Legal Juice

What's next? Tasing every pulled-over motorist before requesting a license and registration? For god's sake man, you don't have to tase someone just because you can! Here's a ridiculous story out of Cincinnati, as reported by WKRC:

A St. Paris, Ohio man, not even registered in the Flying Pig Marathon, caused quite a commotion at the race Sunday morning.

Not registered? Tase him!

Police say 35-year old Brett Henderson was running down the course completely naked.

Naked? Tase him!

Officers told him several times to stop and get in a police cruiser, but Henderson did not listen.

Not listening? Tase him!

Police took him into custody in front of the Greyhound Bus Station on Gilbert Avenue, after using a taser on him.

The Juice doesn't know where the offficer aimed the taser, but if he had to guess ... Here's the source.

You hear "police chase," you think of police cars chasing a car, usually a drunk driver. Not this time. Sure, the police were in cars, but not the "perp." He was on foot, and naked! And the cops bothered to chase him way too long, as reported by wpxi.com:

Police in Beaver County said a naked man led them on a three-mile foot chase through several communities.

Three miles!

Investigators said the man was first spotted near a busy intersection with a lot of traffic on April 20.

A groundskeeper for a nearby cemetery said he was shocked when he saw the man without any clothes on roaming the streets.

"We were working and I saw out of the corner of my eye this flash go by. I looked and I saw his naked butt go by. I didn't need to see anymore," said Mike Zorich.

Zorich said the man ran past him and kept running through Beaver Falls Cemetery. "He went by in a flash and that was the end of it," Zorich said.

Well, maybe that should have been the end of it. But no way was this naked guy going to getting away with it?!

Police estimate he made it through three townships and ran about three miles completely nude through several wooded areas before they were able to catch up with him.

Investigators said they eventually were able to catch him while he was wading through a creek. Police said they have no idea why he was in the water.

The charges?

Carlos Noel Pena, 24, was charged with open lewdness.

Really? Open lewdness? Truly an excellent use of police resources. Here's the source.

Then high-school junior Avery Doninger was ticked off that the battle of the bands (Jamfest) was cancelled. So, at home, on her own blog, she posted an entry stating that

Jamfest is canceled due to the douchebags in central office.

As events unfolded, it turns out her characterization was pretty accurate. Her punishment? She was told to apologize to the school superintendent, show her mom the blog entry, and withdraw her candidacy for Class Secretary (an office she held since entering high school). She agreed to the first two, but would not withdraw from the race. So the school refused to let her run (she would have won as a write-in candidate, but the votes were ignored!), and she filed suit, claiming that the school violated her right to free speech.

The result? She lost! "The content of the blog was related to school issues, and it was reasonably foreseeable that other LMHS students would view the blog and that school administrators would become aware of it," said U.S. District Court Judge Mark Kravitz. I think her Mom, who was praised on local radio for telling Avery "you're grounded, and we're going to federal court to file a civil suit," has it right. She said:

Punishment is up to me. This erodes the training ground for the democratic process, which must be that you have to distrust democracy occasionally in order to make it work. The embedded lesson of democracy at Lewis S. Mills is hollow. Theirs is an overreaching power to orchestrate.

Here's hoping the Court of Appeals agrees. Update: The Court of Appeals didn't, upholding Judge Kravitz's decision. But wait! Ms. Doninger's attorney is going to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

When a 51-year-old daughter wants to do something nice for her 80-year-old father, it's a good thing. All agreed? Okay, what if the "thing" is hooking the father up with a prostitute? The Juice's opinion remains unchanged. As reported by abcactionnews.com:

The pair, who listed their hometown as Dubuque, Iowa, were arrested on Nebraska Avenue, an area of Tampa known for prostitution activity.

Welcome to Tampa, Iowans!

According to the arrest affidavit, 51-year-old Pia Kirchberg offered an undercover police officer $20 if she would have sex with Kirchberg's elderly father.

Both Pia Kirchberg and 80-year-old Maurice Kirchberg were charged with soliciting for prostitution.

"Prostitution is illegal. It doesn't matter how old you are," said police spokeswoman Laura McElroy."If we catch you trying to solicit a prostitute you're going to jail."

With all due respect, wrong!. No judge or jury is going to send an 80-year-old man to jail for seeking companionship, however fleeting. Here's the source, with mug shots.

Men are always trying to think of good ways to meet women. This guy clearly should have continued thinking. Unfortunately, he stopped when he got to the scenario with the monkey ... As reported by The Arab Times:

Police [in Kuwait City] have arrested an unidentified youth for disturbing female visitors at a fast food restaurant. It has been reported the youth was deliberately blocking the way of female motorists, reports Al-Watan Arabic daily. 
According to security sources the youth was carrying a monkey and he had placed his telephone number on the glass of his car. 
Police have reportedly impounded the man’s car.

There's just no substitute for proofreading. Just ask one lawyer, Mr. Puricelli, who represented a man successfully in a civil rights case. 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? He did. For 209 hours of work performed before the trial, he cut Mr. Puricelli’s hourly rate of $300 to $150. (For the time spent in court, the judge gave him his full rate of $300.) Maybe, when you’re asking a judge to approve your attorney’s fees, you should spell the judge’s name right! Per Judge Hart:

If these mistakes were purposeful, they would be brilliant. However, based on the history of the case and Mr. Puricelli's filings, we know otherwise. Finally, in the most recent letter to the court, asking that we vacate the settlement agreement, Mr. Puricelli identifies the undersigned as ‘Honorable Jacon [sic] Hart.’ I appreciate the elevation to what sounds like a character in the Lord of the Rings, but alas, I am but a judge.

You can read Judge Hart’s Memorandum and Order here. The case is Devore v. City of Philadelphia from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (not reported in F.Supp.2d) No. 00-3598.

If someone calls the cops on their spouse, chances are it's going to be for a good reason. This case, out of Fort Wayne, Indiana, is no exception. As reported by WANE:

According to a Fort Wayne Police Department report, when an officer arrived at the 517 Lawton Place apartment, Elizabeth Gibson said she and her husband Kelly had been in an argument and he had gone upstairs to huff paint.

Wait, so that's not the way most domestic arguments end?

The report said since she was afraid to go inside, she handed the officer her keys and followed him up.

When the officer opened the door, the entire apartment smelled of paint fumes and Kelly was found sitting on the couch with his shirt off, and his hands, mouth, nose and chin covered in silver paint.

And in case you don't think that evidence is damning enough ...

Police said Kelly had a can of silver spray paint in his right hand and a paint-covered plastic bag in his left.

The officer said Kelly had a dazed, glassy-eyed look about him and was unsteady on his feet.

Kelly was taken to the Allen County Jail and charged with inhaling toxic vapors.

So, regarding the title of the post:

This incident was the 48th time Kelly was charged with inhaling since 1992.

Yikes. Here's the source, including the mug shot. Get this man some help.

While there's never a good reason for driving drunk, some are clearly stranger than others. For example, as reported by The Courier Mail:

The 55-year-old [woman] from St Kilda East was caught outside the Prahran Police Station on Friday night and recorded a reading of 0.052.

It was her second offence in 10 years and she received an automatic loss of license.

So why did she do it?

Police say the woman said she had decided to drive because she wanted to try out her new false teeth on KFC.

And if you like that one, you'll like this one, also reported by The Courier Mail:

A New Zealand schoolteacher who crashed her car while brushing her teeth has landed herself in court.

Police officer Graham Single told the Blenheim district court, 272km north of Christchurch, that Cherie Margaret Davis, 65, set the cruise control of her car to 100km/h, "got out her toothbrush and started brushing her teeth".

Right, like you've never done it...

Ms Davis subsequently lost concentration and crashed into a rock bank by the side of the road, the Marlborough Express reported today.

According to police, Ms Davis had a blood alcohol level almost twice the legal limit at the time of the March 19 crash.

Ms Davis admitted two charges of drunk driving, two of careless use and one of driving while prohibited.

Well, it wasn't supposed to be free. In fact, the store wasn't even supposed to be open. But when you rely on computers too much, well, here's what can happen, as reported by 3news.co.nz:

A security system computer glitch is being blamed for the doors opening and the lights coming on at a Hamilton supermarket, allowing a number of people to go in and help themselves to stock on Good Friday.

A very "good" Friday for those light-fingered folks ...

The central city Pak 'n Save was open for more than eight hours from 1am until someone rang police saying people were leaving the shop with "truckloads of groceries", the Waikato Times reported.

How did this happen?

Owner Glenn Miller said he suspected the fault was linked to a command cancelling the normal opening time for the day. Usually the supermarket opens at 8am every day but the shop was meant to stay closed for Good Friday.

An embarrassed Mr Miller said he did not know how much stock was taken but he was delighted that 12 people had used the self-service tills to pay for items.

Wow. Delighted about 12 honest people? That is truly sad. If you want to read more (a fair amount) here's the Waikato Times article.

Well ... yes, and no. Okay, maybe. According to the Court's latest ruling, yes. According to some prior rulings, no. Read on, from ANSA.it:

It is OK to say ''Who the f*** do you think you are?'' to a boss as an ''instinctive'' reaction to being reprimanded, Italy's highest court said Thursday.

The expression was ''disrespectful but not threatening'' and was not the sort of ''full-blown insubordination'' that might justify a sacking, the Cassation Court said.

The court's ruling, which sets precedents, came in the case of a Naples rest home assistant who was fired when he blew his top after his boss scolded him for breaking plates. The supreme court first OK'd the F-word two years ago, earning world headlines, but has since flip-flopped on the issue.

In July 2007, in its landmark ruling, the court cleared an Abruzzo town councillor who told the mayor to ''f*** off'' during a stormy town meeting because the expression was now ''common usage''.

But it changed tack a few months later by ruling bosses couldn't say employees were ''doing f***-all''.

A similar case last May saw the court take another view, saying mayors could use the word to swear at contractors.

But last July it said bosses must not swear at their staff in a case where a Sicilian company director accused an employee of not understanding ''a f***ing thing''.

Make up your mind already!