Passing judgement on scam

I have a problem with feet. I'm not ashamed to admit that. 

As  the following piece of foot-rot of an ad involves a graphic visual of  human cheese processors, I had to refer the consultation to one of our other colleagues, The Honorable Judge.

Below is the visual and what The Honorable Judge passed as his judgement. 

"The evidence brought forward by the Plaintiff - The Prophet (here-on-to-hence-forth referred to as P) in the case of 'P vs Brazilian Ad Scammers' (the latter, here-on-to-hence-forth referred to as THE SCAMMERS) brought in question as to whether the execution displays a gross intent of ad scamming.

As the real Big Idea behind advertising is to sell a product, and not to deter potential consumers from:

(i) engaging with The Brand,

(ii) purchasing products offered by the said Brand, and

(iii) learned Judges such as I always need a third sub-point in order to demonstrate our condemnation of grotesque violation of The Code of Good Advertising Practice, as stipulated under Act 98 of 1764, Section 31C, Subsection (iv) - (aa -af).

The main point of contention arose in this case whereby the accused  (THE SCAMMERS) displays objectionable object(s) - in this case a visual of human feet - and whether the object(s) grossly violates the Premium nature of the brand, an affirmative answer of which would demonstrate 'questionable Strategic Objectives'. 

'Questionable Strategic Objectives' weighs heavily against the accused, on a balance of probabilities that the "ad" in question indeed violates  The Code of Good Advertising Practice, as stipulated under Act 98 of 1764, Section 31C, Subsection (iv) - (aa -af). 

Evidence presented regarding  the offending object(s) in the promotion of a Premium wine brand indeed shows that: 

'The foot has more than 250,000 sweat glands. It's the mixture of sweat and bacteria in our shoes and socks that makes feet smelly.'

The discongruency shown by the evidence brought to light indeed proves that the object(s) in question do not marry the Premium nature of the brand, as no consumer who fit under the description of 'sound and reasonable mind' would want to be reminded of how the primary ingredient in their $X bottle of wine was processed with the use of such unhygienic body parts, and in such unhygienic fashion.

As such, the evidence precludes me from finding in favour of THE SCAMMERS, as was precedented in the case of P vs The Saudi Scammers in Case  76, 2004 (CHS)."

______________________________________________________________________

SO: there you have it, Scam-Hating Friends. Can't really argue against that can you? I guess you can always take it up on appeal but all i can say is "good luck".