fifteen beers down his gullet if you are just now noticing the no shoe issue?

If you didn't think he was wearing any sneakers now, where were your eyes the first 15 times? He has been shoeless, presumably, for the entirety of this. of this meat tray raffle event, which he won. Good for him. Did he win the meat tray raffle and in response celebrate by taking his shoes off? And that's where you guys draw the line after 15 beers. I feel like you could have just told him he was too drunk, as opposed to just blaming his piggies out, but

Neither here nor there. After strapping the raw pork chops, yes, in a meat tray raffle, what you win is raw meat. Yep. Yes, it is. We'll get into it. After strapping those to his feet and somehow getting enough steps in around the area. to have left greasy, nasty, raw pork juice residue everywhere. The meat's greasy residue caused Troy Michael Bowron to slip and fall, breaking his left arm and destroying his career in upholstery.

A lot to unpack here. Now meat raffles or meat tray raffles as they are referred to in this report are apparently common in Britain and at least some of its former colonies. Not so much. uh where I've ever been in America, but uh prove me wrong, I guess. According to Atlas Obscura, meat raffles first originated in Britain during World War II, possibly as a response to food rationing, and spread to the US and other English-speaking countries after the war, at least not in the places I've been.

Has it spread to your town? If so, how do you know the raw meat isn't rancid? It would make more sense if this was a grocery store raffle, but it is, it's a it's a bar. You're at a hotel bar and they said here's raw pork chops. I don't even have an oven in my hotel room. So I'm supposed to leave. I'm supposed to be at this hotel for a short enough period of time where I can le depart and go put this on ice.

Thank you. That's annoying. Like what if you're out on the town and want to bar hop? You're just bringing pork chops with you? I mean, this guy obviously m gave them a a dual use, a dual purpose for sure. But uh it I mean I understand I understand. for rationing, okay, right? People need meat and so you uh naturally force them to uh play a game of luck for it. But uh I I hmm I don't know I don't know if we're at we're at a meat shortage situation yet for for meat Trey Raffles to really

To really be popular in my mind. But who am I to make fun of white culture? I am someone who would. So I am. That's who I am all the time, actually. My people, RMS, often. According to the same article, apparently meat raffles are still a thing, at least in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Western New York and potentially other places. But in any event, it is exactly what it sounds like. You buy a ticket, they have a drawing.

And the winner gets meat. Normally the meat is presumably eaten, but in the nineteen ninety-seven case, Mr. Lucock decided to put his pork chops to a different use. Now, the issue, or I guess non-issue here is that, well, he won the raffle. He didn't steal the chops, okay? The chops were his. They were his property and he could strap them to whatever he wanted to strap them to, at least on his own person, right? He didn't assault anyone with said

Chops wearing them as shoes was going to be problematic, though. He might have been able to foresee that. I fear, I fear. Because yeah, they're raw. All right. And the meat juices are gross and raw. And uh yeah, doing so simply to avoid being cut off at the bar.

Probably not thinking clearly. And naturally, someone did slip and fall, but the person wasn't Lucock, it was his friend actually. This man named Thomas Michael Bowren. Thomas was playing pool at the time and apparently crossed Mr. Lucock's greasy path and fell breaking his arm and again ruining what we are told is a promising career in upholstery. A lawsuit naturally followed.

Thomas sued both Loucock, the pork chop shoe wearing guy who can pound fifteen beers and still keep going, and the small hotel. More specifically, the pub that was located inside the hotel. He argued in the lawsuit that Mr. Lucock created the risk and the pub failed to eliminate it by cleaning it up. According to the report, the plaintiff sought$750,000. And after a bench trial, what did the court decide?

that our pork chop wearing fifteen beer guzzling man was indeed not Liable, but the pub indeed was. For a lot less than 750K. The plaintiff was awarded only$61,515, which is probably the amount of his medical expenses. The guy who wore the pork chop shoes got off Scott.

not free, apparently because the evidence showed the plaintiff knew his pork chop shoe wearing friend was walking around near the pool table, but did not ask the pub staff to clean up the mess or take any other action to avoid the known risk. In the legal world, we would call that assumption of risk or failure to mitigate the risk.

The plaintiff not only knew what was happening, the judge noted, he quote, may even have joined in on the general tomfoolery that developed when pieces of pork chopped. disintegrated and were thrown around the room. This sounds like a vibe. Pre-broken arm ruining your upholstery career indefinitely. This party was popping. I would have loved to attend. I would have loved to be there.

Uh and actually I would have missed all of this because I would have departed the second raw meat started hitting the floor. But that's just me. The judge ordered the pub to pay the plaintiff's damages, suggesting the evidence showed there was some delay in cleaning up the consequences of its meet.

raffle. It still seems debatable whether these particular consequences were foreseeable. The consequences being that the man who won the meat raffle hosted at your pub inside of a hotel would be cut off after fifteen beers for not wearing shoes and then strap raw pork chops to his feet, walk around and then make someone slip and fall and break their arm and ruin their upholstery career. But the court said that it was. So

We'll we'll go with that. Conduct yourselves accordingly should you encounter any of those events that I just mentioned that either occur in tandem but honestly also separately. Anywhere a meat raffle is happening.

Maybe leave right after. This is from a news article from September 20th, 2010. Quote. Reports today say that a 33-year-old Kentucky man will argue in his murder trial this week that he should be found not guilty of killing his wife. Because he was under the influence of caffeine at the time. Woody Smith's attorney filed papers outlining a plan to assert a defense of temporary insanity on the grounds that Smith had ingested so much caffeine from sodas, energy drinks.

and diet pills in the days prior to May fourth, 2009, that he could not have knowingly strangled his wife. And with that, let's look at some statutes that are probably relevant. Murder under Kentucky law means acting with intent to cause the death of another person and succeeding, obviously. The intent element can be negated if the defendant acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance.

For which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse. But that is not a defense to a lesser charge of first-degree manslaughter. Kentucky law also provides that a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, due to mental illness, He lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The defendant has the burden of proof to satisfy all elements of an affirmative defense.

Or a complete defense to a murder charge and has to file written notice of his intent to assert the defense at least 20 days before trial. So that is what happened here. These news reports were a buzz in 2010 because. caffeine-induced murder i s seems like a relatively new one, right? Something something definitely new in the pop culture, I would say. So at trial, he did indeed argue

That he did not appreciate it was a criminal act to tie up his wife and strangle her with an extension cord. Because again, caffeine. The report says Smith told a psychologist, who is also the defense team's expert, that he remembers taking his kids to school that day, but not much else. He said he had not been sleeping well or at all and was reportedly drinking, quote, five or six sodas and energy drinks per day, plus diet pills, adding up to more than 400 milligrams of caffeine per day.

This is, however, the equivalent of four cups of coffee. And what most students in law school or any litigation attorney is probably drinking at a certain point in their life until they are begged to stop. by their significant other or by their doctor. In law school, I would pound those white monsters. Okay. They're like this big. They're they taste really good. Okay. They're like the zero, whatever. Um, they, they, yeah, I would pound several of those to study, to keep alert, to stay awake.

Not recommending it. Not great. Not good. But I think a lot of professions and people can relate to ingesting a negligible amount of caffeine and don't end up tying up anyone and strangling them, much less their wife, their significant other. So defense attorney pro tip, if you are indeed going to put on a caffeine-induced insanity defense.

to murdering your wife, tying her up, and strangling her to death, you should probably include as part of that defense a caffeine consumption amount that's above what I would drink on a regular Wednesday in law school. 400 milligrams of caffeine per day, just because it's an unhealthy amount of caffeine

Is this person a Mormon? Like, are they surrounded by people who aren't allowed to drink caffeine? So they thought that the the 400 millies was really gonna shock the jury and really make them think, wow, that really could totally induce. someone to kill their wife and not remember it and not know and strangle and tie up. It's not even like a oh

Shotgun blast, strangling is an extremely personal way to to murder someone, my God. Horrific. Tying them up. This is premeditation, babes. Oh my god. Uh yeah, y you You presented four hundred milligrams. to a jury in where? Kentucky? They're gonna look at you like this. Like you should have just said four you should have said forty beers. Like that would have made more sense. Not that saying that being drunk excuses killing someone, but like

The insanity defense for caffeine, I think that we should we should hail Mary it a little harder. You know what I mean? Throw it a throw the ball a little harder. past that goalpost, okay? You gotta give me like 800, a thousand, two thousand millions You gotta get me a milligram amount that where I'm staring at you and thinking, how is your heart still beating? in order for me to get you off for murder, okay?

That's just me though. Whatever. The expert testified that Smith was suffering from, quote, brief psychosis due to severe insomnia caused in turn by the caffeine, and also in part by fear that his wife was about to leave him. There it is. There it is. Mm-hmm. So insomnia can totally make you go insane. Millions of people. uh go on banters or or suffer from insomnia, I can't sleep, etcetera and d and indeed shug caffeine, all that, and don't murder their wives.

By tying them up and strangling them. The biggest threat, the greatest threat to a woman's life is men, is men in her life. Ving firar 70 år av resor som är svåra att släppa taget om. Och det gör vi med massor av erbjudanden som är omöjliga att motstå. Boka redan nu på wing.se. De bästa resorna försvinner först. Ving semester.

Inte will hem from Domestic violence cases cases where women are are try to leave and can't leave men who kill their wives because they would rather their wives be dead than be with anyone else. These are tales as old as time. Men as a demographic are known for that. It is not me being biased, it is statistics. Men kill women, kill intimate partners at at a rate that has never been matched by women, ever. Ever, ever, ever. They do it.

with with reckless abandon at times, men are the are are the scariest thing in in the world. We date our our worst predators, okay? Our greatest apex predators. We are sheep lying with wolves. And half the time the wolves Ugh are mutts, okay? Are disgusting and not even worth the sheep's time.

But he was afraid if slice was gonna leave him. He drank a shit ton of coffee and he didn't sleep for a few days. The idea that four cups of coffee a day might be enough to turn law-abiding people into killers might make your next trip to Starbucks more exciting at the very least. And in fact, a trip to Starbucks was involved.

In the one known previous successful assertion of the too much caffeine defense. In that case, earlier that same year in 2010, vehicular assault charges against an Idaho man were dismissed after he claimed. He had run two people down because of a lack of sleep and quote Two large coffees at Starbucks.

those people survived, that's why it's vehicular assault and not manslaughter or homicide. The difference, however, is that defendant was actually diagnosed with a rare form of bipolar disorder that could be triggered by insomnia and or caffeine. So we have some more padding to a defense such as that. Again. Would have to look at all the evidence to really come to my own conclusion there. Okay. I do think.

That some defenses to murder are indeed defenses for a reason, but in this case, all right, tie into tying up your wife and strangling her. Um, the Starbucks defense, there was no report of any such medical disorder being alleged in Smith's case. And your opinion on it and my opinion on it doesn't really matter with respect to the Kentucky man because

He was convicted anyway. The jury did not buy his caffeine-induced insanity defense. A jury convicted Woody Smith of strangling his wife Amanda Smith at their home in May of 2009. The jury suggested a sentence of life in prison, and the judge agreed with that recommendation. He will be eligible for parole in 20 years. Cases involving politicians or political figures, someone in power doing bad things, behaving very poorly, are a dime a dozen. They are everywhere. Judges, Mayors.

Politicians, Congresspeople, HOA members, the leader of a bunko club. People who have climbed a ladder in their lives and their profession and their field and then promptly slipped the hell down it. Oftentimes these cases are not funny. These cases involve corruption, a rampant abusive power. They make you lose faith. in the system and in the people who are supposed to be governing for you and around you and making your life better. But oftentimes the all they do is think of themselves.

and are often psychopathic even. But a few, a few, a few cases of people in power behaving badly are funny. They are. This is one of them. Grace Scienz Lopez, the mayor of Alice, Texas, resigned on February 1st, 2008. After admitting that she had dognapped a Shih Tzu named Puddles, that she had been caring for. The drama, however, began several months later.

Prior in July of 2007, when the mayor's neighbors, the Gutierrezes, were leaving for an annual long weekend at a water park in the Texas Hill country. Their dog puddles had been purchased. For their son Joseph and three other children for$500 the previous February. Adopt, don't shop, people. And they asked.

Asked their neighbors, Mayor Science, Lopez, and her husband Paco, a retired police officer, if they would mind watching the dog while they were on vacation, and they agreed. Just one day after they left, the Gutierrezes called the mayor to ask. ask how puddles was doing. And Science Lopez reported that oh, puddles had died. and been buried in the backyard of a new house she and her husband were moving to Several doors down.

Also, why did it require that they call you for the update? You were like, oh my god, wait, I totally forgot to tell you until you just reminded me. Are you out of your mind? Rudy Gutierrez said he was dubious about this story, but he had no reason to believe that the mayor of the The city would lie to him. Just three months later, however, in October of 2007, an aunt of Rudy Gutierrez who lived outside of town, out of the way.

Saw puddles at a dog groomer's there because the mayor was getting the dog groomed, obviously, in a place she didn't think they would recognize him. And she took a photo and sent it to the Gutierrez's and said, Isn't this your dead damn dog? And they said, Oh my god, it dead damn is. The mayor, however, refused to return the dog, who she had renamed Ponchito. And didn't deny or confirm that it was the same dog. She just said, no, I'm not giving it back, and then refused to return their calls.

So the battle was on. The family sued her and also filed a criminal complaint. Then things got even weirder. Saiyans Lopez, confronted on her porch by a television reporter, insisted. that she was actually her twin sister, until the reporter called out, Miss Mayor, and she turned around. As public pressure mounted, Sans Lopez reported her dog Panchito missing and pointed a finger at the Gutierrez's.

Because that's what you want to do in a dog napping allegation situation. Just pull an Uno reverse. On the family whose dog you definitely stole and said was dead. In response, the Gutierrez has said, search our house, go for it. The police did. No shihtsu, no panchitos slash puddles. None whatsoever. So the mayor said, All right, search my house. The police did. No panchitos slash puddles. Where is panchitos slash puddles?

Where is double P? Where could he be? It's a mystery. And one that the mayor absolutely stuck to her guns about until She realized really quickly that she was a moron and apparently very bad at concealing dogs. And not only was she bad at it. Her twin sister was too, because a few days later, ten miles away in Corpus Christi, Texas. A film crew had discovered the address of her twin sister and pulled up to the house to ask her some questions about the dog napping case and heard a bark.

From the backyard. Oh yeah. And they got video of the dog running around gleefully, blissfully, unaware that they were. the subject of some hooligan activity going on. So she got her twin in on it too, which is all fine and dandy when it's just a neighborly dispute. Who cares? But um when there are police reports involved, Right, that you file an investigation's ongoing. Yeah, you can't file false re police reports.

babe. And what's better is you're married to a r retired police officer. Not that if you listen to this podcast, not that they're required to know a whole lot about the law and what you are supposed to do and not supposed to do. And that's just an objective fact, right? They don't they they often just are not Are not given that information. They just are given a gun and told to go crazy. Okay. Um, yeah, you you would think that they would know that.

At the very least. Apparently they either did and were just gonna double down until it blew over, or uh they didn't know it. I don't know which one's worse. So the mayor and her twin sister doubled down, as we knew that they would. They said that a woman had found the dog puddles slash panchito and delivered it to them just before the cameras arrived.

Sounds legit. Buying it. I am purchasing that. Just a few days later, the mayor was indicted on two felony counts of tampering with and concealing evidence, which led to her resignation in February 2008. The mayor's lawyer characterized the sisters' untruths as quote, white lies, adding, There's no malice in these lies. Why did you take the damn dog?

He called the Gutierrez's placement of puddles with the mayor during their vacation, quote, tantamount to abandonment. And he denied that the mayor, who was forced to resign in the face of a recall petition circulating, had benefited from special treatment. The town of Alice, Texas, was really enraptured by these events until the story hit the national and international news cycles. They were

pretty outraged. They reportedly didn't want to be known as the town with a mayor who stole a dog. And I'm sure they're not too happy about me reminding everyone of that fact. over 15 years later. In her resignation letter, Sands Lopez wrote, quote, I am sorry for the division that the events of these last few weeks have caused. We're using the passive voice, of course, to indicate that it was the events' fault. And she's sorry for what the events had had done to everyone else, of course.

It was never my intention, she said, to bring any negative exposure to our city. The mayor's attorney repeatedly told reporters that his client believed the dog would die if it was returned to her neighbors, but did not explain why she believed them. The judge ruled that she the judge ruled in favor of the Gutierrez's and the former mayor had to give Puddles slash Panchito back. I would have loved to see that.

probably gas station parking lot exchange, right? After the former mayor lost the civil case, she finally, in July 2008, one year after the dog napping incident, took a plea deal and pled no contest to filing a false police report, which was a misdemeanor, which was part of the plea deal, right? Well drop the felonies if you just plead down. Okay, perfect.

Uh, under the terms of the deal, she had to pay a$300 fine, seems a little low, and serve 48 hours of community service and two years of probation. Another note that I don't think I emphasized enough here, she had held the office of mayor since. 2003. You are throwing away a pretty steady job, an incumbent gig, five years after you've been sitting pretty. Seems like a waste, but my rebuttal for today's episode is don't mess with people's pets. We care about them a lot more than you think.

And we will fight for them a lot harder than we might even fight for ourselves and our and our livelihood and our jobs and our finances and our lives. If anyone tried to catnap Simba or DUI, pronounced Dewey, I Would go postal in ways Never seen before.

That's why I highly recommend if you ever feel like pet napping, you should pet nap an animal from your local shelter by paying the adoption fee and having the space, finances, and ability to keep that pet happy and healthy for the rest of their lives. Love you guys. See you next week. Stay safe.