Kassondra Cloos

An Indictment of Equipment Abuse and Emotional Distress in the First Degree

Essay

IN THE COURT OF COMMON DECENCY

FOR THE DISTRICT OF GEAR MANAGEMENT AND LENDER RESPECT

COURT OF COMMON DECENCY  v.  THE SUBLETTER,                 Defendant.

*          GRAND JURY ORIGINAL* *          VIOLATIONS: **          Count 1: 17 G.R.C. § 491  *          (Inappropriate Use of *           Backpacking Cookware) * *          Counts 2 through 4: 17 *          G.R.C. § 492 *          (Inadequate Cleaning of *          Backpacking Equipment) * *          Counts 5 and 6: 17 G.R.C.             § 497  *          (Failure to Acknowledge or             Replace Broken Equipment)*           *          Count 7: 17 G.R.C. § 561 *          (Conspiracy to De-Insulate *          Sleeping Bag)*          *          Count 8: 17 G.R.C. § 565 *          (Attempted Murder in the  *          Fifth Degree)

INDICTMENT

The Grand Jury charges that, at all times material to this Indictment, on or about the dates and at the approximate times stated below:

INTRODUCTION

1. The Defendant, THE SUBLETTER, did willfully mislead and lead on THE LENDER while residing in her House for a two-month period as he sought long-term accommodations elsewhere in London. During this period, Defendant did fraudulently represent himself as a responsible outdoorsman; promising subject for romantic interest; and considerate steward of other people’s stuff. As such, Lender was swindled out of functional Backpacking Equipment for Wilderness Survival in cold climates; faith in humanity; and patience with men.
2. Immediately upon arrival at the House, Defendant complimented Lender on her dress. She blushed and invited him to cook dinner with her. They were keenly aware of one another’s presence whilst shopping for ingredients at Tesco. Lender surmised that she was in Trouble.
3. During the first two weeks of his tenure in the House, Defendant went out of his way to flatter Lender with compliments about her appearance. When he and Lender both “happened” to be working from home, he abandoned his desk for hours to linger in her presence. She arose earlier than normal so they could share a pot of tea every morning, and they often cooked together in unnecessary proximity. Defendant took a week off work to “look for a new flat” and spent most of the week in the House. Coincidentally, Lender worked from home that week and made breakfast tacos for Defendant on more than one occasion. 
4. Mid-way through his first month in the House, Defendant made Lender aware of an upcoming trek on the Cape Wrath Trail. Lender saw an opportunity to make herself useful and desirable, and generously offered to make her own kit available. Despite downplaying his survival skills as a “city boy,” Defendant averred that he was responsible enough to borrow Lender’s expensive camping equipment. 
5. Defendant borrowed items from Lender including, but not limited to: 
   1. One (1) Ultralight Titanium Pot, with Tyvek stuff sack
   1. One (1) Ultralight Backpacking Pillow
   1. One (1) Sleeping Bag of Discontinued Style
   1. One (1) Ultralight Sleeping Pad
   1. One (1) Ultralight Backpacking Stove

6. Defendant accepted one (1) Freeze-Dried Apple Pie Dessert, which Lender acquired during a meaningful hike in Sweden the year before, as a gift.
7. The week before he set off on his trip, Lender regularly thought of additional things she could lend to Defendant to make his trip more comfortable. She wanted to be kind, helpful, and welcoming. “I was thinking of something else this morning that you might like to have on your trip,” she said one afternoon, when he entered the kitchen while she was working at the table. “But now I can’t remember what it was.” 
   “Is it you?” he asked.
8. Lender, Defendant, and Housemate regularly ate dinner together in the House. Housemate commented, on more than one occasion, that she had sensed a spark between them. She offered unsolicited endorsement: “He’s great,” she said. “I love this for you. Go for it, babe.”
9. Defendant promised to take care of the Equipment and return it in the condition in which it was borrowed. Lender had no reason to suspect otherwise, as he was a gainfully employed man who was vying for her affection. Surely, it was in his interest not to damage her things. Defendant averred that he was trustworthy, respectful, and responsible enough to uphold a handshake agreement without formal contract. He and Lender entered into a binding social agreement. 
   

COUNTS ONE AND TWO

(Inappropriate Use of Backpacking Cookware — 17 G.R.C. § 491; and Inadequate Cleaning of Backpacking Equipment (First Count) — 17 G.R.C. §492)

1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.
2. On the Cape Wrath Trail, Defendant and his friends got lost and were ill-prepared for inclement weather. It turned out that Defendant had not undersold his wilderness expertise with classic British understatement, after all, but had adopted a more American honesty during an extended absence from his homeland. Later, Lender caught Defendant in the kitchen with steel wool in one hand and the delicate Titanium Pot in the other. “I burned some oatmeal in the bottom of it,” he said, embarrassed. He turned pink as he revealed an impenetrable black splotch on the bottom of the Pot. “How did you not know you’re only ever supposed to boil water in these?” Lender asked, maintaining calm but very nearly failing to hide her annoyance. “It’s fine, don’t worry. It’s just a Pot.” Lender did not remind Defendant that when she had discolored this very Pot by foolishly setting it empty atop her Ultralight Stove, she secretly bought a new one for the ex-boyfriend she had borrowed it from. Lender did not bring this up because Defendant had already heard the story, twice.
   

The Conspiracy

1. After his camping trip, the Defendant,

THE SUBLETTER,

did knowingly conspire to hide additional functional and cosmetic damage to the Titanium Pot and other pieces of equipment he borrowed from Lender, by using concealment, avoidance tactics, and other really annoying means. 

Purpose of the Conspiracy

1. The purpose of the conspiracy was to avoid fiscal, social, and romantic consequences for damaging Lender’s belongings. Defendant did not wish to diminish his prospects for sex.

Manner and Means

1. Defendant indulged his physical attraction to Lender and conspired to capture her interest. Over the course of four (4) weeks, Defendant toyed with Lender’s emotions and exacerbated romantic tension. 
2. Lender and her Housemate were in possession of a portable sauna tent, which they acknowledge was used in the listing of their spare room to attract prospective subletters. When the sauna stove broke the first time Defendant tried to use it (interesting), Defendant complained that he had been enticed to move in under false pretenses. He required Lender to write him a “two-page apology letter” that was both “completely serious and also very funny,” to make up for it. Lender acquiesced. In the apology letter, Lender made her intentions clear and handed Defendant an opening by offering a voucher for a private sauna booking for two and an overnight stay at a hotel. The letter disappeared from his mail shelf without comment. 
3. Days after implying that he had read the letter, Defendant sat next to Lender on the couch and draped his legs over hers—bold. When the news grew too dire to continue pretending that they were enjoying this experience, Defendant said, “OK, well, I’m off to bed. Good night.” Lender sat in silence, stunned, for forty-seven seconds before following Defendant into the kitchen. She maintained a conservative distance of approximately nine feet, as if she were trying not to spook a wild animal. “We don’t have to talk about this right now,” she said, “but maybe, perhaps, sometime soon, we could have a conversation about how some things that have been happening in this House might be seen as confusing to some people who live here.”  
4. This conversation did not go well. Defendant said he was planning to ask out Lender in five (5) weeks’ time, after he had left the House. Lender, in an act of self-respect, then forbade him indefinitely from flirting with her, teasing her, or touching her in any way. Defendant acknowledged that he had been “laying it on a bit thick.” Lender said “OK, fine, then,” and went up to her bedroom. Several minutes later, Lender returned to the kitchen for just “one more thing.” “Can we please just acknowledge that my letter was very clever?” she said. Defendant rolled his eyes. “Yes, obviously,” he said. “It was the funniest thing I have ever read.” 
5. An inevitable yet brief romance did, eventually, ensue, but was so brief that it almost does not bear recounting here. Suffice it to say that Lender was clear about what she wanted—Defendant, with all of his flaws, which any reasonable party would observe were many—and in response Defendant botched it.
6. Before the documented End of the Relationship, two nights before Lender left for a business trip—ten days after the consummation of the relationship, which Lender now regrets in its entirety—she and Defendant had a conversation that was not necessarily an argument but was not not an argument in which she made it clear that her attraction to him was stronger than her fear of awkward moments in the hallway. However, the inconsistency of his interest in her was bloody awful, and as such she suggested they stop seeing each other. Defendant replied that he was merely “stressed about [his] housing situation.” “I really think it’s just a tough time for me right now,” he said, “but I do really like you. I want to date you.” He asked her to “just hang in there,” if she could “bear it a little longer,” and said it would “get better soon.” He invited her to join him the following evening at a concert for which he had purchased two tickets. Then, they could “see how [he] feel[s].” She remarked that this did not sound terribly romantic, and then he kissed her. 
7. An Indictment for Conspiracy to Cause Lasting Emotional Distress, as punishable by law under the provisions of Leave No Trace, will be filed separately at a later time.
8. The following night, Defendant made dinner, and they cycled together to the jazz concert. Lender purchased drinks. Any objective party would observe that this was a Date. Lender noticed, however, that Defendant recoiled whenever any of her limbs entered a four-inch radius around Defendant’s body. Upon returning home, Lender tried to kiss Defendant good night. In retrospect, this mission was obviously doomed, but Lender had recently adopted a “fail fast” policy with regard to romantic endeavors. He flinched, shook his head, and leaned back. “No?” Lender asked. “No,” Defendant said. “Sorry.” Lender raised an eyebrow and said, “Alright. I’ll see you when I get back.”
9. No further words or messages were exchanged between the two for eleven days. On the twelfth day, Defendant messaged Lender and Housemate to say that he would like to sleep on their couch for two additional days after his scheduled move out. The sentence was devoid of interrogative punctuation. 
10. On her way home from the train station at the end of her business trip, Lender messaged Defendant to ask if they could have a conversation. He replied that he was busy. She replied that it was important. “Yeah, sure, I get it,” Defendant said, “we’ll try to make time.” Defendant was tired because he had been to a music festival the previous day and had Indulged. Could Lender, perhaps, skip the event she was planning to attend that evening upon her return, so that they could get this conversation over with and he could go to bed? Lender refrained from conveying the depth of her rage via WhatsApp, because she was not raised by wolves. Instead, she asked him to please get out.
11. That evening, Lender and Defendant went for a walk to a nearby park. Defendant alleged that he was “fragile” as he was on a comedown from having taken MDMA, and asked Lender to be “gentle” with his emotions. Lender did not say that she believed Defendant to be immature, selfish, irresponsible, and balding. But she did think it, very loudly.
12. On the way to the park, Lender told Defendant, very calmy, in a matter-of-fact sort of way, that she was “so angry” with him. They had had how many conversations about how his behavior was confusing? (Four.) He had agreed, in every instance, that he was not behaving with clarity. He promised, each time, to do better. And then? He had ghosted her while living in her House. 
13. Defendant then loudly accused Lender of trying to kiss him, as if it were pure lunacy to think that he—someone who had slept in her bed and put his arms around her whilst doing dishes—would want to kiss her. It was clear that their outing had not been a “Date,” he said, because he had not explicitly referred to it as a “Date” in written communication. Lender considered whether she had, indeed, “lunged” at Defendant, as alleged. She considered feeling embarrassed, and then realized how it would be seen objectively by passersby: She was calm, poised, confident, clear; he was loud, jumpy, irritable. Also, she was hot. Any objective passerby would find him a fool.
14. They sat down on a bench and Lender stated the obvious: They should not continue to see each other. “I’m sorry I couldn’t give you what you need,” Defendant said. “And what is it, exactly, that you think I need?” Lender asked. “It sounds like you think I’m asking for something unreasonable.”
    “No, no, not at all,” Defendant said. “You need someone who wants to be with you. And I don’t.”
15. Lender was not impressed.

COUNTS THREE THROUGH SIX

(Inadequate Cleaning of Backpacking Equipment, two counts — 17 G.R.C. § 492; Failure to Acknowledge or Replace Broken Equipment, two counts — 17 G.R.C. § 497)

• The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Indictment are re-alleged and fully incorporated here by reference.
• Two months after Defendant left the House in a fit of rage because Lender declined to host him as a couch surfer without compensation, Lender began packing for an overnight trek in Cornwall. She struggled to find her Ultralight Pillow and Sleeping Pad, and messaged Defendant to ask if he remembered where he had put them. He did not respond. 
• Eventually, Lender found both pieces of equipment tucked inside a duffel bag stashed at the back of the closet. On a whim, she inflated the Pillow, whereupon it ballooned like a beach ball—suspicious. Upon further examination, Lender noticed that the Pillow was ripped on the inside. Lender then re-examined the Titanium Pot and discovered that its Stuff Sack was dirty and slashed. Upon removing the lid, she discovered that a whole, crusty oat was plastered in its crease. She remembered how she had caught Defendant, on more than one occasion, rinsing glasses and kitchen utensils instead of washing them. In retrospect: Red Flag.
• Upon return from Cornwall, Lender initiated platonic yet regrettable contact with Defendant. Defendant then reflected fondly upon their shared tenure in the House, which “was fun until it got too involved, although that was fun, too,” wink wink. When Lender did not respond, he sent an apology for the “flirtatious” infraction, followed almost immediately by a proposal to hook up. “Maybe I’m just being a royal twit,” he wrote, but maybe there was still something “there,” between them? Without any sort of commitment on his part, of course. That evening, Defendant committed yet another instance of emotional whiplash: “Actually,” he wrote, “I’m really tired and, thinking about this some more, I don’t have the energy to start something. Sorry for being an ass.” 
• Defendant then asked if they could continue being friends. Lender told Defendant, respectfully, in no uncertain terms, to kindly lose her number off the side of a cliff.

COUNTS SEVEN AND EIGHT

(Conspiracy to De-Insulate Sleeping Bag — 17 G.R.C. § 561;

Attempted Murder in the Fifth Degree — 17 G.R.C. § 564)

• The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 31 of this Indictment are re-alleged… blah blah.
• Upon returning from the Cape Wrath Trail, Defendant admitted to Lender that he had gotten the sleeping bag “quite wet.” He hung it over the banister outside his bedroom door to air it out. It was not until after the dissolution of the Romantic Entanglement and subsequent war crime against the Friend Zone that Lender noticed a faint and unfamiliar odor wafting from her Sleeping Bag, which is a discontinued model that cannot be replaced. She was packing for a seventy-five-mile trek in Swedish Lapland and did not have time to seek professional cleaning, nor did she wish to engage Defendant in written communication to demand damages for abuse of Equipment and trust. With no other choice, Lender packed the Sleeping Bag and all other aforementioned Equipment and left the country.
• The first night of the trip was not a cold evening, and Lender was dressed appropriately in wool baselayers. Upon laying out her Sleeping Bag for the first time since Defendant’s use of the product, Lender saw that it had been discolored in odd splotches, as if someone had spilled something on it and neglected to clean it up. 
• After settling into her Sleeping Bag within the walls of a three-season tent, in the literal Arctic, Lender observed that something felt odd. The Sleeping Bag had kept her warmer under colder conditions in the past. She examined the product closely and saw that it was leaking feathers. She considered the seventy-five-mile trek ahead of her, and the grim forecast for wind and rain. At the cost of carrying extra weight for six days, she stuffed additional layers into the compartment reserved for critical caloric fuel (“Snickers Bars”). If he’d wanted her dead, he should have just said. 

SENTENCING AND FINAL JUDGEMENT

WHEREAS the Defendant has been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all charges

AND WHEREAS the Court recognizes the emotional distress caused by such flagrant lack of care for Lender’s Equipment, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Eternal rainfall shall follow Defendant on every hiking trip for the rest of his life.
2. Defendant shall be sentenced to 500 hours of latrine cleaning at Death Valley National Park, in summer, when his personality will match the stench.

Defendant shall henceforth be restricted to the use of one (1) musty Coleman tent which has been rotting in Lender’s parents’ basement since 1985. Defendant needs gear that will be there for him, and this won’t.