Squeezed on:


Is it really a good idea to let someone tattoo your back after you’ve had an argument with him? Um, NO, as a 25-year-old Australian man learned the hard way. The tattoo was supposed to be a yin yang symbol with dragons. As reported by The Courier Mail:

A 21-year-old man has been charged by police in Ipswich for allegedly tattooing a penis on a man’s back – instead of the image he had requested.


The 25-year-old victim had been visiting the man, an amateur tattooist, at his home in Bundamba last Wednesday when he was talked into getting a tattoo.

He wanted a yin and yang symbol with some dragons, but was instead shocked to discover the 40cm [almost 16 inches!] tattoo was of a penis with an obscene slogan.

The key word in the slogan was also misspelled.

Talk about adding insult to injury.

The man now faces considerable cost [and pain?] to have the image removed.

Police said the tattooing followed an argument between the men, during which the tattooist allegedly took offence at something the other man said.

The victim has also alleged he was punched and thrown out of the house following the tattooing.

All-in-all, not a good night for the vic. What about the perp? Any charges?

The 21-year-old is due to appear in Ipswich Magistrates Court on November 15 charged with two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one charge relating to the Public Safety Act.

Here’s the source.

Squeezed on:


Son of a biscuit! She did crash that funeral. As reported by FoxCarolina.com:

According to a[n] incident report, Nicole Leonard walked into the church while the funeral was going on and started dancing near the casket.

Sure, that’s weird, but read on.

The report said that Leonard then started waving a wand around the casket before opening it and laying her hands on the deceased. Leonard then started tapping the deceased man’s head with the wand, which was described as a car antenna.

You might be wondering, as I did, what her connection was to the deceased. None!

“(It’s) kind of ironic and weird in its own right, especially for someone with no connection to the family or the deceased in any way that we can find,” [Laurens County Sheriff Ricky] Chastain said. [He happened to be at the funeral.] “(She) just picked this funeral at random to stop in and do what she did.”

Surely Ms. Leonard can clear this up.

According to the incident report, when Leonard was asked why she did it, she said that she thought it was the right thing to do at the time.

See? It all makes sense. (She was charged with “disrupting a funeral.”)

Squeezed on:


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.

There’s more – 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 →

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on:
Squeezed on:


Why would The Juice presume that no celebrities would stay in James City County, Virginia? Because they have a law prohibiting the use of a fake name when registering at a hotel. Here it is:

Sec. 15-38. False registration by guests.

It shall be unlawful for any person to write, or cause to be written, or knowingly permit to be written, in any guest register in any lodging place in the county, any other or different name or designation than the true name of the person registered therein, or the name by which such person is generally known, or to enter false information regarding any vehicle. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Surely all those law-abiding adulterers give their real names …

Squeezed on:


In Newport News, Virginia, and some other fun-loving locales across the country, it is illegal for anyone over the age of eleven to trick or treat! This is truly one of the dumbest laws The Juice has encountered (and that’s saying something). Here’s the law:

Sec. 28-5. – Prohibited trick or treat activities.

(a) If any person beyond the seventh grade of school or over twelve (12) years of age shall engage in the activity commonly known as “trick or treat” or any other activity of similar character or nature under any name whatsoever, such person shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting any parent, guardian or other responsible person having lawfully in his custody a child twelve (12) years old or younger, from accompanying such child who is playing “trick or treat” for the purpose of caring for, looking after or protecting such child. However, no accompanying parent or guardian shall wear a mask of any type.

(b) If any person shall engage in playing “trick or treat” or any other activity of similar character or nature under any name whatsoever after 8:00 p.m., such person shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.

Here’s a link to the City of Newport News Code of Ordinances (see Chapter 28).

Squeezed on:

<img alt="dentist_patient_nightmare.jpg" src="/files/2013/09/dentist_patient_nightmare-thumb.jpg" width="280" height="376" align = "left" style="margin-right: 7px;" Let’s say you’re in a car crash, and you go to see your dentist. It must be bad because, in one day, the dentist performs SEVEN root canals! Now see if you can guess how many should have been done. NONE!

Oh, and not only were the SEVEN root canals unnecessary, dentists who testified at Dr. Lawrence Ho’s hearing said they were done improperly, and required five additional procedures to repair the damage. And, after the 7-bagger, Ho continued to treat the man, Wayne Chalazan, for four more months, doing additional work, none of which relieved the pain! Did I mention that Ho also pulled 2 teeth without sufficient evidence that it was necessary? What about the dental panel’s finding that Ho overcharged for this butchery? And that he misdiagnosed Mr. Chalazan, and didn’t keep proper records of the tests, treatments or anesthetic he gave him? And that, since this took place in 1999, Mr. Chalazan has continuous pain, and can only eat soft foods?

All this, and the guy gets … a 2-month suspension (plus $102,000 in legal costs and other fees) from The College of Dental Surgeons of Saskatchewan! Absurd. They should have sentenced him to SEVEN root canals, and 2 pulled teeth (plus 4 months of pain and unnecessary treatment). Hopefully Dr. Ho will feel some pain in his wallet. Mr. Chalazan has filed a civil suit seeking at least $100,000.

The last word will go to Mr. Chalazan: “Basically, I was tortured.” (You can read more here.)

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on:
Squeezed on:


Maybe “Plaxico Burress lite” would be a better description of what transpired in Seattle, Washington, as reported in The Highland Times police blotter:

Police responded to a call for medical assistance in the 12000 block of Ambaum Blvd. A man accidentally set off a bottle rocket firework in his pants. He was transported to Harborview by ambulance to be treated for superficial burns on his groin, face and hand. No other injuries were reported.

So how exactly do you set off a bottle rocket in your pants?

Posted in: Oops and Wacky
Squeezed on:
Squeezed on:


Sure, all families argue. Thankfully, most of them don’t try to resolve their differences the way a few Kashmiri brothers recently did. As reported by the Kashmir Dispatch:

In a bizarre incident, brother-in-laws [?] of a woman on Monday chopped off her finger over a land dispute in Akhnoor tehsil of Jammu.


Reports said, Sukh Ram and Mahinder, sons of Balwant Raj chopped off a finger of their sister-in-law, Champa Devi at her residence in Raja Sayot area of Akhnoor this morning. Bittu Ram, husband of the victim was not present in the house when his brothers attacked Champa. After chopping her finger, the accused fled from the spot. The injured woman was rushed to the nearby public health centre. She received five stitches.

If you’re wondering how five stitches could possibly reattach a finger, so is The Juice.

Soon after the incident, a police party reached the spot and recorded the statement of the woman.

“We have registered a case Fir No 247/2010 under section, 341, 323 RPC against the accused. We’ll get them soon,” Abid Bukhari, a police official said.


Squeezed on:


If you don’t know when to say when, at least know when to take a cab. As reported by The Murfreesboro Post:

Officers stopped a vehicle driving on the center lane traveling down Maple Street early Saturday morning.

When asked for her license, the woman driving the car handed the officer a credit card.

The driver agreed to attempt a field sobriety test, which she was unable to pass.

She was placed under arrest and informed of her rights and the implied consent law, to which she replied, “No, I am going to call a police officer.”

Okay, if that’s how you want to use your one phone call …