Legal Juice

Certainly a Judge must control the courtroom. How a Judge may do this, not surprisingly, is determined by the law. One tool is the power to hold someone in contempt. [Hint: It's a power used, a lot, below.] According to the Supreme Court, if the sentence imposed for contempt is less than 6 months, there is no right to a jury trial. Now, to our man in Maryland.

In 1990, Mr. Johnson was convicted of malicious destruction of personal property, placed on probation, and given a 3-year suspended sentence. He had to stay out of trouble for 3 years. Unfortunately, in 1991 he was convicted of burglary, and sentenced to 10 years. So Mr. Johnson is in jail for a couple years, when he is called to court for violating his 1990 probation - with just 10 days remaining on the 3-year suspended sentence.

Althought the prospect of serving an additional 3 years - on top of the 10 years he was already serving - did not sit well with him, his probation agent told him that the State would not seek to tack on the additional 3 years for violating his probation. WRONG! The Judge added on the 3 years, and a lively, lengthy, colorful conversation ensued. And just when you think it might be over ...

THE COURT: Call the next case please. [PROSECUTOR]: State calls Eugene Wright ...

MR. JOHNSON: -- at the same time. Don't make no motherfucking sense.

THE COURT: Bring him back. Take him back.

MR. JOHNSON: No motherfucking sense.

THE COURT: Pull him back.

MR. JOHNSON: Yo, man, stop yanking on my motherfucking arms. Motherfucking --

THE COURT: Sit him back over there in front of the table. [Uh-oh]

THE CLERK: Give me the file back. He might be under contempt of court.

THE COURT: Now, stand up there. Come back to that table there. Step on up now. What's wrong with you?

MR. JOHNSON: What the fuck you think wrong with me, man? Goddamn, I'm trying to tell you I ain't have no motherfucking option in this shit, man.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. JOHNSON: What the fuck? You think everybody just want to go sit in prison for the rest of their life because you ain't got nothing better to do than to sit up there and crack jokes. This ain't no motherfucking joke, man. This is about my goddamn life.

THE COURT: That cost you five months and twenty-nine days in addition to the three years I've just given you [#1, and suspiciously shy of the 6 months that would require a jury trial]

MR. JOHNSON: Fuck this shit, man.

Continue reading "Judge Gets F-Bombed, And More. The Penalty?" »

Attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent their clients. Clients hire lawyers to do just that. And judges apply the laws as written, except those darned activist judges (which is all of them, depending, of course, on who you ask.)

Down in Florida, William Grisham found himself charged with assault. The State asked that he be committed to a mental hospital. During that time, the 180 days within which a trial is required to take place expired. His attorney told the judge that, according to a recent Florida law, his client must be released because his right to a speedy trial was violated. The attorney pointed out that the law specifically states that people committed to mental hospitals don't lose their right to a speedy trial. So what do you think the judge had to say to that?

That may be the law but ...

Continue reading "Judge Says Law Is "Dumb." Florida Court of Appeals Says ...?" »

And some folks say civility no longer exists in the legal profession. In the case of Avista Management, Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Co., Judge Presnell (United States District Court - Florida - Orlando Division) would no doubt agree. The attorneys in the case, whose offices are in the same building, could not agree on where to hold a deposition. Judges HATE to be pulled into such minor disputes. So, when Avista's attorney filed a "Motion to Designate Location of a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition," Judge Presnell denied it, and issued a novel ruling, paving the way for the first RPS Showdown.

"Instead, the Court will fashion a new form of alternative dispute resolution, to wit ..." Enough legal jargon. The Judge ordered that the attorneys, each with a paralegal as a witness, play "one (1) game of 'rock, paper, scissors'" [the RPS Showdown] on the front steps of the Courthouse on June 30, 2006. Of course, the Judge chose the Courthouse steps only "if counsel cannot agree on a neutral site." Well, their offices are in the same building ... (Click here to read the two page Order.)

So, with the big game just days away, due to either pre-game jitters, or the thought of scores of TV cameras focused on the event, the attorneys agreed on a location for the deposition. (I'm guessing that the game did take place - behind closed doors.) Noting that "with civility restored (at least for now)," Judge Presnell vacated his widely hailed "rock, papaer, scissors" Order. The RPS Showdown was not to be. (Click here to see the Order.)

Civility was short-lived. In the next few months, the case docket reflects more than 70 entries, the vast majority of which dealt with discovery disputes which, as you now know, judges HATE to be bothered with. But alas, all good things must come to an end. And so it was that on November 17, 2006, the parties put the "civil" back in "civil litigation" with the filing of a "Notice of Settlement" and an Order dismissing the case.

So much for customer service. In a Fairfax County, Virginia Food Lion, a customer and a Food Lion manager got into an argument over the use of certain coupons. It goes without saying that coupon use is a very contentious issue. So perhaps it's not surprising that the manager then knocked over the customer's grocery cart. While leaving the store, the customer was pelted in the back with an egg - thrown by the store manager. Ever loyal, other store employees laughed at the customer, and refused to provide information about how to file a complaint with Food Lion's corporate office.

Perhaps not being satisfied with landing only one egg, the store manager filed criminal trespass charges against the customer. At the criminal trespass trial, since nobody from Food Lion showed, the case was dismissed. The customer then sued Food Lion for malicious prosecution and assault, and was awarded $3,800 in punitive damages, and $1,200 in attorney's fees. Alam v. Food Lion, Inc., Fairfax County General District Court.

You be the judge. Over a period of years, Florida Judge Sheldon Schapiro engaged in the following conduct [which he admitted to in a Stipulation submitted to the Court] which is set forth in the Florida Supreme Court's opinion.

A motorcyclist killed a child and fled the scene. At the bond hearing for the motorcyclist [to determine if he could post bond and leave jail pending trial], the child's mother was present. The assistant state's attorney told the Judge that the mother of the victim wanted to address the court. The Judge responded by saying "What do I need to hear from the mother of a [dead] kid for? All she will tell me is to keep the guy in custody and never let him out." (The Judge says he used the word "deceased," not "dead." Sure.)

An assistant state's attorney, who was 8 months pregnant, was hospitalized due to pregnancy complication on the third day of a trial before Judge Schapiro. Due to the hospitalization, she requested a continuance. HE DENIED IT! Against doctor's orders, the attorney returned to court to finish trying the case.

That same attorney was arguing a motion to revoke bond [to force someone charged with a crime to post bond or go to jail pending his/her trial] before Judge Schapiro. He "summoned [her] to the backroom behind [his] bench and told her that she needed to emulate the style of male attorneys when addressing the court because male attorneys did not get as emotional about their cases as the female attorneys did."

As a criminal defense attorney was making an argument in a sexual battery case, you cut him off and said, 'Do you know what I think of your argument' ..., at which time you pushed a button on a device that simulated the sound of a commode flushing.

When the Judge thought an attorney was talking, he said "Why do I always have to treat you like a school child?" The attorney responded that the Judge routinely treated everyone in his courtroom like a school child. He was ordered out of the courtroom.

Not finally- but you get the idea - the Florida Supreme Court found that

In violation of Canon 1, Canon 2A, and Canon 3B(4), you have fallen into a general pattern of rude and intemperate behavior by needlessly interjecting yourself into counsel's examinations of witnesses; embarrassing and belittling counsel in court; and questioning the competence of counsel by making remarks such as, 'What, are you stupid?"

So what was the Judge's punishment? Lose his job as a judge?

Continue reading "Justice for Nasty, Belittling, Heartless Florida Judge?" »

If your honor has been besmirched, or if someone has 14 items in the "10 items or less" line, and "rock, paper, scissors" just won't do, consider challenging the offender to a duel. If you are in Rhode Island, though, try flipping a coin. DO NOT CHALLENGE YOUR OPPONENT TO A DUEL.

Merely challenging a person to a duel will get you 1-7 years in jail, as will accepting the challenge, whether the duel is fought or not! And don't ask your friend to set it up. That offense is punishable by up to 5 years in jail.

Undeterred, you decide to have the duel anyway, netting you another 1-7 years. Go alone. Anyone who helps you, acts as your second, or comes as your "surgeon," is looking at up to 5 years.

Jail time or not, you will not be denied. So you decide to have the duel in another state. Vengeful? Yes. Stupid? Perhaps. If you have the duel in another state, and injure your equally clever opponent, who then dies in Rhode Island, you have just committed murder! And both seconds are accessories to murder.

True, one guy may be dead. But on the plus side, a score has been settled, and you and the seconds may be off the hook. If you were smart enough to pick a state that does not frown upon dueling (oh, maybe Virginia - one of the 29 states where an ordinary citizen can get a permit to walk around with a concealed handgun) and that state clears you of wrongdoing, you walk baby!

If you are thinking that dueling is outdated, and that you'll just meet your opponent for an old-fashioned, bare-knuckled fight, think again. "Fighting by appointment" is punishable by up to 10 years or $5,000. In Rhode Island anyway, perhaps spontaneity is the best course. In Virginia, North Carolina, Idaho, Ohio, Louisiana, Florida ... where some folks walk around with loaded handguns - perhaps not.

Please remember as you read this (you can read the entire opinion here) that this guy wants to be a lawyer, and was rejected by the New Mexico Board of Bar Examiners. He appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court. Here are a few excerpts from the opinion:

Petitioner Elliot Oppenheim (“Oppenheim”) petitions this Court to review the State Board of Bar Examiner’s (“the Board”) denial of his application for admission to the New Mexico Bar (“the Bar”). The Board found that Oppenheim failed to carry his burden of establishing that he was a person of good moral character. See Rule 15-103(C) NMRA. In his petition, Oppenheim challenges the findings of the Board and the adequacy of the administrative procedures used by the Board in conducting its investigation and hearings.

I know, blah, blah, blah. Read on.

Oppenheim was born in New York in 1947, and received a medical degree from the University of California at Irvine in 1973. He was licensed to practice medicine in the States of California and Washington beginning in 1974. Beginning in 1978, Oppenheim used his medical license to procure cocaine for his own use and for distribution to another. Oppenheim was convicted in 1980 of two felony counts: one of acquiring a controlled substance (cocaine) by misrepresentation, fraud, and deception in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3), and one of distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Footnote He received a three-year suspended sentence, was placed on probation for three years, and was ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment and to perform 600 hours of community service. He successfully completed his sentence in 1982.

Okay. Did the crime, did the time. In 1981, Washington reinstated his medical license. A decade goes by, and then, snap!

In May of 1991, the Medical Disciplinary Board summarily suspended Oppenheim’s medical license based on charges that (a) he had not appropriately treated a patient with emotional and mental problems, resulting in her hospitalization; and (b) he had incorrectly intubated an unconscious patient, shortly after which the patient died.

Continue reading "Wow. Former Doctor, Wannabe Lawyer Gets Slammed! " »

I really don't know where to start with this Maryland law, so here it is:

A person may not sell or offer for sale a contraceptive device, whether or not advertised as a prophylactic, by means of a vending machine or other automatic device at a kindergarten, nursery school ...

So, I guess that means no "condom" slot in the soda machine? How will the teachers cavort safely? Oh Maryland, what have you done? Click here to read the statute.

This is not your garden variety "babe-calling" case. Ms. Aude sued Mr. Mullaney for negligently giving her herpes. (The jury found that he did, but that she was "contributorily negligent.") Mr. Mullaney was represented by Allen Harris (and Benjamin Lipsitz). Ms. Aude was represented by Susan Green and Gary Bernstein.

At Ms. Aude's deposition, "as [she] was leaving the room to retrieve [a] document, Mr. Harris remarked that she was going to meet '[a]nother boyfriend' at the car. Ms. Green and Mr. Bernstein quickly told Mr. Harris that his comment was in poor taste and asked him to refrain from making further derogatory comments. The following ensued:"

MR. MULLANEY: It's going to be a fun trial. [Oh, and he's a lawyer, too. Very professional, no?]
MR. HARRIS: It must have been in poor taste if Miss Green says it was in poor tasted. It must have really been in poor taste.
MS. GREEN: You got a problem with me?
MR. HARRIS: No, I don't have a problem with you, babe. [uh oh]
MS. GREEN: Babe? You called me babe? What generation are you from?
MR. HARRIS: At least I didn't call you a bimbo. [have shovel, will dig]
MR.LIPSITZ: Cut it out.
MS. GREEN: The committee will enjoy hearing about that.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Alan, you ought to stay out of the gutter.

"According to Ms. Green's legal assistant, Harris's reference to Ms. Green as 'babe' continued throughout the litigation. In an affidavit ... she stated that 'in the course of her employment, [Mr. Harris] did telephone Ms. Green's office and ask, 'Is the babe in?' He also referred to [the legal assistant] as 'babe."

Ms. Green then filed a motion asking the Court to put an end to this conduct (and some other defense conduct), and requested attorneys' fees. So what do you think happened?

Continue reading "Male Lawyer Calls Female Lawyer "Babe." And The Court Says ..." »

If you want to be a taxicab driver in King County, Washington (county seat, Seattle), be advised that you cannot wear shorts, sandals, jogging or warm-up suits or sweatshirts or similar attire, or "any similar clothing." Fortunately, raingear is allowed (unless it looks like a warm-up or a sweatshirt?). Unfortunately, you may not wear underwear "as an outer garment." King County Code Section 6.64.680

If you still want to drive a taxicab in Seattle, heed the following: You must wear "suitable clothes," defined as "full-length pants, collared shirts and shoes." (I'm out, since I only wear a collared shirt in Court, or for my website photo.) You must also be "well groomed," which requires "bathing or showering on a normal basis" (Is there a King County "Bathing and Showering Inspector?"). You must have "hair that is neatly trimmed, beards and mustaches [that] are groomed and neatly trimmed at all times in order not to present a ragged appearance, and scalp and facial hair [that] are combed and brushed." Oh, and a poorly groomed taxicab driver involved in an automobile accident will be presumed to be at fault. (Okay, there is no such presumption. But you had no trouble believing it, right?)

Now, if you are STILL interested, make sure you have no convictions for the following crimes or you're out of luck, no matter how well you dress: use of a machine gun in a felony, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, arson, robbery, and, of course, leading organized crime. King County Code Section 6.64.600. If you are really, really bored, the entire King County, Washington code may be viewed at www.mrsc.org.

OUCH! is a very mild reaction to the words "Lorena Bobbit." (If you're too young to know who she is, click here.) Things were not going well for our featured couple. As the court described it:

Terry Bach and Carol Crawford were in a relationship for over ten years and lived together for a period of time. In December of 1999, Mr. Bach claims that Ms. Crawford mentioned Lorena Bobbitt to him, which he interpreted as threatening, and shortly thereafter, he decided to break up.

This would appear to have been a wise move. ...

Ms. Crawford also placed cut up pictures of Mr. Bach in a box of belongings he was supposed to pick up...Additionally, Ms. Crawford called Mr. Bach's mother and stopped by her residence, often asking about the new women in Mr. Bach's life.... Also, in the spring of 2000, Ms. Crawford was arrested for criminal trespassing on mr. Bach's property and convicted. As a result of the conviction, Ms. Crawford's brother hired a private investigator, Ms. Thacker... Ms. Thacker and Ms. Crawford appeared at a restaurant where Mr. Bach was eating and photographed him with another woman and the woman's vehicle... Mr. Bach also alleges that Ms. Crawford drove behind him ... and videotaped him... Also, in December of 2000, Mr. Bach found a man in the parking lot of a Sears store who was videotaping him. Mr. Bach approached him and took the videotape from the man, but he was unable to get the man's name or license plate number. Mr. Bach has no evidence connecting this incident to Ms. Crawford [Yeah, probably just a coincidence!!!!!]

Setting aside the Lorena Bobbit threat (and the cut-up pictures - I see a theme evolving), of the few women I broke up with before they beat me to it (I can count them on one finger), I think I would be flattered if someone was so obsessed with me. Well, Mr. Bach was not flattered. He sought a domestic violence protective order. Do you think he got it?

Continue reading "Girlfriend Invokes "Lorena Bobbit," Boyfriend Seeks Protective Order" »

This current (as are all laws on the Juice) Alabama law is just flat-out weird. Here it is.

Section 30-1-3 - Issue of incestuous marriages not deemed illegitimate.

The issue of any incestuous marriage, before the same is annulled, shall not be deemed illegitimate.

(Code 1852, §1945; Code 1867, §2334; Code 1876, §2673; Code 1886, §2310; Code 1896, §2840; Code 1907, §4880; Code 1923, §8994; Code 1940, T. 34, §3.)

Here's the link to the Alabama Code.

Ms. Lowe [cue the villain music] was driving Mr. Moffet's car (insured by State Farm) when [warning: tree violence] it struck and damaged Mr. Fisher's "beautiful oak tree." Naturally, the tree [okay Mr. Fisher] filed suit. Losing at the trial level, the tree appealed. Read the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals to find out who won.

Syllabus (summary)

A wayward Chevy struck a tree Whose owner sued defendants three. He sued car’s owner, driver two, And insurer for what was due For his oak tree that now may bear A lasting need for tender care.

The Oakland County Circuit Court, John N. O’Brien, J., set forth The judgment that defendants sought And quickly an appeal was brought.

Court of Appeals, J.H. Gillis, J., Gave thought and then had this to say: 1) There is no liability Since No-Fault grants immunity; 2) No jurisdiction can be found Where process service is unsound; And thus the judgment, as it’s termed, Is due to be, and is, Affirmed.

Opinion, Before Bronson, P.J., V.J. Brennan, and J.H. Gillis, JJ.

J.H. GILLIS, Judge.

We thought that we would never see A suit to compensate a tree.

A suit whose claim in tort is prest
Upon a mangled tree’s behest;

A tree whose battered trunk was prest
Against a Chevy’s crumpled crest;

A tree that faces each new day
With bark and limb in disarray;

A tree that may forever bear
A lasting need for tender care.

Flora lovers though we three,
We must uphold the court’s decree.

Affirmed.

Fisher v. Lowe, Moffet and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Docket No. 60732.
Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Just when I was planning to hold the First Annual Cross-Dressing, Pinball Marathon in Big Bear, California, I came across three major legal hurdles on the books of Big Bear.

No person over the age of sixteen years shall by costume, makeup or disguise, impersonate a person of the opposite sex on or in any public street, sidewalk, park or place, except when such costume, makeup or disguise is worn or assumed in participation of some public celebration, holiday, parade or event.

Why oh why would a law like this be necessary? Was there a slate of cross-dressers who nearly took over Big Bear Lake? The good folk of the city must head for the hills on Halloween and International Crossdressers Day (It's January 30th, according to Laura Amato.)

Pinball? In this fair city,

It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to keep, maintain, possess or have under control in any place whatever, either as owner, lessee ..., any table game or device commonly known as a 'pinball machine' ... or similar device by whatever name known, the operation, use or play of which is controlled by placing any coin, plate, disk, key or other device, or by the payment of any fee.

And if you dare to defy this ban on the devil's diversion device, the machine will be declared a "nuisance," and "shall be destroyed with its contents by the sheriff..." Of course, "If the machine contains money, such money shall be deposited in the city general fund."

And endurance contests? Forget about it.

It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association of persons to conduct, carry on, operate or cause or permit to be conducted, carried on or operated, or for any person to participated in any public marathon dance, walkathon, endurathon, speedathon or any such public human endurance dancing or walking contest or exhibition, within the city, outside of municipal operations.

Should you think about flouting this law, a conviction is punishable by imprisonment of up to six months in the county jail. Legend has it that one man convicted under this law protested by staging a dance-in-place-in-your-cell-athon. He was charged with another violation, the cycle continued, and he remains in jail to this day. Click here to see all three laws.

The manager of The Daily Grill restaurant in Washington, DC alleged that he was fired because he complained that other employees sexually harassed him. He sued his employer for gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation. In employment cases, the employer invariably files a motion for summary judgment, stating that, even if everything the complaining party says is true, the claim is legally insufficient, and should be dismissed.

So what were the allegations?

By way of example, Plaintiff contends that ... the General Manager of the Georgetown location and [Plaintiff's] direct supervisor told him, in front of other employees that "he reminded her of "Pee-Wee Herman," that "no woman could ever be interested in him sexually," and that "the only sexual gratification he would ever experience would have to come by his own hand." Furthermore, on one occasion, a fellow co-worker ... allegedly pulled down her pants in front of [the Plaintiff] in the management office and revealed her underwear to him."

So, do you think that, if the facts as alleged are true, he has a valid claim for gender discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation?

Continue reading "Playing The "Pee Wee Herman" Card" »