Squeezed on:


Remember when a bunch of people at UCLA Medical Center snuck a peak at Brittany Spears’ electronic medical records? No? I didn’t either. Well they did. As reported by California Healthline:

The Department of Public Health said 53 employees, including 14 doctors, at UCLA Medical Center breached Spears’ records on two occasions.

They were disciplined or fired, right?

None of the physicians quit or were fired.

What what what? None of the physicians? Then the nonphysicians must have skated by too, right? Nope.

18 [nonphysician] employees resigned, retired or were dismissed after the violations were discovered, according to UCLA data.

I’m guessing this is why:

In the past, UCLA has said physicians are overseen by a group of their peers, while other employees report to the human resources department.

Lovely. Here’s the source.

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on:
Squeezed on:


So this woman (no, that’s not her, but could you resist using that picture?) crashed her car and refused a breathalyzer test. For her crime, she was sentenced to 80 hours of community service. Apparently nobody anticipated that she would show up for the community service in 4-inch heels. She was sent back to court, as the boots were deemed a health and safety hazard. What do you think should happen? Here are excerpts of the story from The Daily Mail:

Debbie Stallard was told she couldn’t do the manual work because her boots were a health and safety hazard.

The 47-year-old, from Paignton in Devon, claimed she was unable to wear flat shoes for medical reasons. ‘Since I was a little girl I have only been able to walk on the balls of my feet. Even my slippers have two and a half inch heels.

‘The long and the short of it is that I can’t wear flat shoes because of a medical condition I have had since I was a child. ‘It’s health and safety gone mad. I was made to feel stupid’.

The mother-of-two had been sentenced to 80 hours community service after she was convicted of damaging a vehicle and failing to provide a specimen of breath.

Within 10 days she arrived at the probation service’s community payback workshop in Torquay but was told her towering boots would be unsuitable for ‘the vigorous work ahead’.

The probation service took her back to court last Friday asking that the community service order be revoked and replaced with another punishment.

Judges have adjourned the case until more detailed medical reports are made available.

Probation officer Heidi Randle said: ‘She attended on the date required but was sent away because she was wearing heels. ‘We tried to contact the GP [General Practitioner] in this case and received a letter which was non-committal and does not say anything specific about wearing flats.

Starting to smell a bit?

‘It is a non-NHS [National Health Service] matter and, for a fee, he would write a more detailed report’.

Or does the doctor just want some dough?

Ms Stallard’s solicitor John Darby said: ‘My client has always lived on her toes. ‘She has always worn heels and in her last job had to sign a disclaimer so she could wear high heels to work. She can’t walk in flats.’

A spokesman for the Probation Service said: ‘We take the health and safety legislation for offenders very seriously. ‘Ms Stallard was offered protective footwear but refused to comply. We had no option but to return the order to court for magistrates to re-sentence as they see fit.’

Interesting. Here’s the source.

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on:
Squeezed on:


Forget about flying first class. Men may soon be asking for “Martz” class. Why? Pilot Martz was flying a helicopter while receiving oral sex from a porn actress! How do we know this? It’s on video! (“The video shows the woman disrobing before engaging Martz in a sex act while the San Diego landscape is passing by the [ahem] cockpit windows,” as reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune.)

In his defense (in filings relating to his pilot’s license) Martz “… said … that the video showed he had his hands on the flight controls while receiving oral sex.” Shazam! I guess if you’re going to fight it, you have to offer something up. So what happened?

[The] judge has upheld the revocation of the license …

Is there any future (in flying) for Mr. Martz?

[He] … will have to reapply for his license next year when the revocation ends.

Did his past record play a part? Perhaps …

Martz is a commercial pilot with a history of FAA violations, including two license suspensions and two revocations going back to the 1980s.


Lawyers for the federal agency argued Martz’s conduct was careless and reckless. His attention was diverted from flying; the woman’s position prevented him from reaching flight controls; and she could have caused him physical harm that would have precluded him from operating the helicopter, according to Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman.

And, um, you’ve read Martz’s defense. [Also, “Martz has argued that since the 2005 incident, he served a suspension last year on an unrelated matter and had corrected any defects in his flying skills.”] “Hence, careless and recklessness cannot be made as a finding of fact,” according to Martz’s filing.

Um, yes, they can. The end? Not necessarily. “Martz can appeal the ruling to the NTSB.”

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on:
Squeezed on:

Bart%20poster%20streak%20streaking%20simpsons.jpg Reverend Robert Whipkey was arrested in Frederick, Colorado for jogging naked (around the high school track) at 4:30 a.m. He was busted while walking home, still naked. So what was his defense to the indecent exposure charge? Per the Daily Camera:

Whipkey’s attorney argued his client’s actions didn’t satisfy an element of the indecent-exposure law that requires proof he “knowingly” exposed himself. Defense attorney Harvey Steinberg said Whipkey thought he was alone.

“Did he say, ‘Hey, look at me. I’m naked. Take a look at my genitals?’” Steinberg said. “When he realized for the first time that someone was out at 4:30 a.m., he immediately covered up.”

Do you think the defense worked? As Maxwell Smart would say, “missed it by that much.” The jury found Reverend Whipkey guilty.

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on:
Squeezed on:


You’ll have a hard time believing what this Minnesota man’s fetish is, and that he will be spending a year in jail because of it. Per the Duluth News Tribune:

Christopher Neil Bjerkness is not a rapist, but a Duluth judge lectured him on Wednesday that unless he stops carrying out a bizarre sexual fetish of slashing exercise balls with a knife, he could some day find himself facing an indeterminate civil commitment as a sexual psychopath.

Bjerkness was sentenced in St. Louis County District Court to 21 months in prison, but as part of a plea agreement the sentence was stayed for five years of supervised probation, which includes a one-year sentence at the Northeast Regional Corrections Center, where he will enter a sex offender treatment program.

Why jail?

The judge said no one wanted to send him to prison at this time but that his behavior was a violation of privacy and his predilection for the fetish seemed to be escalating.

And after that year in prison?

If he doesn’t change his ways, the judge said, Bjerkness could wind up in prison and potentially face a civil commitment process.

Sexual psychopaths can be civilly committed after their prison sentences when the court determines they still pose a risk to the public. It can be a lifelong commitment.

If you’re wondering why Mr. Bjerkness does this …

In a July interview, [he] told the News Tribune that he couldn’t explain his fetish. He said he suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome, bipolar depression and cerebral palsy. That information was later confirmed by his adoptive parents.

Does anyone else think that outpatient therapy would have been appropriate instead of jail?

Bjerkness said his fetish for exercise balls has nothing to do with the people who work or exercise at gyms and he doesn’t believe he is a threat to anyone. He is unemployed, but said he has worked mowing lawns, as a dishwasher and as a telemarketer.

No, this wasn’t his first conviction. In 2005, he was convicted of … breaking into a facility and … damaging inflatable exercise balls.

Posted in: Odd Cases
Squeezed on:
Squeezed on:


Oftentimes, some things you just have to live with, like, say, smells you don’t like. Actually, if a proposed Honolulu bill passes, you might not, at least in Honolulu. The question is, how does one determine if an odor “unreasonably disturb[s] others or interfere[s] with their use of the transit system?” Hey, Axe disturbs me. I think that’s reasonable. The stench of stilton cheese disturbs me. Is that “reasonable?” If this law passes, and I’m driving the bus, ain’t gonna be any Axe-wearing, stilton-toting passengers on board.

Here are the relevant portions of this idiotic proposed law:

SECTION 5. Chapter 13, Article 3, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu 1990, is amended by adding a new Section 13-3.1 to read as follows:

Sec. 13-3.1 Activities prohibited on transit property.

(b) The following actions are prohibited in, on or in relation to, all transit properties. … a person who commits one of the following acts in, on or in relation to transit property is in violation of this section and subject to the penalties listed in Section 13-3.3(b).

(13) Bringing onto transit property odors that unreasonably disturb others or interfere with their use of the transit system, whether such odors arise from one’s person, clothes, articles, accompanying animal or any other source.[emphasis added]

The penalty?

Any person violating Section … 13-3.1(b), or aiding, abetting, or assisting in any manner whatsoever another person to violate any of such provisions shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in an amount not exceeding $500.00 or be imprisoned for a period not exceeding six months or be both so fined and imprisoned.

Know what “disturbs” the Juice? This ridiculous, ultra-vague proposed law. Here’s a link to the Bill.

Squeezed on:


Great. Just what the world needs – another reason for iPhone users to brag about their beloved phones. You can bet that Carnegie Mellon University student Can Duruk will be talking it up. He was mugged the other day in Pittsburgh. Per ThePittsburghChannel.com:

Police said two men flashed what looked like a gun at Can Duruk and demanded his wallet, PIN and iPhone early Saturday morning in the 400 block of Amberson Avenue.

Should have let him keep the iPhone, or at least turned it off. Why?

He got on his computer and tracked his iPhone using its global positioning satellite chip. The feature allows users to pinpoint the location of their phone if it’s ever lost or stolen.


Police officers tracked the three suspects to an Eat N’ Park in North Versailles, where police arrested the men.

Police said Brent Potter and Bryant Rather will be charged with robbery, and Myron Knox Jr. will also face charges related to using stolen credit cards.

Duruk got most of his belongings back.

Here’s the full story, including photos and a video.

Squeezed on:


Of course the Juice would never condone vandalism, but … how about that artwork! No doubt the City of Ottawa will think twice before installing a sign with an empty panel. A skilled vandal took the opportunity to fill that empty panel with … well … look at the picture above and figure it out for yourself.

Posted in: Wacky
Squeezed on:
Squeezed on:


Not only did this doctor have sex with his patient … he did so in his office, weekly, and at least one of those times … her husband was in the waiting room! Per metro.co.uk:

A doctor ‘nearly fell off the couch’ when a patient told him her husband was in a surgery waiting room outside while they had sex, a disciplinary panel heard.

Dr Michael Rusling indulged in regular sex sessions with the grandmother, the General Medical Council heard. Known as Patient A, the grandmother enjoyed weekly liaisons with him in a seven-month affair at the Sydenham House Group Practice in Hull in 2006-07.

Dr Rusling, of Beverley in East Yorkshire, admits inappropriate conduct and an abuse of power but denies his fitness to practise is impaired. The hearing continues.

Dude. You really don’t think your fitness to practice is impaired? One has to question the judgment of a doctor who doesn’t question his judgment under these circumstances.

Squeezed on:


Mr. Joe Scola, of Gloucester, Massachusetts, heard the front door of his restaurant slam. As reported in the Gloucester Daily Times,

When he glanced outside, he saw his waitress returning from a break. She asked him, “Who’s that guy carrying the meat down the street?” Scola recounted yesterday.

The dude was loaded up with 20 pounds of Scola’s frozen meat. So Scola chased him and caught him.

“What are you doing with my food?” Scola said he asked the suspect. “I’m really hungry, man,” the suspect replied.

As Scola began taking the meat back, the dude “raised the 5-pound, frozen solid log of prosciutto above his head, presumably to hit Scola.” Bad move, meat man. What did Scola do?

“I slammed him with the ham in the face,” Scola said from his kitchen yesterday. The would-be thief, stunned and with a gouge on his face, dropped the meat and ran.

He may still be running. The police couldn’t find him. And don’t think that Scola is a coldhearted, greedy guy.

“I felt bad,” Scola said of the suspect’s injuries. “If he had come in and said he was hungry, I’d have given him a breakfast.”

Having once been homeless himself, he gives back to the community by donating leftover food to a local shelter. And it’s unlikely the thief was stealing the food to eat because it takes several days to thaw out.

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on: