Mildred’s Affidavit, Episode IV: The Bark Awakens
In the annals of condo board delusion, some moments deserve to be bronzed.
Enter: Mildred.
A binder full of bylaws, half-understood and fully weaponized.
In her solemn, legally sworn affidavit – a document theoretically meant to contain truth – Mildred declared that the board had “discovered the applicant had two dogs.”
Let’s pause there.
Two.
Not four.
Not a roaming pack.
Not a mobile dog spa operating out of Unit 510.
Just. Two. Dogs.
And yet, shortly after this world-shaking discovery, the board – with Mildred’s full support and approval – sent a lawyer’s letter accusing the resident of having… four dogs.
Because clearly, two dogs is just the gateway.
If someone has two, they probably have four.
Or eight.
Or an underground dogfighting ring powered by washer-dryers.
Now, you might be wondering:
How did we go from “we discovered two” to “send a legal threat about four”?
Simple.
Mildred applied the Board Math™:
2 Dogs
- Suspicion
- Mildred’s Gut Feeling
- Legal Overcompensation
= 4 Dogs
This formula is now taught in the advanced governance course titled “Evidence Is Overrated”, taught by Mildred at the Hen Council Learning Annex.
🎙️ And Then Came Cross-Examination
Now here’s where the magic really happens.
During cross-examination – where truth typically has its brief shining moment – Mildred was asked a very simple question:
“Why did you approve a letter claiming there were four dogs, when you yourself swore the board discovered only two?”
And just like that…
The wheels came off the affidavit wagon.
What followed was less testimony, more interpretive stuttering:
“Well… uh… at the time we may have believed… I was told… I think someone… perhaps…”
It was like watching a Roomba stuck in a corner.
Only sweatier.
And somehow even less coherent.
The courtroom air thickened with awkwardness.
Spectacles fogged.
Even the stenographer paused mid-keystroke, presumably to mutter “what in the actual hell?”
🧓 Final Thoughts from the Matriarch of Misfires
We could chalk this up to confusion.
Or miscommunication.
Or an attempt to weaponize dog math to intimidate someone into silence.
But more likely?
It was just bad governance disguised as due process, wrapped in an affidavit Mildred couldn’t keep straight under oath.
She didn’t just stretch the truth.
She put it on the rack, pulled the lever, and forgot to stop.
âť“ And Now, A Very Serious Question:
If Mildred can’t count to two under oath, should she really be entrusted with millions of dollars in common expenses?
Or is that, too, just a “suspicion plus legal opinion” away from disaster?
Disclaimer: This post is satire and opinion. Read full disclaimer.
