Squeezed on:

FbombTHfinal.jpgCook County, Illinois Judge Stanley Sacks, during the trial of a Chicago police officer convicted of reckless driving, said:

Pardon my language, but big fucking deal.

So… judicial. For this little doozy, Chief Judge Timothy Evans re-assigned Sacks to non-judicial duties for four months.

Squeezed on:

tattoo.jpg

Yup. When Rachel Monk, a 24-year-old Scottish woman with cerebal palsy, wanted to get a tattoo, the first establishment she and her family tried was up a flight of steps. Since Ms. Monk is in a wheelchair, she was referred to another tattoo parlor. At that establishment, called Body Creation, the owner told her

We don’t do people like you.

Me thinks they will now. A discrimination claim was filed. The Disability Rights Commision awarded Ms. Monk £2,500 ($5,000), stating

It was abundantly clear, once one took the trouble to communicate with Rachael, that she knew her own mind, was proud of the small heart (tattoo) already displayed on her right arm, and wanted that tattoo she had chosen for her left upper arm… [Mr Dean] did not attempt to make any assessment of Rachael’s vulnerability or capacity He simply ignored her and made assumptions based upon her physical abilities.

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on:
Updated:
Squeezed on:

barber%20funny%20britain%20english.jpg

Barbers Anderson and Banks are opening up a barbershop. While the space was being remodeled, an old, ornate sign was uncovered. As reported in The Argus, the sign reads “J. Barker”, “dispensing chemist” and “practical phrenologist,” and is carved in ornate gold leaf writing. Since the sign has historical significance,

They were then told by planning officers from the city council they must keep the old sign as it is protected by conservation laws – even though it advertised the wrong kind of business.

So they have this cool old sign, and life is good at Trafalgar Barbers, no? No, it’s not.

Last week the barbers received a letter from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain saying it was illegal to advertise themselves as a “dispensing chemists” when they weren’t. The letter said it would take further action unless the sign, which contravened the Medicines Act 1968, was taken down.

Only one problem – they paid £500 ($1,000 US) for their sign, and a new “old” sign would cost about £1,000 ($2,000 US)! They don’t have it, and they’re feeling a bit boxed in. Said Mr. Anderson:

The council has made us break the law. It feels like we are in a nowin situation and it is all a bit bizarre. We never wanted the sign in the first place but were told we had no choice. Now we are being told we have to take it down and pay for another one. We are told we have to preserve the cultural heritage of the area but all the other shops in the area have the signs they want above the door.

Yeah! People, get your shit together and let these gents cut hair! Here’s The Argus article.

Update: Fortunately, some agreement was reached, as the gents are still cutting hair. Click on this link, and scroll down to “Cut and dried.” Recognize those blokes?

—–
EXTENDED BODY:

—–

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on:
Updated:
Squeezed on:

dead%20end%20sign.jpg

Apparently this woman is not familiar with the scientifically proven theorem that “The third time’s the charm.” As reported by The Belleville News-Democrat in the Police Blotter:

Attempted armed robbery — Circle K, 3801 North Belt West. An employee reported that while working on paperwork at the counter, a person wearing a cap and a scarf covering her face approached the counter with a handgun. The person ordered the employee to open a safe but he could not open it. She ordered the victim a second time and again he advised it could not be opened. The suspect fled the area on foot.

Doh! The Juice is just glad nobody was hurt.

Squeezed on:

good%20deed.jpg

All too often, folks see someone in need, and just keep going. They’re too busy, or have some other reason for not stopping. Well, not this gent. He stopped to help, and, befitting that old saying [it’s BS, but hey, it’s a saying] his good deed did not go unpunished. Per lancasteronline.com, from the police blotter:

Daryl L. King, 37, of Paradise, was charged with DUI and resisting arrest after an incident Saturday at Brimmer Avenue and Orlon Street. Police dispatched for a fight just after 6 p.m. found King pushing a 29-year-old New Holland man. King refused officers’ commands to stop and eventually was taken into custody. The man King was pushing later told officers he stopped to help King, whose truck had gone off the road. He said he realized King was intoxicated and took the keys from the ignition of King’s truck, after which King began fighting with him. King was committed to Lancaster County Prison in lieu of $40,000 bail.

The Juice commends this good Samaritan, who may have saved a life.

Posted in: Uncool
Squeezed on:
Updated:
Squeezed on:

shotgun%20barrel%20gun%20looking%20down.jpg

Hey, I’ll bet if clown intruders infiltrated your house, you’d try to blast them with your shotgun too. Shot-up stuff can be fixed or replaced. But if the clowns get you, it’s curtains. As reported by the Hudson Star-Observer, a Roberts,Wisconsin man was not about to take any chances …

St. Croix County Sheriff Dennis Hillstead said the man was apparently suffering from some kind of hallucination when the incident took place at 3:56 a.m. Friday (July 9) at the home of the man’s parents where he resided.

“Deputies got a report that a number of rounds had been fired within the home,” Hillstead said. “More shots were fired when the deputies arrived and he apparently fired a shot at his parents as they fled in a vehicle.” The shots hit the windshield.

The man came out of the house carrying a shotgun, with a bag of shells over his shoulder and yelling at persons unknown, the sheriff said. The man was taken in to custody without incident and has been placed in emergency detention.

The man told investigators that he felt a number of men dressed in clown suits were attempting to invade the house, Hillstead said. The home was severely damaged during the shoot-up.

Squeezed on:

oak%20tree.jpg

Ms. Lowe [cue the villain music] was driving Mr. Moffet’s car (insured by State Farm) when [warning: tree violence] it struck and damaged Mr. Fisher’s “beautiful oak tree.” Naturally, the tree [okay Mr. Fisher] filed suit. Losing at the trial level, the tree appealed. Read on to find out who won.

Syllabus (summary)

A wayward Chevy struck a tree
Whose owner sued defendants three.
He sued car’s owner, driver two,
And insurer for what was due
For his oak tree that now may bear
A lasting need for tender care.

The Oakland County Circuit Court,
John N. O’Brien, J., set forth
The judgment that defendants sought
And quickly an appeal was brought.

Court of Appeals, J.H. Gillis, J.,
Gave thought and then had this to say:
1) There is no liability
Since No-Fault grants immunity;
2) No jurisdiction can be found
Where process service is unsound;
And thus the judgment, as it’s termed,
Is due to be, and is, Affirmed.

Opinion, Before Bronson, P.J., V.J. Brennan, and J.H. Gillis, JJ.

J.H. GILLIS, Judge.

We thought that we would never see
A suit to compensate a tree.

A suit whose claim in tort is prest
Upon a mangled tree’s behest;
A tree whose battered trunk was prest
Against a Chevy’s crumpled crest;

A tree that faces each new day
With bark and limb in disarray;
A tree that may forever bear
A lasting need for tender care.

Flora lovers though we three,
We must uphold the court’s decree.

Affirmed.

Fisher v. Lowe, Moffet and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Docket No. 60732.
Court of Appeals of Michigan.

—–
EXTENDED BODY:

—–

Squeezed on:

school.jpg

The Juice really doesn’t know where to start with this Maryland law, so here it is:

A person may not sell or offer for sale a contraceptive device, whether or not advertised as a prophylactic, by means of a vending machine or other automatic device at a kindergarten, nursery school …

So, that means no “condom” slot in the soda machine? How will the teachers cavort safely? Maryland, what have you done? Click here to read the statute.

—–
EXTENDED BODY:

—–

Squeezed on:

law%20book%20legal%20book.jpg

All of these laws are on the books. Click on the statute and see for yourself.

No tattoos? Yup, no tattoos!

It shall be unlawful for any person to tattoo or offer to tattoo any person. As used herein to “tattoo” means to insert pigment under the surface of the skin of a human being, by pricking with a needle or otherwise, so as to produce a permanent indelible mark or figure visible on the skin. Provided, however, that the provisions hereof shall not apply to any act of a licensed practitioner of the healing arts performed in the course of his practice. §21-841

The Juice is in trouble with this next one:

Profane swearing consists in any use of the name of God, or Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost, either in imprecating divine vengeance upon the utterer, or any other person, or in light, trifling or irreverent speech. §21-904

No “holy shit?” No “damn you to hell?” No “sweet Mary, mother of God?” What about “holy crap?” Not to worry too much, though. The penalty:

Every person guilty of profane swearing is punishable by a fine of One Dollar ($1.00) for each offense. §21-905

Kids, watch your butts because:

… nothing contained in this Act shall prohibit any parent, teacher or other person from using ordinary force as a means of discipline, including but not limited to spanking, switching or paddling. §21-844

Damn, switching or paddling? Well, at least the fraternities have one less thing to worry about.

Again with the duels!

Any person guilty of fighting any duel, although no death or wound ensues, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not exceeding ten (10) years. §21-662

Oh no you didn’t just try and serve me with those legal papers on Saturday.

Whoever maliciously procures any process in a civil action to be served on Saturday upon any person who keeps Saturday as holy time, and does not labor on that day, or serves upon him any process returnable on that day, or maliciously procures any civil action to which such person is a party to be adjourned to that day for trial, is guilty of a misdemeanor. §21-912

Posted in: Best Of
Squeezed on:
Updated:
Squeezed on:

garden%20hose%20grey.jpg

Okay, The Juice ran out of material, so he just flat-out made this up. Ha! No, loyal readers, sadly this is a true story. From The Toronto Star, we have this story of a tremendous waste of government resources.

On a Monday evening in October 2011, 62-year-old Kathryn David returned to her home near Mt. Pleasant Rd. and Eglinton Ave. She pulled into the shared driveway between her home and that of her neighbour, Kevin Cooper. According to the judge’s decision, she got out of her car to move Cooper’s hose that went along the side of Cooper’s house and under a tall wooden gate to the backyard. Eventually, she tugged on the hose, causing it to catch on a patio chair in Cooper’s backyard and tear.

No big thing, you might think? What if The Juice told you this, this awful act was caught on videotape? Right, still no big thing, or … was it?

The incident was caught on video surveillance cameras set up by Cooper and he called the police to report property damage. David was then handcuffed and taken to a police station in the back of police car, says her lawyer, Erec Rolfe.

What? Why?

That is standard procedure, says Toronto Police spokesperson Victor Kwong, adding that “if the public wants us to be police and not be judge and jury, we go ahead with the charge regardless of dollar amount. And then it’s up to the courts to decide whether to mediate this or go to trial with it.”

The Juice isn’t blaming the cops, just the geniuses who set up this ridiculous, overly-inclusive procedure.

“The criminal charges were laid against our neighbour following a detailed police investigation and an independent decision by the Crown prosecutor to pursue those charges,” said Cooper and his wife Sylvia by email late Tuesday night.

So what happened?

“Fortunately for the Toronto Police Service, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that stupidity in relation to the law and negligence is not a case for malicious prosecution.” said Provincial Court Justice William Wolski before dismissing the charge, according to a transcript. “Why these charges were laid is still a mystery to me.”

Next case! Here’s the source, including a photo of the scene of the crime.