Legal Juice

If this dude is a sports fan, here’s guessing that his favorite cliche is the one about running a successful play over and over until the opposing team stops it. Now, It may be useful in sports, but in crime? Not so much. Especially crimes against property … As reported in The Spectator [Hamilton, Ontario]:

Police had staked out a Subway restaurant on Lake Street Tuesday that’s been robbed three times before, when a man robbed the Esso gas bar next door at Scott Street.

The suspect was nabbed with the cash running from the gas bar. Turns out, detectives say the man is the same one who’s hit the Subway so often.

A 38-year-old St. Catharines man has been charged with four counts of robbery and was scheduled to appear in St. Catharines court Wednesday.

Doh!

In almost every jurisdiction, male lawyers must wear a jacket and tie when they appear in court. The idea is to appear dignified and professional – we are, after all, officers of the court. Most attorneys would probably agree that the courtroom is not the place to make a fashion statement.

Tom Cherryhomes, a New Mexico family lawyer, felt otherwise. Per the court,

On September 13, 1991, Cherryhomes appeared in Judge Shuler’s courtroom to represent a client in a child abuse/neglect proceeding. Cherryhomes was wearing a short-sleeved, conventional dress shirt with the neck unbuttoned. He had a light blue piece of cloth or bandanna tied around his neck, above his collar, and he was not wearing a jacket.

Judge Schuler reminded Mr. Cherryhomes that ties were required attire in his courtroom. Per the court:

[Cherryhomes] said he was wearing a tie, even if Judge Shuler did not like his choice, and referred to a book on nineteenth century western wear and a dictionary definition of “tie,” which he had brought with him. Judge Shuler disagreed with Cherryhomes’s interpretation of the meaning of the local rules requirement of a tie, and found Cherryhomes in contempt, fining him $50.

Cherryhomes requested a hearing, and an opportunity to explain himself. The Judge agreed. Shockingly, the Judge agreed with himself! Based on what you know of this lawyer so far, do you think he appealed? He did. And who do you think won?

Continue reading →

You’re probably thinking “oh, like you’ve never brandished?” A gun? No, The Juice has never brandished a gun. The same cannot be said for Ms. Shiquita D. Reed, whose recent trip to Brandishstan (look it up) involved children at a bus stop! As reported by The Richmond Times-Dispatch:

A Chesterfield County mother with a history of disturbing, anti-social behavior was convicted Thursday of brandishing a gun [a .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol!] in front of three students at her daughter’s bus stop and sent to jail for two years.

Declaring Shiquita D. Reed a “danger to society,” Judge D. Gregory Carr of Chesterfield Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court convicted the 33-year-old mother of six on three misdemeanor counts of brandishing and sentenced her to a total of 36 months in jail with 12 months suspended.

What about her record?

Carr noted Reed’s prior record, including at least three convictions for assault and battery, one for destruction of property and another for brandishing a gun when she was 18, in 1996.

A year ago last month, Reed was charged in Richmond with three counts of brandishing a firearm in the course of six days, including one incident involving a student walking to school. But all three charges eventually were withdrawn because the witnesses either didn’t show up in court or refused to testify.

The Richmond commonwealth’s attorney’s office has dealt with Reed nearly a dozen times in recent years on a variety of charges, but most were dropped because of witness problems.

This may, or may not, explain why there has been such a problem with witnesses:

… Reed … [said] it wasn’t uncommon for her to walk her daughter to the bus stop and she had carried her gun there at least three times before…

“I always carry my gun,” Reed testified, adding that she straps it on soon after she wakes up in the morning.

Yikes.

Honestly, sir, get a life. Don’t look at it. Move to the mountains. Read the Constitution. But please, don’t waste anyone’s time with your complaints about this decal!!!!! As reported by Great Falls Tribune (Montana):

Brian Smith is tired of coming home from work to see what he calls pornography [see above] staring him in the face from across the alley.

Smith, who lives on the 1600 block of 1st Avenue North, said the problem began when he noticed a large decal on the back window of a car in the parking lot of Quality Life Concepts. The decal is a white silhouette of a naked woman.

“To me, this has crossed the line,” he said.

What does the decal’s owner think?

Offensive or not, Shanna Weaver, who owns the car and decal in question, said it’s her right to display the picture.

“It’s my freedom of speech, which he can’t take away,” Weaver said. “It’s no different than the mud flaps that you see on trucks.”

What do you have to say to that, sir [other than that you want all those mud flaps on trucks across the country removed]?

Smith feels differently. There are certain parts of the body in that silhouette that neither he nor his wife, Louise, like to look at when they pull into their garage directly across from Quality of Life Concepts, where Weaver works — and parks.

“My upbringing dictates that the human body is a sacred thing, not something that should be put on display,” Smith said.

Perhaps your upbringing would have been aided with a dose of tolerance. With such disparate views on the subject, could they work this out?

Smith and Weaver confirmed in separate interviews that Smith talked to Weaver about the decal, telling her that he didn’t like looking at it and asking if she could back her car into her parking spot or park it somewhere else where the decal didn’t face his house. Weaver initially agreed, honoring Smith’s request for one day. The next day, the decal was back in Smith’s view.

Although The Juice prefers to back in, good for her! But that wasn’t the end of it for Mr. Smith.

That’s when Smith wondered if he could take his complaint to the police. Smith’s point of view is that the sticker on the back of Weaver’s car is pornography, and it should be illegal to display it in public.

A police officer dispatched to check out the decal determined that the illustration didn’t fit the city or state’s statute defining obscenity. The legal spat between Smith and Weaver never made it past a complaint with the Great Falls Police Department …

Choppers, choppers, choppers. Eric White, 42, of Edinburgh, Scotland, just can’t get enough of the pearlie whites. He roamed the city streets, telling women that he worked for a dental company, and wanted to photograph their teeth. And he didn’t just roam the streets in search of worthy teeth. In 2004, he drove alongside a woman, flashing his lights and beeping his horn to get her to pull over. As reported in The Scotsman:

When she did so, he told her about his work for a dental company, commented on her “beautiful teeth” and asked if he could photograph them for a dental magazine. She initially agreed, but became suspicious and left when he told her she had a “sexy mouth” and a “beautiful tongue”. He repeatedly approached her until she finally reported him to the police in March 2006 when he reappeared at her new home in Newtongrange.

Although he wasn’t prosecuted for that one, there were plenty of others. Mr. White was arrested for breach of the peace by placing three women in a state of fear and alarm. He pleaded guilty … You can read more by clicking here for The Scotsman article.

You will be not be surprised to learn that Mr. William Ernst (who owns a bunch of convenience stores called QC Mart) was known by some as the “boss from hell.” A recent brainstorm to make the case? How about a memo titled “New Contest – Guess The Next Cashier Who Will Be Fired!!!”? As reported by The Des Moines Register, here’s what the memo said:

“
To win our game, write on a piece of paper the name of the next cashier you believe will be fired. Write their name [the person who will be fired], today’s date, today’s time, and your name. Seal it in an envelope and give it to the manager to put in my envelope.

“Here’s how the game will work: We are doubling our secret-shopper efforts, and your store will be visited during the day and at night several times a week. Secret shoppers will be looking for cashiers wearing a hat, talking on a cell phone, not wearing a QC Mart shirt, having someone hanging around/behind the counter, and/or a personal car parked by the pumps after 7 p.m., among other things.

“If the name in your envelope has the right answer, you will win $10 CASH. Only one winner per firing unless there are multiple right answers with the exact same name, date, and time. Once we fire the person, we will open all the envelopes, award the prize, and start the contest again.

“And no fair picking Mike Miller from (the Rockingham Road store). He was fired at around 11:30 a.m. today for wearing a hat and talking on his cell phone. Good luck!!!!!!!!!!”

As a result of this wonderful team-building contest, several workers quit. When they sought unemployment, the boss fought it and … lost!

Administrative Law Judge Susan D. Ackerman sided with the workers, calling the contest “egregious and deplorable.” Shelsky was awarded unemployment benefits.

“The employer’s actions have clearly created a hostile work environment by suggesting its employees turn on each other for a minimal monetary prize,” Ackerman ruled. “This was an intolerable and detrimental work environment.”

That’ll probably be the end of the contests, at least for a little while.