Legal Juice

American Airlines Pilot James Yates showed up at the Manchester, England airport for the Manchester- to-Chicago flight. Yes he was a little late, and DRUNK! Almost 8 times the legal limit.

It seems that Mr. Yates had been out drinking with his two co-pilots the night before. He visited at least 4 pubs before returning to his hotel. He then took a sedative around midnight. He was awakened at 9:00 a.m. the next morning by his captain's banging on the door. But what about that bottle of Irish whiskey he had purchased the day before? One-third of it was gone! Mr. Yates said he had no memory of drinking it.

When he arrived at the airport, Yates could not find his security pass. He smelled strongly of alcohol and had a red face. Hmmmmm. He was charged with carrying out an activity ancillary to an aviation function while over the drink limit.

HIs trial lasted three days. Testifying for Mr. Yates were senior American Airlines executives, and Brigadier General Thomas Botchie, who was a fighter pilot with Mr. Yates. The defense theory was a good one - he never intended to fly. He went to the airport (in full uniform) to tell his captain that he was unable to fly. Did the jury believe him?

Continue reading "Drunk Pilot Claims Sleep-Drinking" »

This feels like an "only in New York" story. The Taubs hate each other. (Simon Taub built a wall dividing their townhouse in 2 to keep them apart.) Two years ago, Chana Taub filed for divorce, alleging that Simon subjected her to cruel and inhuman treatment. (Does it surprise you that Simon is described as a "millionaire sweater mogul?") She asked that a jury decide the case, thinking that they would give her a better shake than a judge. BIG MISTAKE, Chana. The 10-day trial - which included allegations that Simon attacked her with a telephone and a treadmill [?!], and testimony from all four kids against Simon - just ended.

Simon won! The judge dismissed the case. (New York does not have a "no-fault" divorce law, resulting in cases just like the Taubs, who now must remain married.)

On the very night of the jury's decision, Chana tried to serve Simon with a protective order. She claims that, when she was trying to do so, Simon punched her in the eye. Not to be outdone, the day after the divorce case was dismissed, Simon went to court to get an order of protection against Chana! Oh, and they each think that the other is going to murder them. I can tell you 2 people who will make sure that won't happen - their divorce lawyers, who are getting mighty fat from this case!

To read more about the Taubs, click here.

Zoinks. Judge Kerry Evans was before the Ontario Judicial Council in 2004. The charges included:

patting the groins and buttocks of co-workers;

French-kissing co-workers;

force-feeding Jujubes to his co-workers; and

engaging in oral sex with a court worker in his office washroom.

In his defense to the "oral sex in the washroom" charge, Judge Evans submitted photographs of his shaved genital area, taken by his brother. Why, you might wonder? Because if the incident really happened, surely she would have mentioned this. Brilliant! The old "shaved balls" defense. (Actually, for a variety of reasons, probably not the photographs (!), he prevailed as to that allegation.)

Alas, Judge Evans resigned from the bench in 2004 before he was sanctioned for misconduct. He recently applied for reinstatement to the bar, and got it! He may return to the legal profession after spending 2 years working for another lawyer, which he is now doing. To read more about this, click here.

This is just WRONG! Nobody disputes that you paid your taxes ON TIME, and you still get assessed a 10% late fee! Ms. Jansen, of the village of Sleepy Hollow (really) in Westchester County, New York, tried to pay her property tax bill on-line ($6,516.84 for 6 months!) 5 days early. Her payment was rejected because the town requires payment by check, in an envelope postmarked on or before the due date. So the Sleepy Hollow Bank issued a check for the taxes, which was sent 5 days early, and which the village acknowledges it received before the due date. Yet they still hit Ms. Jansen with a 10% late charge, plus a $2 fee! ($653.68)! Guess why?

Because her bank issues checks through Bill Pay, which uses bulk mail, which does not produce a postmark! Surely the Bill Pay log showing that the taxes were timely paid would satisfy the town, right? Wrong. While the Sleepy Hollow tax collector admitted that the law was antiquated, she said that she could not accept a bank log as proof of timely payment!

Oh, and if she doesn't pay the late charge by this Friday, March 30, she'll be hit with another penalty!

Willie Cheatham (his real name!) found himself out with his girlfriend, and out of cash. So he called his father about borrowing some money, then took a cab to his house. Per the court:

When he arrived, the men began arguing about the defendant's habit of borrowing money and about his girlfriend, whom the elder Cheatham called a 'slut' and a 'whore.'

Very, very bad move by the elder Cheatham.

Several minutes later, the defendant [Willie Cheatham] took a knife from the kitchen and proceeded into his father's bedroom, where he stabbed his father sixty-eight times with two different knives. Also, at some point, the defendant hit his father with a glass vase, fracturing his skull. The defendant took $78.00 from his father before taking a taxi back to the bar where his girlfriend was waiting.

So what do you think happened to Willie?

Continue reading "Dad, Give Me The Money And Don't Call My Girlfriend A Slut... Or Else!" »

Just ask Lennart Widahr, who secretly lived (through two marriages) as a transvestite. He applied to the Swedish National Tax Board (yes, the Skatteverket) to change his name to "Pia." Oh no they didn't! That liberal, welfare state? They shot him down. The only way he can change his name to a female name, per the court, is to have a sex change operation. Damn! So they're encouraging a sex change operation over a name change? Good thing Sweden is not a world power. (Please, Swedes, don't go nuts with the e-mails.)

You know that Pia (hey, I'm not bound by the Skatteverket, not that I'm encouraging Mr. Widahr to skirt the law) appealed the decision. And he lost. You can read more about it here.

Sometimes a little effort goes a long way. Just ask one lawyer, Mr. Puricelli (who represented a man successfully in a civil rights case), who got upbraided for repeatedly failing to fix typos in his court filings. The judge described Mr. Puricelli’s written work as “careless, to the point of disrespectful,” and agreed with the defendants that it was “vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, verbose and repetitive.” What were some of the mistakes? Per the judge:

Throughout the litigation, Mr. Puricelli identified the court as “THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTER [sic] DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.” Considering the religious persuasion of the presiding officer, the “Passover” District would have been more appropriate.” [Judge Jacob Hart, presiding]

Mr. Puricelli, on the other hand, felt the court didn’t understand his side of the story. When the defendant asked the court to reduce Mr. Puricelli’s fees [that they were required by law to pay] due to his typos, Mr. Puricelli wrote this reply to the court:

Had the Defendants not tired [sic] to paper Plaintiff's counsel to death, some type [sic] would not have occurred. Furthermore, there have been omissions by the Defendants, thus they should not case [sic] stones.

Do you think the judge reduced Mr. Puricelli’s fees?

Continue reading "Sew Many Typos; So Little Thyme" »

Back by popular demand, (and subpoena by the Judge of Tigerton Dells), it’s the second installment of "The Adventures of Wickstrom.” (click here for Part One.)

We rejoin “Judge” Wickstrom at the conclusion of his second consecutive nine-month sentence for assuming to act as a public official (judge and clerk). And what, you ask, does Wickstrom do with his newfound freedom? He immediately sues a laundry list of Wisconsin state officials for putting him in prison, including two Attorneys General, the Shawano County District Attorney, several other public officials, witnesses in the criminal case, and “all spouses and kin and/or acquaintences [sic] of the [specifically named] Defendants.” When the state judges refused to grant Wickstrom motion for summary judgment, Wickstrom added the judges to the list of defendants too!

While Wickstrom’s “thirty-four-page, twenty-seven-count complaint lacked the descriptive clarity and precision typically characteristic of pleadings,” it was his filing of “numerous writs, notices, affidavits, and motions” that truly demonstrated his legal acumen. What Wickstrom didn’t understand, however, was that most real judicial orders neither have spelling errors such as “Realease” or “Premptory” in their titles nor are signed by the defendant in a case.

Continue reading "The "Judge" Of Tigerton Dells Is Out! “The Adventures of Wickstrom: Part Two”" »

Ms. Eunice Spry may be the worst foster mother ever. Over the course of 20 years, here is some of the abuse she subjected three foster children to:

She forced sticks down their throats.

She starved the kids for a month, keeping them in a locked room, with no clothes.

She made them eat their own vomit, and rat droppings.

She beat them with metal bars and sticks.

She made them drink bleach.

She used sandpaper on one child's face.

She force-fed one child so much "washing-up" liquid that he could differentiate brands by taste.

She forced one child to remain in a wheelchair for 4 years after a car crash just so she could collect more money from the government.

She held one child's hand on a hot light bulb until it turned into a "gooey mess."

And what did Ms. Spry have to say about this?

Continue reading "The Worst Foster Mother EVER!" »

A New Zealand doctor took a number of photographs of his ... genitalia, with his cell phone. You might ask, "Why?" According to the judge, the reasons "still remain largely inexplicable." (Maybe he's nuts - sorry!). Our doctor, whose name the court has not released, tried to send the photos to a female friend with the caption "before." (I don't think we'll ever know what "after" would have been.) Well, the e-mail address was incorrect, so it bounced back. When the doctor tried to delete the photos, he caused them to be archived!

Another sexually explicit e-mail the doctor sent led to the discovery of the "self-portrait." An Employment Court proceeding followed and, as they say in New Zealand, the doctor was sacked. He appealed. How do you think he fared?

Continue reading "Doctor Takes Cell Phone Pictures Of His What?" »

A California (you were thinking Idaho?) patrolman attended a transvestite party where he paid an entrance fee of between $50-$100 with the expectation of receiving sexual gratification. Damned if he wasn’t getting his money’s worth - participating in sexual acts – when the police raided the party and caught him in the act!

When the party was raided, what do you think happened to Patrolman Warren?

Continue reading "Mercy! Police Officer Goes To Transvestite Money-For-Sex Party, Worries About His Machismo" »

Wisconsin Secession: “The Adventures Of ‘Judge’ Wickstrom: Part One”

Talk about a sore loser! What should you do if you were “overwhelmingly defeated” in an election for a town’s highest public office? If you are James Wickstrom of Fairbanks, WI, that’s an easy question: secession! And although “the history of secession in this country should have suggested to Wickstrom that his efforts would be futile,” Wickstrom “seceded” from Shawano County, Wisconsin.

He immediately “formed” his own municipality. He printed a public notice in the local newspaper announcing the creation of the “Constitutional Township of Tigerton Dells” and a meeting date to hold elections for officers. Not surprisingly, Wickstrom was “elected” both clerk and municipal judge of Tigerton Dells. But Wickstrom didn’t stop there. He issued liquor and cigarette licenses, filed documents with legitimate state and local offices indicating his judgeship, and even threatened to sue—in his “official capacity”—the Shawano County Clerk “if she did not cooperate with his demand for official printed ballots.”

So what happened to Wickstrom? Was he laughed out of Tigerton Dells? Sentenced to community service?

Continue reading "Wisconsin Secession: “The Adventures Of ‘Judge’ Wickstrom: Part One”" »

Suspected of smoking in the boys room, you are escorted to the principal's office. Tactically, it's probably not smart to call the principal a "fucker, a fag, and a fucking fag." That's what Mr. L was alleged to have done. And the punishment? Suspension? Expulsion, maybe for a repeat offender? No, young Mr. L was charged with a crime - "Interference with Staff, Faculty or Students of Educational Institutions" - a class three misdemeanor!

His public defender, Eric Vanatta, after asking his client "what the fuck he was thinking" [okay, I added that part], decided to attack the constitutionality of the law, arguing that it violates his client's right to free speech under both the United States and Colorado Constitutions. He does so by tracing the origin of the word, and discussing, in a hilarious way, how pervasive the word is in our culture. No fucking way (cuff me) I can do this justice. So here it is, the entire Motion to Dismiss the Constitutionality of Fuck, "Fucker" and "Fucking Fag"
from Colorado v. C.L., a Child (Dist. Ct. of Larimer County, Co.)

Thanks to Cindy Hill for submitting this Motion to Legal Juice!

So the Idaho Senate decided to pass an "English only" law (Senate Bill 1172). Perhaps they should have looked at their own STATE SEAL that contains the Latin phrase "Esto Perpetua" (which means "let it be perpetual"). Oh, and here is the Idaho Statute that makes "Esto Perpetua" part of the "Great Seal of State."

I propose a new state motto. Instead of "Let it be perpetual," just "Let it be."

A court in Australia has ruled that three children will share in the estate of their sperm donor father. It turns out that the man they thought was their father was infertile. When he died, their mother told them the truth, including the identity of their biological father, Mr. Wijma. When he recently died, the three children claimed a share of his estate, and won, much to the dismay of Mr. Wijma's two children from his earlier marriage. Oh, and just how did the kids prove Mr. Wijma was their dad? Their solicitor (lawyer) plucked an eyebrow [for DNA testing] from Mr. Wijma while he was in the hospital! For more details, read this article.

Mr. Washington's "Motion for Reconsideration" (click hereto see the document) reads as follows:

A while back I filed a Motion for the American People to Kiss My Ass Also Skin Change Operation to White. It's all right to be white. I think it's cool and groovie. But I think I erred with my Motion for a Skin Color Change Operation because that would cost too much money and that would be a waste of taxpayers money. I move this court for a complex change like Michael Jackson; his skin is pretty and white but I decline on the nose job Jacko has; because he really messed up but he is pretty and white. I think it's alright to be white and I move this court on the same.

And the court's ruling?

Continue reading "Motion For A Skin Change Operaton To White (But Not A Nose Job Like Jacko)" »

Ms. Kirkland works at Morton's of Chicago as the catering manager, where her boss is Mr. Hickey, the restaurant manager. According to the court, there is no genuine dispute as to the following (in other words, "it's true"):

that Hickey told Kirkland that she "needed to get laid"; that Hickey told Kirkland to "blow me"; that Hickey asked Kirkland out on a date, which she rejected, the most benign of Hickey's acts; that Hickey called Kirkland a "fat pig"; that he placed his hand inside of Kirkland's blouse; that he asked Kirkland about the color of her bra and whether it matched her panties; that he pulled up Kirkland's dress; that he pulled his pants down and exposed his buttocks to Kirkland; that he put his hand all the way up Kirkland's dress; and that he waved a vibrator at Kirkland and other women.

Quite the charmer. The test for whether he created a "hostile work environment is

whether a reasonable woman would find that Hickey's conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment.

What do you think? Is Hickey a sexual harasser?

Continue reading "Sexaul Harassment Or Not? You Make The Call." »

You would think this is not something any parent needs to be told. You would be wrong. A Staten Island, New York woman put her 3-year-old son in a running dryer. Prosecutors said that the child suffered burns and bruises on his nose, neck, forehead, ears, back and buttocks. As part of the plea deal, the woman was required to attend parenting-skills classes. She failed to attend them! So the judge sentenced her to 90 days in jail. You can read the entire story here.

In almost every jurisdiction, male lawyers must wear a jacket and tie when they appear in court. The idea is to appear dignified and professional – we are, after all, officers of the court. Most attorneys would probably agree that the courtroom is not the place to make a fashion statement.

Tom Cherryhomes, a New Mexico family lawyer, felt otherwise. Per the court,

On September 13, 1991, Cherryhomes appeared in Judge Shuler's courtroom to represent a client in a child abuse/neglect proceeding. Cherryhomes was wearing a short-sleeved, conventional dress shirt with the neck unbuttoned. He had a light blue piece of cloth or bandanna tied around his neck, above his collar, and he was not wearing a jacket.

Judge Schuler reminded Mr. Cherryhomes that ties were required attire in his courtroom. Per the court:

[Cherryhomes] said he was wearing a tie, even if Judge Shuler did not like his choice, and referred to a book on nineteenth century western wear and a dictionary definition of “tie,” which he had brought with him. Judge Shuler disagreed with Cherryhomes's interpretation of the meaning of the local rules requirement of a tie, and found Cherryhomes in contempt, fining him $50.

Cherryhomes requested a hearing, and an opportunity to explain himself. The Judge agreed. Shockingly, the Judge agreed with himself! Based on what you know of this lawyer so far, do you think he appealed? He did. And who do you think won?

Continue reading "Judge And Lawyer Argue Over "Tie." Who Wins?" »

So here are the crimes:

67.5. Theft of crawfish

A. Theft of crawfish is the misappropriation or taking of crawfish belonging to another or proceeds derived from the sale of such crawfish, whether done without the consent of the owner to the misappropriation or taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations, with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the crawfish, or proceeds derived from the sale of the crawfish.

§93.5. Sexual battery of the infirm

A. Sexual battery of the infirm is the intentional engaging in any of the sexual acts listed in Subsection B with another person, who is not the spouse of the offender, when:
(1) The offender compels the victim, who is physically incapable of preventing the act because of advanced age or physical infirmity, to submit by placing the victim in fear of receiving bodily harm.
(2) The victim is incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act by reason of stupor or abnormal condition of the mind produced by an intoxicating, narcotic, or anesthetic agent administered by or with the privity of the offender. ...
B. For purposes of this Section, "sexual acts" mean the following:
(1) The touching of the anus or genitals of the victim by the offender using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the offender; or
(2) The touching of the anus or genitals of the offender by the victim using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the victim.

§45. Simple kidnapping

A. Simple kidnapping is:
(1) The intentional and forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one place to another without his consent.
(2) The intentional taking, enticing or decoying away, for an unlawful purpose, of any child not his own and under the age of fourteen years, without the consent of its parent or the person charged with its custody.
(3) The intentional taking, enticing or decoying away, without the consent of the proper authority, of any person who has been lawfully committed to any orphan, insane, feeble-minded or other similar institution.

So which crime will get you the most time?

Continue reading "Stealing Crawfish Twice, Kidnapping, Or Sexual Battery Of The Infirm? In Louisiana, Which Will Get You More Jail Time?" »

So it's 1978, and two women meet in California and fall in love. They move to New York, where they live together for a number of years. Since they are not allowed to marry in New York, in 1991, they go to Maine, where Ms. Watson, the IBM heiress, legally adopts Ms. Spado, her lover.

Ms. Watson's parents died in 1993 and 1994, leaving trusts (being administered in Connecticut) - for their grandchildren. As a grandchild, Ms. Spado asked the trustees for her share. The trustees said #&%$@!, and %*$#@%@!, then asked the court in Connecticut to declare that Ms. Spado was not entitled to share in the trusts. The Connecticut court agreed. Ms. Spado has appealed that decision.

Meanwhile, in Maine, the trustees asked that the entire adoption be declared invalid. The court agreed. But when Ms. Spado appealed that decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, they sent the case back (in January 2007) ... to the same Judge who originally granted the adoption!

Click here to read an article describing the situation in greater detail.

It's 1944 in New Jersey. Louisa Strittmater died, with some money, or you wouldn't be reading this. In her Will, she left her entire estate to ....... the National Women's Party. Mercy! This did not sit well with her cousins (whom she saw very little during the last few years of her life), but who nevertheless said she was crazy, and asked the court to set the Will aside and give them the money. They lost Round 1, then appealed the decision. Per the appellate court:

The deceased never married. Born in 1896, she lived with her parents until their death about 1928, and seems to have had a normal childhood. She was devoted to both her parents and they to her. Her admiration and love of her parents persisted after their death to 1934, at least. Yet four years later she wrote: 'My father was a corrupt, vicious, and unintelligent savage, a typical specimen of the majority of his sex. Blast his wormstinking carcass and his whole damn breed.' And in 1943, she inscribed on a photograph of her mother 'That Moronic she-devil that was my mother.'

Wormstinking carcass? Nice touch. So I'm thinking that maybe her parents were just jackasses? The court went on to say:

The master who heard the case in the court below, found that the proofs demonstrated 'incontrovertably her morbid aversion to men' and 'feminism to a neurotic extreme.' This characterization seems to me not strong enough. She regarded men as a class with an insane hatred. She looked forward to the day when women would bear children without the aid of men, and all males would be put to death at birth. Decedent's inward life, disclosed by what she wrote, found an occasional outlet such as the incident of the smashing of the clock, the killing of the pet kitten, vile language, &c. On the other hand -- and I suppose this is the split personality -- Miss Strittmater, in her dealings with her lawyer, Mr. Semel, over a period of several years, and with her bank, to cite only two examples, was entirely reasonable and normal.

Dead male babies and kittens vs. reasonable and normal with her lawyer and others. What do you think the appellate court decided, sane feminist or crazy lady?

Continue reading "Sane Feminist or Crazy Aunt Louisa? There's Money At Stake. What Do You Think?" »

The world apparently is aware of only half the dangers of jail showers. Mr. Flandro, a former inmate of the Salt Lake County Jails, brought a shower-related lawsuit against a Utah jail. In his suit, Mr. Flandro claimed that the jail showers violated his 8th Amendment rights because they were so dangerous that they amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. And what, according to Mr. Flandro, was so bad about the jail showers? The slippery floors.

Mr. Flandro argued that “the jail’s shower floor became slippery due to the mixture of shampoo, soap, and water.” The court, however, didn’t buy Mr. Flandro’s argument, observing that “[s]lippery shower floors constitute a daily risk faced by the public at large.”

Compare Mr. Flandro’s case to that of Mr. Hudson, who was handcuffed, shackled, and beaten by three prison guards. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. As stated by the Court:

At the time of the incident that is the subject of this suit, petitioner Keith Hudson was an inmate at the state penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Respondents Jack McMillian, Marvin Woods, and Arthur Mezo served as corrections security officers at the Angola facility. During the early morning hours of October 30,1983, Hudson and McMillian argued. Assisted by Woods, McMillian then placed Hudson in handcuffs and shackles, took the prisoner out of his cell, and walked him toward the penitentiary's "administrative lockdown" area. Hudson testified that, on the way there, McMillian punched Hudson in the mouth, eyes, chest, and stomach while Woods held the inmate in place and kicked and punched him from behind. He further testified that Mezo, the supervisor on duty, watched the beating but merely told the officers "not to have too much fun." App. 23. As a result of this episode, Hudson suffered minor bruises and swelling of his face, mouth, and lip. The blows also loosened Hudson's teeth and cracked his partial dental plate, rendering it unusable for several months.

Seven of the nine Justices agreed that this may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Not prison guard favorites Justices Thomas and Scalia, though. They basically argued that beating the crap out of a handcuffed inmate was not cruel and unusual!

Mr. Flandro's case is Flandro v. Salt Lake County, 53 Fed. Appx. 499 (10th Cir. 2002).

Whatever you do, make sure you don't grab Mr. Green's raincoat!

Mr. Ryan, an Illinois attorney, was on his way into the courthouse. As described by the court (Mr. Ryan is the "Respondent"):

Deputy Kennealy, who was assigned to first-floor security at the Daley Center during May of 1999, testified that she was on duty at one of the security stations on the morning of May 24, 1999. At about 9:20 a.m., the Respondent approached the security checkpoint and emptied his pockets into a property tray. Kennealy recalled that the Respondent placed a pack of cigarettes and a napkin and, possibly, a set of keys in the tray. (Tr. 19-23)

Kennealy reached into the tray and picked up the pack of cigarettes the Respondent had placed inside, in order to conduct a search for weapons. At that point, she stated, the Respondent tried to grab the cigarette pack out of her hand and remarked, "Oh, shit, I have to get out of here." (Tr. 24-26) The Respondent turned and began to walk back through the metal detector, and Kennealy and another deputy brought him back. (Tr. 24) Kennealy felt that the Respondent was attempting to flee at that time because he tried to walk out "fast." (Tr. 31)(emphasis added).

Kennealy then looked inside the cigarette pack, and found a white powdery substance which was later determined to be cocaine. (Tr. 25-26, Admin. Ex. 6) She placed the Respondent in custody and took him downstairs to the lockup area. In a search of the remainder of the Respondent's property at the lockup, Kennealy found cannabis in the napkin the Respondent had placed in the tray. (Tr. 25-26, Admin. Ex. 5)

So it's not looking too good for Mr. Green. Just what did he have to say for himself? Do you think the court will buy it?

Continue reading ""Oh Sh*t!" Attorney Says: That Coat With The Cocaine And Marijuana ... It's Not Mine! " »

It’s good to be passionate about your work, but not too passionate.

Take the case of Stanley Protokowicz, a Maryland divorce lawyer. He represented one Thomas Sanders (his best friend), who, shortly after divorce proceedings began, learned that his wife had been having an extramarital affair. Things began to go downhill at a meeting after a hearing before Harford County Circuit Court Judge Cypert Whitfill. As the Circuit Court for Baltimore County later explained:

It was during this meeting to discuss child custody and visitation that [Mr. Protokowicz] referred to Ms. Sanders as a slut. Although [Mr. Protokowicz] testified that it was Ms. Mervis (the lawyer for Ms. Sanders) who first referred to her client as a slut, the court finds [Mr. Protokowicz] was the first to use the term. Apparently [Mr. Protokowicz] was extremely emotional about Ms. Sanders conduct which he termed immoral. During this period there were rumors that there had been more than one adulterous affair during their marriage.

The Court continues (as if reciting the plot from a bad episode of Melrose Place):

Some of those rumors persisted and perhaps originated at the country club. There was some attempt by some members of the country club to bar Ms. Sanders' use of the club swimming pool. Apparently Mr. Sanders was behind Ms. Sanders' exclusion. . . In response to Ms. Mervis' questioning as to why this was happening at the club, [Mr. Protokowicz] speculated that prior to the Sanders' marital problems, Ms. Sanders was very popular at the club. Women members would circle around her when she put her chair down at the pool and now when she put her chair down, the others turned their chairs away.

Ms. Mervis referred to Ms. Sanders as a JAP, saying that if Ms. Sanders weren't Jewish, she should be because she's a Jewish American Princess. (Ms. Mervis attributes that reference to [Mr. Protokowicz]) In response to Ms. Mervis' insistence on an explanation of why the women at the country club were snubbing Ms. Sanders, [Mr. Protokowicz] said, ‘Lisa, if I went into your Temple this week and shit on the floor, you wouldn't welcome me back next week.’ Ms. Mervis testified that she was offended and took the remarks as anti-semitic.

Cat lovers might want to stop here. Dog lovers, click here to get to the microwaved cat.

Continue reading "Lawyer Microwaves Cat - Really - And Claims It Was An Accident!" »

On January 30, 1974, a young woman, who shall remain nameless, was arrested for prostitution. Having solicited a police officer (doh!), she sought a sentence of probation. Magistrate Judge Richard J. Rome complied. Unfortunately, he also issued the following Memorandum Decision:

This is the saga of ___ ___ ___,
Whose ancient profession brings her before us.
On January 30th, 1974,
This lass agreed to work as a whore.

Her great mistake, as was to unfold,
Was the enticing of a cop named Harold.
Unknown to ___, this officer, surnamed Harris,
Was duty-bent on ___’s lot to embarrass.

At the Brass Rail they met,
And for twenty dollars the trick was all set.
In separate cars they did pursue,
To the sensuous apartment of ___ ___.

Bound for her bed she spared not a minute,
Followed by Harris with his heart not in it!
As she prepared to repose there in her bay,
She was arrested by Harris, to her great dismay!

Off to the jailhouse poor ___ was taken,
Printed and mugged, her confidence shaken.
Formally charged by this great State,
With offering to Harris to fornicate.
Her arraignment was formal, then back to jail,

And quick as a flash she was admitted to bail.
On February 26, 1974,
The State of Kansas tried this young whore.
A prosecutor named Brown,
Represented the Crown.

___ ___, her freedom in danger,
Was being defended by a chap named Granger.
Testimony was presented and arguments heard,
Poor ___ waited for the Judge's last word.

The finding was guilty, with no great alarm,
And ___ was sentenced to the Women’s State Farm.
An appeal was taken, to a higher court ___ went,
The thousand dollar fine was added to imprisonment.

Trial was set in this higher court,
But the route of appeal ___ chose to abort.
And back to Judge Rome, came this lady of the night,
To plead for her freedom and end this great fight.

So under advisement ___’s freedom was taken,
And in the bastille this lady did waken.
The judge showed mercy and ___ was free,
But back to the street she could not flee.

The fine she’d pay while out on parole,
But not from men she used to cajole.
From her ancient profession she'd been busted,
And to society's rules she must be adjusted.

If from all of this a moral doth unfurl,
It is that Pimps do not protect the working girl!

The matter was brought to the attention of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications to determine if Judge Rome violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. What do you think they decided?

Continue reading "Rhyming Judge Calls Woman "Whore." Me Thinks That He Will Rhyme No More." »

When the moment comes, I think it's safe to say that most of us would prefer not to be in a public place, especially a fast food restaurant. The moment came for Henry Chai in a Wendy's Restaurant in Montgomery County, Ohio. Now, as fast food goes, I like Wendy's. I don't want to believe that little Wendy, with those cute red braids, would allow this to occur. And remember, these were just allegations.

There was no toilet paper! Mr. Chai had to use his handkerchief! When the nightmare ended, Mr. Chai did what I think most of us would - he sued Wendy's, seeking

$2.00 for the loss of a handkerchief, $5,000 'for the unreasonable risk to his health,' $2500 'for humiliation and negligent infliction of emotional distress,' and $5000 in punitive damages for Wendy's 'wanton act of failing to provide toilet tissue in contravention of the Ohio Food Services Rules.'

Wendy's lawyers hit the law books, then filed a one sentence reply to Mr. Chai's complaint: "Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha." Actually, they asked the court to dismiss the claim "for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." To Mr. Chai's horror [don't worry, he appealed], the court agreed.

The Court finds beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can state no cause of action upon which relief can be granted. The entire complaint consists of the Plaintiff's frustration and inconvenience caused by the temporary omission of toilet paper from the men's restroom area... The plaintiff had several alternatives and his lack of ingenuity caused an alleged $2 loss. This Court has held a scheduling conference [oh to be a fly on the wall for that one] and has considered the facts set forth in the motions and having spent adequate time reviewing the allegations and facts brought to the Court's attention, this Court finds that the Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed further with this action.

Well, this did not sit well with Mr. Chai, so he appealed. And what do you think happened?

Continue reading "Wendy's, Toilet Paper, and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress" »

Spell check, the devil's proofreader.

So you're an attorney with a trial coming up, but are still recovering from back surgery. You want the court to continue the trial. You even have a doctor's note! So you file a "Motion for a Continuance" with one teeny, tiny typo:

Plaintiff moves the court for a continuance of the trial for the reason that counsel for the plaintiff is recovering from dick surgery ...

Now that has got to hurt! Click here - ouch! - to see the Motion and the doctor's note (for the injured disk).

Mr. Smith (that's his name, really) was sentenced to 21 years for six drug offenses. He requested a new trial, fired his lawyer, and represented himself at the hearing on his request for a new trial. Mr. Smith's "first use of profanity occurred when he used the word 'fuck,' apparently for emphasis [Well I never!], in recalling an earlier conversation with his trial counsel who allegedly invited [Smith] to [appeal] based on ineffective assistance of counsel at trial." The Judge warned him, but damned if it didn't slip out again. Contempt #1. Six pages of trial transcript later, f-bomb number 2, and Contempt #2. And what do you think Mr. Smith said after the second contempt? "Shit." Really. The Judge let that one go.

No more bombs for 37 pages of trial transcript. But when it became clear that Mr. Smith was SOL, he interrupted the Judge with "That's bullshit. That's bullshit." The Judge ignored the BS-bombs. Mr. Smith later dropped the B-bomb (bitch), also ignored. But when it came time to sentence Mr. Smith for Contempts 1 & 2, things heated up a little bit.

THE DEFENDANT: What is the maximum on contempt, sir?
THE COURT: What is the maximum on contempt? If I am going to give you in excess of six months, I believe I have to give you a jury trial, is that correct ...?
[STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Yes.
..........
THE DEFENDANT: ... from day one, you have been prejudiced to the defense .... I am not asking you to believe me. I am only asking to bring forth witnesses in this case who could testify --
THE COURT: I asked you if you had anything you want to say as to what sentence the Court should impose --
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. You know what? You can give me six more months, motherfucker, for sucking my dick, you punk ass bitch. You should have a white robe on, motherfucker, instead of a black. Fuck you.
THE COURT: I find you in contempt again.
THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you in contempt again.
THE COURT: I find you three times in contempt --
THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you. And fuck.
THE COURT: On each charge, the Court will impose a sentence of five months to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to any sentence you are now serving or obligated to serve.
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. You better leave now, you, Ku Klux Klan.
THE COURT: The Court will adjourn. [Not so fast, there.]
THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you, you, Ku Klux Klan --
(Whereupon, the Proceedings were concluded.)

So what do you think the Maryland Court of Appeals decided - three contempts or one?

Continue reading "S-Bombs, F-Bombs, BS-Bombs. What's A Judge To Do?" »

While Mr. Swinyer was in jail, [former] correctional officer Cole admitted that he assaulted Mr. Swinyer by grabbing him around the throat and shoving him against the wall in response to - what else - a "donut" comment (really). Mr. Swinyer filed suit and litigated the case himself. The docket contains over 100 entries. In the end, more than 2 years after the case began, Judge Leighton held that the injury was de minimus and dismissed the case. (Here's the Court's decision.)

Understandably, Mr. Swinyer did not take the news well. Here is the Notice of Appeal he filed:

I hereby am informing you that I am appealing the asshole Ronald B. Leighton's decision in this matter.

You have been hereby served Notice. You're not getting away with this shit that easy.

Signed this 10th day of July 2006. George C. Swinyer, Jr. Click here to view Mr. Swinyer's Notice of Appeal.

This was not well-received. The Court rejected the Notice of Appeal, stating that it was "not taken in good faith." (Read it here.) Soon thereafter, the case was closed.

I sure didn't. I was reading through the Idaho Code (couldn't sleep - and was almost there when I got to the definition of "mayhem")

Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures or renders it useless, or cuts out or disables the tongue, puts out an eye, slits the nose, ear or lip, is guilty of mayhem. (Idaho Code, Section 18-5001)

Now wide awake, I read on:

CANNIBALISM DEFINED -- PUNISHMENT. (1) Any person who willfully ingests the flesh or blood of a human being is guilty of cannibalism. (2) It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of the provisions of this section that the action was taken under extreme life-threatening conditions as the only apparent means of survival. (3) Cannibalism is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding fourteen (14) years. (Idaho Code, Section 18-5003).

So, if you're ever in Idaho, (1) watch your back, because someone can legally eat you if the cupboard is bare, (2) don't drink anything red, and (3) if you're not sure what it is, don't eat it!