Legal Juice

So do you think someone can get jail time for watching a cartoon? Would it make any difference if the cartoons were sexual? Decide for yourself, after reading this from stuff.co.nz:

Ronald Clark downloaded the Japanese anime cartoons three years ago, setting in train events that would see him in court in Auckland and jailed for three months for possessing objectionable material, and sparking debate as to what harm is caused by digitally created pornography.

Clark has previous convictions for indecently assaulting a teenage boy and has been through rehabilitation programmes, but the video nasties he was watching in this case were all cartoons and drawings. He says the videos came from an established tradition of Japanese manga and hentai (cartoon pornography), a massive, mainstream industry in that country.

They weren't even depictions of people - Clark's lawyer Roger Bowden described them as "pixies and trolls" that "you knew at a glance weren't human". Bowden said the conviction for possessing objectionable material was "the law gone mad".

However, while the cartoon characters were elves and pixies, they were also clearly young elves and pixies, which led to concerns the images were linked to child sexual abuse.

Google probably gets sued everyday for some wacky reason. Add this one to the list - in the "Google satellite - underwear" category. As reported by The Mainichi Daily News:

A woman [in Fukuoka] is suing search-engine giant Google Inc., saying her psychological condition worsened after discovering that a search for her address brought up a photo of her underwear hanging out on her veranda.

The woman, who is in her 20s, filed suit against Google at the Fukuoka District Court for 600,000 yen [$7,162 US] in consolation money and other payments.

Opening arguments were held on Dec. 15. The woman said, "I was overwhelmed with anxiety that I might be the target of a sex crime. It caused me to lose my job, and I moved my residence." Google said that it is hurrying to confirm the facts of the case.

According to the suit and other sources, the woman discovered the photograph in spring of this year when she used Google to do a search for the address of her Fukuoka apartment, where she lived alone.

The suit says the woman already had a form of obsessive compulsive disorder before seeing the photograph, and after seeing it her symptoms worsened. She began worrying that her activities were being secretly photographed throughout the day. She was fired from the hospital where she worked, and moved to a new residence.

After the court session, the woman told the Mainichi that around October, the month in which she filed the lawsuit, the image no longer came up when searching for the address in Google.

"I could understand if it was just a picture of the outside of the apartment, but showing a person's underwear hanging outside is absolutely wrong," said the woman.

Maybe it's because texting or posting something on Facebook, or leaving a voice mail message (Mel Gibson!) is so easy. Whatever the reason, people really do a lot of stupid things with technology. A recent example is brought to you by The Belleville (Illinois) News-Democrat.

An Alton man faces charges for allegedly posting what officials called an "alarming message" on a social networking site.

Madison County Sheriff's deputies arrested 29-year-old Joshua Michael Clark Tuesday after they were tipped off to a possible threat posted on Clark's Facebook page.

According to police, Clark had posted, "Hey Madison County Courthouse, tick, tick, tick...boom."

Deputies interviewed Clark, and said that he confessed to posting the message. He was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.

Police said the threat was not legitimate and there was no bomb or device found.

If this dude is a sports fan, here's guessing that his favorite cliche is the one about running a successful play over and over until the opposing team stops it. Now, It may be useful in sports, but in crime? Not so much. Especially crimes against property ... As reported in The Spectator [Hamilton, Ontario]:

Police had staked out a Subway restaurant on Lake Street Tuesday that’s been robbed three times before, when a man robbed the Esso gas bar next door at Scott Street.

The suspect was nabbed with the cash running from the gas bar. Turns out, detectives say the man is the same one who’s hit the Subway so often.

A 38-year-old St. Catharines man has been charged with four counts of robbery and was scheduled to appear in St. Catharines court Wednesday.

How bad are things in the UK? Even Batman has crossed to the dark side. As reported by
news.scotsman.com:

A man who handed his friend in to a police station while dressed as Batman has been charged with burglary.

Stan Worby, 39, made headlines around the world last month when pictures were released showing him taking Daniel Frayne to a police station in Bradford while wearing the Caped Crusader costume.

Worby and Frayne, 26, have now both been charged with burglary after police stopped a vehicle containing suspected stolen property.

The men were arrested shortly after 4am on Sunday on Milner Ing, in the Delph Hill area of Bradford.

Last month, Worby, a Chinese takeaway delivery driver, explained how he had returned from watching Bradford City play in the Capital One Cup final at Wembley in his Batman suit when Frayne asked him to accompany him to the police station in relation to other matters.

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.

[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.

You're probably thinking "oh, like you've never brandished?" A gun? No, The Juice has never brandished a gun. The same cannot be said for Ms. Shiquita D. Reed, whose recent trip to Brandishstan (look it up) involved children at a bus stop! As reported by The Richmond Times-Dispatch:

A Chesterfield County mother with a history of disturbing, anti-social behavior was convicted Thursday of brandishing a gun [a .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol!] in front of three students at her daughter's bus stop and sent to jail for two years.

Declaring Shiquita D. Reed a "danger to society," Judge D. Gregory Carr of Chesterfield Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court convicted the 33-year-old mother of six on three misdemeanor counts of brandishing and sentenced her to a total of 36 months in jail with 12 months suspended.

Carr noted Reed's prior record, including at least three convictions for assault and battery, one for destruction of property and another for brandishing a gun when she was 18, in 1996.

A year ago last month, Reed was charged in Richmond with three counts of brandishing a firearm in the course of six days, including one incident involving a student walking to school. But all three charges eventually were withdrawn because the witnesses either didn't show up in court or refused to testify.

The Richmond commonwealth's attorney's office has dealt with Reed nearly a dozen times in recent years on a variety of charges, but most were dropped because of witness problems.

... Reed ... [said] it wasn't uncommon for her to walk her daughter to the bus stop and she had carried her gun there at least three times before...

"I always carry my gun," Reed testified, adding that she straps it on soon after she wakes up in the morning.

Honestly, sir, get a life. Don't look at it. Move to the mountains. Read the Constitution. But please, don't waste anyone's time with your complaints about this decal!!!!! As reported by Great Falls Tribune (Montana):

Brian Smith is tired of coming home from work to see what he calls pornography [see above] staring him in the face from across the alley.

Smith, who lives on the 1600 block of 1st Avenue North, said the problem began when he noticed a large decal on the back window of a car in the parking lot of Quality Life Concepts. The decal is a white silhouette of a naked woman.

"To me, this has crossed the line," he said.

Offensive or not, Shanna Weaver, who owns the car and decal in question, said it's her right to display the picture.

"It's my freedom of speech, which he can't take away," Weaver said. "It's no different than the mud flaps that you see on trucks."

Smith feels differently. There are certain parts of the body in that silhouette that neither he nor his wife, Louise, like to look at when they pull into their garage directly across from Quality of Life Concepts, where Weaver works — and parks.

"My upbringing dictates that the human body is a sacred thing, not something that should be put on display," Smith said.

Smith and Weaver confirmed in separate interviews that Smith talked to Weaver about the decal, telling her that he didn't like looking at it and asking if she could back her car into her parking spot or park it somewhere else where the decal didn't face his house. Weaver initially agreed, honoring Smith's request for one day. The next day, the decal was back in Smith's view.

That's when Smith wondered if he could take his complaint to the police. Smith's point of view is that the sticker on the back of Weaver's car is pornography, and it should be illegal to display it in public.

A police officer dispatched to check out the decal determined that the illustration didn't fit the city or state's statute defining obscenity. The legal spat between Smith and Weaver never made it past a complaint with the Great Falls Police Department ...

Choppers, choppers, choppers. Eric White, 42, of Edinburgh, Scotland, just can't get enough of the pearlie whites. He roamed the city streets, telling women that he worked for a dental company, and wanted to photograph their teeth. And he didn't just roam the streets in search of worthy teeth. In 2004, he drove alongside a woman, flashing his lights and beeping his horn to get her to pull over. As reported in The Scotsman:

When she did so, he told her about his work for a dental company, commented on her "beautiful teeth" and asked if he could photograph them for a dental magazine. She initially agreed, but became suspicious and left when he told her she had a "sexy mouth" and a "beautiful tongue". He repeatedly approached her until she finally reported him to the police in March 2006 when he reappeared at her new home in Newtongrange.

Someone hits your car on purpose. Of course, you get all the pertinent information. If you're this guy, that would not be the license plate, type of car, etc. Per sfgate.com:

A woman intentionally rammed her car into a man’s car while arguing over a parking spot in the Haight, but the victim was so focused on her low-cut dress that all he could describe to officers afterward were her breasts, San Francisco police said Thursday.

The woman drove away after hitting the man’s car at Haight and Cole streets at 5 p.m. Tuesday, said Park Station Officer Al Wu. The man couldn’t tell officers what kind of car it was, let alone supply a license-plate number, but he “was able to give a detailed description of the suspect’s cleavage,” police said.

No one has been arrested.