Legal Juice

We're all guilty of forgetting things from time to time. But when you are a judge, YOU CAN'T FORGET TO RELEASE PRISONERS! That's just what Spanish judge Adelina Entrena did. As reported in Think Spain:

One of [the three men], a man cleared of a robbery charge, went on to spend 437 days behind bars as a result. Two others needlessly spent 35 and 38 locked up after similar blunders.

A little over a month is bad enough, but 437 days! The judge got off easy. He was canned. He should be doing 510 days. Here's the Think Spain article.

This is truly a bizarre crime. There's a very popular game (6 million people play it each month) called Habbo. Per the BBC:

Habbo users can create their own characters, decorate their own rooms and play a number of games, paying with Habbo Credits, which they have to buy with real cash.

The crime? A 17-year-old Dutch boy has been charged with stealing 4,000 euros (about $6,000 US) worth of furniture! Who the hell would pay $6,000 for virtual furniture?

If you think that's wacky, check out this story (from the same BBC article):

Virtual theft is a growing issue in virtual worlds; in 2005 a Chinese gamer was stabbed to death in a row over a sword in a game.

Shanghai gamer Qiu Chengwei killed player Zhu Caoyuan when he discovered he had sold a "dragon sabre" he had been loaned.

There's just no earthly explanation for the actions of New York Judge Robert Restaino on March 11, 2005. Judge Restaino was dealing with a group of domestic violence defendants who were there to report to the court, as they are required to do each week. Things were going okay ... until a cell phone rang. Per The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct: "At approximately 10:00 AM, a device that appeared to be a cell phone rang in the back of the courtroom. Addressing the defendants in the courtroom, respondent stated:"

Now, whoever owns the instrument that is ringing, bring it to me now or everybody could take a week in jail and please don’t tell me I’m the only one that heard that. Mr. Martinez, did you hear that ringing?...

Everyone is going to jail; every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I’m kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going.

He was kidding, right? Wrong! He committed all 46 defendants into custody. (Oh, and "He did not question any of the prosecutors, defense attorneys, court personnel, program representatives or others who were present in the courtroom."!!!)

So what does committing the defendants involve? Per the Commission:

After being committed into custody, the 46 defendants were taken by police to the booking area in the City Jail, where they were searched and their property was confiscated. They were then placed in crowded “holding” cells or jail cells. Thereafter, 17 defendants were released from custody after it was determined that the court still held bail that had previously been posted on their behalf, and 15 defendants were released after posting the bail set by respondent. The remaining 14 defendants could not post bail and were committed to the custody of the Niagara County Sheriff.

And what about those 14 folks?

The 14 defendants who could not post bail were shackled; their wrists were handcuffed to a lock box attached to a waist chain; and they were transported by bus to the County Jail in Lockport, a ride that took about 30 minutes. The defendants arrived at the jail between 3:00 and 3:30 and were searched again and placed in cells.

Then the Judge was paged by his clerk, who told him the media was asking questions about the incident. Wouldn't you know it? The 14 remaining defendants were released about 2 hours later! Do you think Judge Restaino paid a price for his actions? He did. He's no longer a judge. Here's what the Commission concluded:

[Judge Restaino's] behavior was such a gross deviation from the proper role of a judge that it warrants the sanction of removal, notwithstanding his previously unblemished record on the bench and the testimony as to his character and reputation.

The Judge's conduct was much more outrageous than I have described above. (For example, "... one defendant said that he had a doctor’s appointment that day and might need surgery; another said that his mother was having surgery that day. One defendant, who had previously appeared four times as required, told respondent, “My little girl is coming home at 3:00. Can I be sanctioned next week so I can get my girl?” Respondent committed each of these defendants into custody.") If you want to read the full Commission opinion, click here.

Scottish Gran Elsie Melville just wants to see her four grandchildren. Daughter Donna Melville said that gran is "domineering and interfering" (she called the SSPCA on her own daughter!) and gives the kids too much candy. (As reported in The Herald: "Mrs Melville was accused of taking two carrier bags of sweets to the children. The two oldest children had suffered dental problems and had had teeth removed.") So Donna cut her mom off. Gran filed a civil action, in which she is legally referred to as "the pursuer."

What did the Perth Sheriff Court decide?

The dental health of the children is undoubtedly important, but I regard it as significant that the pursuer has given an undertaking not to give them sweets during contact.

The children would benefit from contact with the pursuer, especially emotionally. However, such contact should not involve an over-indulgence in the provision of confectionery, nor disparaging or interfering remarks by the pursuer.

What does the pursuer think about the decision?

I don't know why she was going on so much about sweets - that's what grans are for.

Uh-oh.

I want the kids to see that I love them. I'm going to make them sandwiches and yoghurt when they come round.

Whew! You can read a bit more here.

Boston Herald reporter Michele McPhee, while reporting on a purse-snatching that took place in a church, reported this:

In 1997, as a New York Daily News reporter, I covered the bizarre arrest of Episcopal priest Rev. Chester LaRue in my own neighborhood, Bay Ridge Brooklyn.NYPD detectives had received a tip that LaRue was selling cocaine out of the parish house at St. John’s Episcopalian Church. When detectives arrived with a warrant, they found the Rev. LaRue smoking crack as he typed out his sermon for Sunday Mass.

The crack-smoking priest was convicted of illegal drug possession, served three years’ probation and was ordered to perform 500 hours of community service at the Salvation Army soup kitchen.

Not a day in jail for possessing and using crack? Treated just like every other first-time crack offender, right? Here is Ms. McPhee's article.

It looks like she made a damn good decision. Mergers and acquisitions lawyer Laura Saperstein (pictured above) was making $200,000 per year in London when she decided to give up the law. (She also owns 12 flats in London, and runs a building business.) The 36 year-old took up boxing only three years ago, and won all of her amateur bouts, including winning the British amateur lightweight championship. She is so dominating that she has yet to be knocked down, or even hurt. So she went pro. Her first fight was November 18th. Think she won? She did. You can read more about her here and here.

So when Timothy Joseph Boomer, then a 28-year-old engineer, fell into the Rifle River in Michigan, he let fly a bunch of curse words. No problem, except for (1) a law that makes it illegal to use vulgar language in front of women and children, and (2) the presence of a woman and 2 children. Incredibly, a deputy heard him and charged him with violating the 105-year-old law. What do you think happened?

The trial judge said the ban on cursing in front of women was uncontitutional, but not the ban on cursing in front of children! The appeals court chucked the whole law, reasoning that

"This ... would require every person who speaks audibly where children are present to guess what a law enforcement officer might consider too indecent, immoral, or vulgar for a child's ears."

The case is Michigan v. Boomer, 655 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. App. 2002).

Sweet Fancy Moses. As reported in The Dallas Morning News, here's what Dallas attorney Catherine Shelton has been up to:

Ms. Shelton has been convicted of aggravated assault for shooting a former boyfriend.

She was also convicted of assaulting a pregnant former friend.

She faced a wrongful death lawsuit in 1980 after the death of a former lover. She had sued the man, a Houston anesthesiologist, for divorce, arguing that they had a common-law marriage and that she was pregnant. On the day he was to face her in court, the doctor was found bludgeoned to death in his garage. The doctor's estate sued Ms. Shelton and one of her former clients, alleging they conspired to murder the doctor, but the case was later dropped.

In 1999, she was named a suspect – but never charged – in the shooting death of her office manager's husband. Ms. Shelton's husband, Clint Shelton, is serving a life sentence for murder in that case.

Most recently, she is accused of trying to walk out of Nordstrom at NorthPark Center with a $1,195 designer handbag, two shirts worth $326 and an $8 candle. (A security camera captured Ms. Shelton concealing the items in her purse, according to a Dallas police report.) She is also accused of trying to mislead police about her identity.

Ms. Shelton is also being held on warrants relating to a traffic incident late last year. She is charged with failure to leave information after striking an unattended vehicle.

An additional warrant charging her with driving without insurance requires her to see a magistrate before her release from jail.

Ms. Shelton, the subject of numerous complaints from her legal clients over the years, has been disbarred twice. But the board of disciplinary appeals reversed the rulings and reinstated her license each time – once because she was not properly notified of a disciplinary hearing and once because key paperwork vanished from the court file.

Oh, and guess what kind of law she used to practice? Criminal! Here is The Dallas Morning News article.

From a BBC article, here are some crazy British laws that were never repealed:

It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament

It could be regarded an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British king or queen's image upside-down.

Eating mince pies on Christmas Day is banned.

In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants.

The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen.

It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing.

It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour.

Absobloodylootely barmy! To read the rest of the article, click here.

Tru dat. Read about it here.

What's the latest vanity plate to be retroactively deemed offensive? Hailing from the great state of New York, the newly banned plate is "GETOSAMA." The plate was issued to retired NYPD sergeant Arno Herwerth, and he is pissed! Said Mr. Herwerth:

This is unbelievable... It's unpatriotic and absolutely disgusts me that anyone would consider that in any way offensive other than if you're a member of al Qaeda... You look back at Pearl Harbor and WWII and you wonder, would they be offended by, 'Get Hitler'?

Hitler and Pearl Harbor? That must make anyone of a certain age think of this truly classic clip from "Animal House" during which Bluto asks "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

You can read more (a fair amount) about the plates and Mr. Herwerth here.

At an "Arrive Alive" road safety briefing, before an audience, in an apparent attempt to really drive the point home, Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom included two pictures he really shouldn't have: one of a headless body, the other of the head. The family of the victim (a 40-year-old father of three) was horrified, and filed a complaint. So what do you think the Police Complaints Commission concluded? The report was 84 pages! They concluded that no rules were broken. To his credit, the Chief said:

I bitterly regret the distress my actions have caused.

I think I was stupid - a single bad decision, taken in haste, with wholly unintended consequences.

It was an error of judgment and one I will not repeat.

But, to his discredit [?], the Chief also said:

I placed too much trust in the behaviour and integrity of journalists.

So much for fully accepting responsibility. You can read more (a little) here.

Irish dockworker Denis McKenna must really love his sister. He was always making the ultimate sacrifice of missing work to take her to the doctor. Only one problem - he was seen wearing a "golf jumper" when he was supposed to be taking his sister to the doctor. So a private investigator was hired. A few months later, McKenna told his supervisor he had to take his sister to the doctor. The next morning, another boss was waiting outside McKenna's home when he saw him ... put his golf clubs in the trunk and take off.

This fellow followed McKenna to the club, approached him on the second tee, and told hm to enjoy his game. Now, having been caught, McKenna must have gone back to work, right? Nope. His car was still in the club's parking lot at 3:00! So the next day, he was fired. (This wasn't the first time McKenna missed work to "look after his sister," and his boss and co-workers were tired of it.)

So McKenna was canned the next day. And he fought it. And he ... won! Why? Because he said his sister had indeed been set to go to the doctor's, but changed her mind! [Okay, so he couldn't have gone to work in the morning, once his sister "changed her mind?"] And the tribunal said the company failed to provide McKenna with an appeal against his dismissal. For his troubles, McKenna was awarded €1,000 ($2,100 US)! Click here to read a little more.

Megan, a 13-year-old St. Louis girl, was being harassed online. Turns out the 16-year-old harasser, "Josh Evans," who initiated things by contacting Megan on MySpace, was the creation of the parents of Megan's former best friend. Over the course of 6 weeks, "Josh" said some nasty things, including that Megan was "fat" and a "slut." The last posting was too much for Megan, who suffered from depression. It said: The world would be a better place without you. Soon thereafter, Megan hung herself.

So is it a crime, what these wicked folks did to a young girl? Apparently not. Investigators are still looking for a crime a year later. Seems that the federal law enacted to prevent cyberharassing punishes direct messages, not postings. And in case you weren't outraged enough, The Chicago Tribune reported "another neighbor as saying the parents encouraged their daughter 'to join in the joke' of the Josh Evans ruse. These 2 were meant for each others. On the bright side, though the paper hasn't identified them, everyone in town knows who they are. So they will pay some price, even if not at the hands of the law. Click here to read The Chicago Tribune article.

You are Sheikh Khalid Ben Abdfullah Rashid Alfawaz, you're rich, and you're getting a divorce in an English court. During a Hearing, here are some of the judge's comments:

That the sheikh could choose “to depart on his flying carpet” to escape paying costs.

That the sheikh should be available to attend hearings “at this relatively fast-free time of the year.”

That he should be in court so that “every grain of sand is sifted.”

And the sheikh’s evidence was “a bit gelatinous . . . like Turkish Delight.”

What a card! The Sheikh was not amused. He asked the judge to recuse himself due to bias. When the judge refused, the Sheikh appealed and ... won. He was booted from the case, and had to apologize. Not to worry, though. Lord Justice Ward through him a bone.

No little part of my embarrassment comes from my belief that the injection of a little humour lightens the load of high emotion that so often attends litigation and I am the very last judge to criticise laughter in court. For my part I am totally convinced that [the judge's] jokes were not meant to be racist and I unreservedly acquit the judge of any suggestion they were so intended.

Shazam! Next time I do something stupid, I want Lord Ward speaking on my behalf! To read more (a little bit) click here.

Japanese law forbids the importing of photographs showing male genitals. Why would I know this? No, not because of a recent trip to Japan. Because, returning home from a trip abroad, Japanese publisher Takashi Asai was carrying a book of Mapplethorpe photos that he published in Japan in 1994. Under Japanese law, imported genital photos are illegal. So how did he make the book in the first place? When he brought the negatives in years ago, customs did not check them.

Mr. Asai is challenging the ban. Although he lost in the lower court, he is confident that the Supreme Court will rule in his favor. To see some of Maplethorpe's work, click here.

Call Guinness Book. At least I've not read about an older streaker. As reported in the Irish Independent:

Police in Duisburg, Germany are becoming rather irked with a serial streaker.

They hauled him into court after he streaked during a girls' football match. But they were rather surprised when, during the adjournment the man removed his clothes again.

It appears he views himself as a living work of art. Given that he is 60, it’s presumably abstract art.

(My sources tell me that the man received funding from President Bush's abstinence program.)

...deal crack! A 79-year-old New York man was arrested and charged with possessing and selling crack cocaine out of his apartment. As reported at WNYT.com, Charles Ritchie "is part of a mid-level drug ring with clients spanning Southern Albany and Greene Counties. The operation has been going on, report police, for at least two years." What does Ritchie say? "I don't deal." What do the neighbors say? "He's such a nice, quiet man ..." No, not this time. Said neighbor Stephen Pelletier:

People coming in and out at like 2:00, 3:00 o'clock in the morning. I get up and go to work at 4:00 in the morning. There was people in and out all the time at that time.

For more (just a bit), click here.

... to atone for stoning 2 dogs to death, then hanging them! Read more here.

So the government spent £650 ($1,365 US) on fingerprint analysis just to show that a 16-year-old had handled a stolen Cornetto ice cream. Yes, that's "handled," not "stolen." What's the punishment for handling stolen ice cream? A conditional discharge (meaning the Cornetto Kid just has to stay out of "trouble" for a little while.) Wow. That was worthwhile.

And what about the 15-year-old who was prosecuted for writing his name on a community center wall with a Twix bar? After he was arrested, processed, interviewed, and hired a lawyer, the case was dismissed after the court was told that it was indeed a chocolate bar the boy used, not a pen. "A Twix bar you say? They're delicious. Case dismissed." [Okay, it didn't go exactly like that, but the case was dismissed.] You can read more (not much) here.

So is a 19th century mummified Maori head art or not? A museum in Rouen, France tried to return a Maori head to New Zealand. Guess who stopped them? The French Ministry of Culture! Who are you with? I'm with the Rouen officials who said, as reported in the International Herald Tribune, that:

...the Maori head is a body part, not a work of art, and that according to France's bioethics law it must be returned to its place of origin. "This object reflects the barbaric trafficking in body parts, the belief that another race was inferior to ours," said Catherine Morin-Desailly, the deputy mayor for culture and a senator, who proposed the return of the head. "It belongs to the heritage of humanity, not in storage somewhere in a museum."

The matter is still pending. You can read more (a fair amount) here.