Legal Juice

Nor would you want to be, because many folks have died with lower blood-alcohol levels. Would it surprise you if a fraternity was involved? Or pledges? Five hours of drinking? Me either. Pledges to Beta Theta Pi at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania kicked off the pledging season with a bang. The brothers made sure of that. As reported in The Brown and White, the school’s paper:

After dinner, all members of the pledge class were taken into the party room and offered shots of Old Crow whiskey for about one and a half to two hours. They were then taken into the chapter room and given champagne to drink out of the “loving cup,” which is a ritual at the fraternity, according to a police affidavit.

Shots of whiskey for 1.5 – 2 hours? It’s no wonder, then, that one of the pledges had a blood-alcohol level of .505, more than 6 times the level of legal impairment (.08) in Pennsylvania! Incredibly, the kid didn’t die, though he and another pledge (.31) were in the hospital, unresponsive and breathing through ventilators. (Last year a Rider University student with a .426 blood-alcohol level died.)

Actually in the United Kingdom, what Americans call potato chips, they call “crisps.” The burning question before a UK High Court judge was: Are Pringles “crisps” or not? Why is this important? Because if they are crisps, they get taxed at 17.5%! If not, they are exempt from the tax, as is most other food. So what was the decision?

Judge Justice Warren said Pringles’ “unnatural shape”, distinctive tube packaging, and non-potato ingredients meant that the snack could not be classified as a crisp.

The ruling yesterday pointed out that Pringles – who are most famous for their irritatingly catch adverts “once you pop, you can’t stop” – contain corn flour, wheat starch, maltodextrin, emulsifier, rice flour and dextrose, and just 42 per cent potato content.

I am shocked, shocked I say … that anyone would argue Pringles are potato chips. You can read more in The Telegraph article here.

So Shelley Gallant was approaching the 12-mile mark of the Chicago Marathon when, out of the blue, a man she didn’t know “came out of nowhere” and sucker-punched her in the face! And she crumbled to the ground. She stopped running right? Nope. She sat down, dazed, for about 30 minutes, and then ran another 8 miles before the race was terminated due to the heat. Oh, and she vomited 4 times. Tough lady. Does she want revenge? Nope. Said Ms. Gallant:

I don’t want to press charges. I just want to know what happened. Was he out of his mind? Why did he do that to me?

And what did police tell Mr. Gallant, who was at the race but did not see the attack? Only that the attacker “was apparently low on electrolytes.” Gee, thanks officer. Here are a few comments from runners who witnessed the attack:

We were running on the left side of the course when, suddenly, a runner on the other side of the course turned around and starting running in a curve towards our side of the course. He was wearing a red top and looked to be in his 20’s. He was yelling and screaming, and, without warning, ran up to a young woman, running nearer our side of the course, and punched her in the face. It was a wild hay maker that connected. She had no chance to defend herself and anyone with her would have had no way to protect her. She went down. In the few seconds it took for us to reach her, some runners had grabbed the berserk young man and others were giving aid to the young woman, who was in tears and utterly distraught. We saw no sign that she could have done or said anything to him that would trigger such a violent reaction…Pat Dooley, Cleveland

It was pretty appalling. What I distinctly recall is that he was running against the crowd as if to find someone behind him. He looked angry and was zigzagging around the runners. It seemed like this poor woman got in the way and within a second of crashing into her, he just punched her and she went down. He kept running and was tackled within 10 seconds or so. Once the cops arrived and the guy was restrained, he was crying….Martha-Victoria Diaz, South Loop

It was extremely strange…Either the guy lost his mind because of the heat, was off his meds, or was upset about something this woman did and attacked her. Anyone know what happened to this guy?….Ryan McQueeney, LaGrange Park

To read more, click here.

I’ll call him Fuzzy because, well, I don’t know his name. Since he’s a minor and wasn’t charged with a felony, his name has been withheld. Now technically, Fuzzy didn’t actually “streak” across the Parkland High School (Pennsylvania) gym [during a basketball game!] because he had a sock on his … jimmy. You’re the school superintendent. What do you do? I would suspend him for a couple days. But nooooooooooooo, not Superintendent Louise Donohue. She booted him, for the rest of the year, to an alternative school (also attended by [former] knife-wielding students) run by a private company. Said Fuzzy of the punishment:

It’s just because of the publicity, I think. I’m still sorry for what I did — I would never do it again — but that punishment is … out there.

We’re with you, Fuzzy.

So said Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the United States Supreme Court in a case that blew me away when I first encountered it in law school. The case is Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Virginia passed a law allowing the state to forcibly sterilize certain “mental defectives” to promote “the health of the patient and the welfare of society.” Shockingly, not all of these folks wanted to be sterilized. Carrie Buck, a resident of the State Colony for Epilectics and Feeble Minded, was one such person. When you read how Justice Holmes sets forth the case, you can probably guess how it came down. (I guess the title of the post offers a small hint too.) Here’s what he said:

Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony … She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child.

Here is Justice Holmes’ reasoning and conclusion:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for a crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. (emphasis added)

Almost 20 years after I first read the case, it still sends chills down my spine.

I’m not saying Florida Judge Jorge Labarga was wrong. I’m just saying that, if 18-year-old Alexandria Severino believes in a higher being, she should now call him “Labarga.” The crimes? Ms. Severino pleaded guilty to 2 counts of trafficking in ecstasy, and one count of trafficking in hydrocodone. The mandatory minimum for each count is 3 years. Guess how much jail time she’ll be doing? Squadoosh. Zippy. Nada.

This is one of those times. Remember the New York judge who jailed 46 people because a cell phone went off in his courtroom? (If you don’t, click here. It was outrageous.) Guess what happened to him (Niagra Falls City Court Judge Robert M. Restaino)? He’s gone! He was removed from the bench by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, whose decision was upheld by the State Court of Appeals.

Yes, because then he could blackmail them! Fifty-year-old San Antonio, Texas lawyer Ted Roberts coaxed some serious cashish from an accountant, a lawyer, and two executives who had the pleasure of Mary Roberts’ company. Old Ted threatened to tell their wives and employers if they didn’t pony up.

And pony up they did, to the tune of $155,000. But it was for a good cause, right Ted? The jury found that, after assuring 2 of the men that he would donate the money to a children’s charity, Ted instead used it to help pay for a new house and to fund his law practice. The good news for Ted? The jury acquitted him on 2 of the charges because one of the victims said he didn’t care where his money went, and the other said he knew it would be used to repay Ted for his start-up costs (paying the private investigator to get the goods). Surely Ted sees the error of his ways? Nope. Said Ted to the Court:

It is incredible to me after I sought protection from the law that … I face sentencing without having committed a crime.

Huh? And for good measure, the prosecutor brought in a teacher who claimed Ted said in 2005 that he would represent her for free, if only she’d share “deep, dark,” sexual secrets about the city’s movers and shakers. Said the prosecutor:

This is who you have before you … Somebody who wants sexual secrets and then wants to use them against people to blackmail and extort them.

What do you think the judge’s sentence was? Continue reading →