Conrad Noise Ruling: Restricted Hours, No Restrictions on Feeling

Around the District

Conrad Noise Ruling: Restricted Hours, No Restrictions on Feeling

Nest Court, Chamber B · Court Desk

Hon. M. Owl has issued the ruling in Municipal District v. Conrad (AMNC-2026-011A).

The Court found that the Respondent's pre-dawn vocal performances constituted a noise disturbance under Avian Municipal Ordinance 9.3(a), but declined to impose a full singing ban.

Instead, the Court has ordered a "quiet hours" restriction prohibiting amplified or sustained vocal performance between 9 PM and 6:30 AM. The Court's written opinion noted: "The Respondent is permitted to feel whatever he feels. He is not permitted to feel it at volume before sunrise."

Conrad was observed leaving the courtroom without comment. By Wednesday he had been heard singing at 6:34 AM, which technically complies.

R. Nuthatch of Municipal Oak, who filed the original complaint, told this publication the ruling was "a start." He then added, "Four minutes past the limit is not compliance. It is a position."

Court Notices

Avian Municipal Nest Court — Branch Division

Default Ruling Entered — AMNC-2026-014B

Pigeon v. Pigeon. Nest abandonment (uncontested). Default ruling entered in favor of the Petitioner. The Respondent did not appear, file an answer, or acknowledge service. The Clerk's office notes that service was confirmed via the third bench at Municipal Park, where the Respondent has been reliably located between 5:30 and 7:15 PM for approximately nine weeks.

The nest is awarded to the Petitioner. The Respondent retains the bench, which was never contested.

Classified

FREE: Answering machine, functional

Contains fourteen saved messages. Thirteen are from the same number. The fourteenth is a wrong number that said "Sorry, thought you were someone else," which the owner has kept because it was the kindest thing anyone said to him that month.

Owner is upgrading to silence.

Pickup: third bench, Municipal Park, evenings. Ask for Dennis. He will be the one already sitting there.

Personal

MALE, MOCKINGBIRD, AGE UNDISCLOSED

Recently the subject of legal proceedings. Not bitter. Not entirely over it. Currently exploring what it means to express yourself within court-mandated hours.

Looking for someone who appreciates music, or at least does not describe it as "emotionally specific." I have been told my singing is "about someone." It is about everyone. That is what singing is.

Mornings preferred. After 6:30 AM. This is not a preference. It is a legal requirement.

Reply to: Box MC-11. I will sing your letter back to you if you ask nicely.

Karen Hawk

Attorney at Law · Rapid Descents · Clean Separations

Specializing in contested nest divisions, emergency no-perch orders, and situations where he says it was "just drinks." Eighteen years of family law experience. Exposed to every version of "it's not what it looks like." Still not impressed.

"She got me the branch, the eggs, and an apology I could use in future proceedings." — former client

Free consultation · Evening and weekend appointments

I do not do couples counseling. That ship has sailed, sunk, and been entered into evidence.

Letters

Letters to the Editor

Letters may be edited for length and clarity. Views expressed are the author's.

Dear Editor,

I am the starling who has been sitting on the third bench at Municipal Park. I want to clarify that I am not there because of the pigeon. I am there because it is a good bench.

I did not know the pigeon was going to be there when I started sitting there and I did not arrange to return at the same time each evening. I just did. He just did. We have not discussed this.

I am writing because someone on my block described us as "a situation" and I want it on the record that sitting near someone without speaking is not a situation. It is a bench.

— E. Starling, Municipal Park (by way of the east end)