Usually, statements made when you're pleading guilty tend to consist of "I'm sorry," which doesn't accomplish much. Few judges look thoughtful and say, "Whoa, remorse from someone facing the consequences of his actions? Well, that changes everything." So it's noteworthy when someone tries something different, and we saw that last week when a chap convicted of "disruption" at the 2008 Republican National Convention attempted to read from "The Lorax," by Dr. Seuss, an environmental parable. Several thoughts come to mind:

• This would be more effective if there was established case law, such as "The Lorax v. the City of Whoville," which clearly laid out a precedent for the right to consider the use of whatsis and whosis as well as gimfoot framzoosits in the act of civil disobedience.

• Quoting from "Horton Hears a Gross Miscarriage of Justice" might have been more germane to a court of law, or perhaps "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, But Was Released When the Surveillance Tapes Proved Inconclusive."

• The Cat in the Hat could have been called as a character witness, but the prosecution might have pointed out that he was actually a Cat with a Hat, and was wanted in several jurisdictions for destruction of property, along with other members of the notorious Thing Gang.

• Quoting Seuss is dangerous, because you never know if you've got a judge who secretly likes green eggs, especially with ham.

The judge cut off the reading. Why? Granted, rhyming parables don't sway the justice system like they used to, but it's possible the judge did not want to allow children's literature to be used in a court of law. Once you open that door, every smart lawyer will start using them. Tom Petters could get an appeal in a trice. Imagine his lawyer summing it up for 12 citizens good and true:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what is the essence of business? Confidence. Optimism. Yes, the challenges are great, the grade ahead steep, but the businessman believes in himself. Now, imagine you believe that getting new investors to pay off the old ones will solve your problem. Some may look at my client and say he ran a Ponzi scheme, but I look at him and see a man who woke every day and said, "I think I can, I think I can." If they wrote that book today, it would be called "The Little Engine Who Could Strategically Reposition Liquid Assets," and we would call it a classic. If I may read an excerpt, to remind you of the challenges entrepreneurs face today?

Next on the docket, Denny Hecker, whose lawyer has to explain how he gets the money to support his lifestyle:

If I may quote some ancient wisdom, your honor: Denny Hecker picked a peck of pickled paper, and those loans and mortgages were pre-pickled before Hecker picked the peck of paper. The peck was packed. Prosecutors may protest, but we pray you permit us to produce proof he's paid for his post-prominence perks by, uh, selling seashells by the seashore.

Remember Trevor Cook, the guy who was convicted of a pyramid scheme that involved precious metals? Cue the attorney:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Which parent among us forgets this timeless verse of Seuss? "My feet are cold / my tooth is gold / I have a bird I like to hold." I maintain there is a stark truth about investment contained in those few wise lines. The feet represent institutional inertia, the "cold feet" fear that keeps us from systemic change, and makes us demonize the risk-takers; the gold tooth represents the commodities market, manipulated for a shady cabal that would hang my client up to dry, and the bird is us, the American Eagle. It's all there, stark as can be.

You think: If they laid that line on me, I'd vote for super-extra guilty. Perhaps. Prosecutors could use the Seuss Precedent to their own advantage, of course, especially if someone is up for Hopping on Pop, and it's his third offense. But most children's stories seem to argue for the defense, don't they? Except the Peter Rabbit stories. When you consider the facts, Farmer McGregor was really in the right. That was his lettuce. If the rabbits of the book could figure out a way to dress themselves and build tiny, adorable furniture, they should have figured out a way to grow supper.

That case is currently on appeal.

jlileks@startribune.com • 612-673-7858 More daily at www.startribune.com/blogs/lileks.