Legal Juice

Yes, sir. They're tackling the big problems in Victoria, Australia. Here are a few recently enacted laws:

In Bass Coast shire, families were shocked to learn they needed a $100 permit for children to camp in their own back yards.

Geelong residents can be fined for feeding ducks or throwing stones into a public lake.

In Whittlesea, garage sales can't be advertised until the day of the sale and if the signs aren't removed by the end of the day the seller would get a $234 fine for each sign.

Pigeon keeper Frank de Pasqvale said new times for exercising pigeons in Wyndham would make the birds easy targets for eagles. He said it also would be difficult for owners who had work and personal commitments during those hours.

Controversy surrounding the exercising of pigeons? Who knew. Here's the source, The Herald Sun.

Who do you think would be the last group of folks to tell the government that they are subversives? Maybe subversives? Well sir, the legislature in South Carolina was of a different mind, because they enacted the "Subversive Activities Registration Act." Honestly. Per the act:

For the purposes of this chapter the following words, phrases and terms are defined as follows:

(1) "Subversive organization" means every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means;

So what's a subversive organization in South Carolina to do?

SECTION 23-29-60. Registration of members of subversive and foreign-controlled organizations.

Every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this State or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means, who resides, transacts any business or attempts to influence political action in this State, shall register with the Secretary of State on the forms and at the times prescribed by him.

Exactly how does a subversive organization register? Since you asked ...

SECTION 23-29-70. Forms and schedule for filing information.

Every organization or person coming within the provisions of this chapter shall file with the Secretary of State all information which he may request, on the forms and at the times he may prescribe.

And yes, there is a form for that. Oh, and that'll be $5.00 please. Here, in all its glory, is the Act. By the way, though the registration fee may be small, the penalty for failure to do so can be quite severe.

Any organization or person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by both fine and imprisonment.

What's worse than getting bitten by a rabid bat? Having to pay for all of the treatment out of your own pocket. Fortunately for David Froelich of Delaware County, Ohio, he only got bitten once. As reported by the Columbus Dispatch:

A little-known Ohio law allows a person bitten or injured by a rabid animal to ask county commissioners to reimburse up to $1,500 for medical treatment. The request must be made within four months of the bite, and a doctor must verify the treatment.

The debate came when Froehlich, 61, asked the county commissioners to help cover his $5,000 hospital bill for a series of rabies-vaccine shots.

... the commissioners unanimously agreed to pay Froehlich the maximum reimbursement allowed under the law. Commissioners weren't obligated to fulfill Froehlich's request, because it was made two days after the four-month window had closed.

Fortunately for Mr. Froelich ...

... a 1928 state attorney general's opinion grants commissioners discretion when considering such claims, so waiving the timeline is within the law.

Think this happens often? Nope.

Brad Cole, managing director for research at the County Commissioners' Association of Ohio, said he knew of no other such rabies-bite reimbursements.

Whew, and ..

Cole said the reimbursement law was revised in 2000 to increase the payment amount from $200 to $1,500, which was the estimated cost of treatment at the time.

Whew. You can read more here.

I know lots of states still have stupid laws criminalizing premarital sex. But the Juice found this Minnesota law to be particularly amusing.

609.34 Fornication.

When any man and single woman have sexual intercourse with each other, each is guilty of fornication, which is a misdemeanor.

Now I understand the backstory for Minnesota's state slogan: "Minnesota - Three's Not A Crowd." Here's the statute.

Here's a wacky current Minnesota law I stumbled upon:

609.294 Bestiality.

Whoever carnally knows a dead body or an animal or bird is guilty of bestiality, which is a misdemeanor. If knowingly done in the presence of another the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000 or both.

I have several questions. Exactly why would would having sex with a dead PERSON fall under the bestiality law? What kind of mind would conceive of a person having sex with a bird? Is this even possible? (Please, don't answer that.) The Juice is at a loss. Here's a link to the statute.

Is there really a law that forbids you from tipping someone for good service? Yup. (Okay, technically it's a by-law that applies to city-owned cemeteries.) In Hamilton, Ontario, you are forbidden from tipping a cemetery worker! Really. Props to The Hamilton Spectator for digging this up (sorry!). Here it is:

24. No tips or gratuities are to be given to cemetery workers by visitors or Rights Holders, nor shall any be accepted by any cemetery worker.

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.

You live in Pennsylvania, and you just want to pick up a six-pack of beer and be on your way. So you head down to the Sheetz convenience store, which has a license to sell beer. But, under Pennsylvania law, because Sheetz wouldn't allow folks to drink on the premises, they're not allowed to sell beer at all! Say what? Sheetz took this absurd law to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and ... lost. Per The Daily Review: ...

...state law allows stores to sell six-packs only if consumers also may consume beer on the premises.

The Sheetz store in question didn’t want to accommodate beer-drinking in the store, prompting the court to rule that state law then prohibited it from selling beer for takeout.

It all makes sense, right? We want people to drink, then drive, instead of going home and drinking! Brilliant! Here's the source.

Tumid? Seriously, does anyone know what "tumid" means? Some legislators did, because they put it in Section 3303.14 of the Columbus (Ohio) Code:

"Nude" or "state of nudity" means a state of dress or undress that exposes to view: ...

2. Human male genitals in a discernibly tumid state, even with a complete and opaque covering, or

3. A covering or device that when worn, depicts, represents, or simulates human female genitals, human female areolae or nipples, or human male genitals in a discernibly tumid state.

(Emphasis added by the Juice.) As you may have guessed, "tumid" means "erect" or "stiff" or "rigid." Now, was that so hard? (Sorry!)

Seriously, you banned karaoke, Lilburn, Georgia? And it lasted 2 years? I'm guessing those lawmakers must have hated "Footloose." All that dancing and music ... As reported in The Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Sing your hearts out, Lilburn. Now, it’s allowed. Two years after the city put the kibosh on karaoke in an effort to curtail crime, leaders have relaxed their liquor law to permit karaoke and other forms of “interactive” entertainment, including trivia, darts and pool, at restaurants that sell alcohol.

Why the change in tune? [Ouch.] To attract and keep businesses and young adults.

“Lilburn has matured, and we want to keep it vibrant,” said Mayor Diana Preston. “Our focus is keeping our business community strong and that means a diversity of businesses.”

And, she said, Lilburn — which bans bars — wants to accommodate its young adults, who enjoy pub atmospheres.

Lilburn officials had tightened up its alcohol ordinance in 2007 amid controversy over Sports Fan Bar and Grill. The City Council had argued that crime follows bars, and they believed Sports Fan was a bar masquerading as a restaurant.

So leaders clamped down on common bar activities such as karaoke. The action stirred debate, with some accusing Lilburn of closing the tap on good times. Sports Fan shut down last year.

The City Council approved the ordinance revisions Monday night. Lilburn’s liquor laws now compare to Gwinnett County’s.

Thor Johnson, president of the Lilburn Business Association, said the change has been a long time coming. “Chain restaurants will not move into a community like this because restrictions we’ve had in the past,” Johnson said.

But what about crime? Preston said that’s no longer a concern given the number of police officers and the creation of the alcohol review board.

City Clerk Kathy Maner acknowledges that Lilburn officials are “walking a fine line. [Leaders] want to make Lilburn a business-friendly city as well as make sure their citizens are protected.”

Oyster Barn Grill & Bar had pulled its pool tables and video games during the 2007 clamp down. New owner Bob Carmen said he’s indifferent to the revisions and doesn’t plan to add entertainment options. "We frankly found the law to be provincial, but our objective is to be a good popular restaurant,” he said.

I guess, once upon a time (and still? - okay, let me have it, Tremontonians), certain animal behavior was popular in Tremonton, Utah. From the Tremonton City Ordinances:

13-221. Unlawful Acts. It shall be unlawful for any person to ... (4) ... let any male animal to any female animal for the purpose of providing entertainment or viewing to any person.

Zoinks! Here's a link to the Ordinances.

If you're scheduled to work on Sunday in South Carolina, how about this little ditty from the South Carolina Code:

Any employee of any business which operates on Sunday under the provisions of this section has the option of refusing to work in accordance with Section 53-1-100. Any employer who dismisses or demotes an employee because he is a conscientious objector to Sunday work is subject to a civil penalty of treble the damages found by the court or the jury plus court costs and the employee's attorney's fees. The court may order the employer to rehire or reinstate the employee in the same position he was in prior to dismissal or demotion without forfeiture of compensation, rank, or grade.

No doubt invoking this statute will put you on a path straight to the top. Here's a link to the above-cited Code.(Scroll down a bit.)

Sure, it's not a frontal attack on Christmas. Nevertheless, municipalities are chipping away at old St. Nick. As reported by The Telegraph:

[crossing guard] Kevin Simpson has decorated his lollipop [crossing sign] each year for Christmas to spread some festive cheer among the children arriving at Berrywood Primary School in Hedge End, Southampton. But this year, after he placed extra tinsel around the edge of the circular sign, an anonymous member of the public complained to his employers, Hampshire County Council. Despite protests from parents council officers banned father-of-two Mr Simpson from using the tinsel.

Other than being a spineless, anonymous weasel, what kind of person would complain about tinsel? Probably the same kind of folks who were behind these measures:

Westminster council banned Debenhams from playing Christmas carols at its store in Oxford Street, west London, over fears of "noise pollution".

Carol-singing Brownies and Guides were banned from the Marlowes shopping centre in Hemel Hempstead, Herts because of fears the girls would obstruct fire escape routes.

Last month, Wimborne council in Dorset threatened to ban the town's 400-year-old Christmas custom of firing muskets into the sky because of fears the noise would scare children. The custom dating back to the 17th century however was allowed to take place however following publicy outcry.

Plans for Christmas trees in the streets of Llandovery, Carmarthenshire, were also cancelled, after volunteers were told they risked breaking health and safety rules if they climbed ladders to put them up.

What's next, banning Festivus celebrations? Here's the source.

Things are crazy in the Hoosier state, where Ms. Liz Ferris got the vanity plate "BE GODS" nine years ago. Because she let the renewal lapse, she had to reapply. Her application was rejected! Why? Per The Indy Channel:

"We do not permit personalized license plates with references to deity," said BMV [Bureau of Motor Vehicles] spokesman Dennis Rosebrough.

Well, somebody might want to explain to Ms. Ferris (who filed suit after her renewal was rejected) how this makes any sense since the STATE OF INDIANA is issuing license plates that read ...In God We Trust! Yup, and the Indiana Court of Appeals just ruled that the plates are constitutional.

"Er, hello, is Ms. Ferris home? Uh, ma'am, we've reconsidered your renewal application, and you can go ahead and get your "BE GODS" license plates again. How can we do that with our new "no deity" rule? Well, we'll just grandfather you in 'cause you had it before the rule. Everybody okay?" Nope.

Ferris said she intends to move forward with the lawsuit in hopes the policy will be changed.

"You can develop a system that can monitor and … be fair to all parties and yet still allow reference to deity," Ferris said.

Ferris said she isn't seeking monetary damages from the BMV.

You can read more about Ms. Ferris and her case here, and about the "In God We Trust" case here.

How appropriate that I stumbled across this law the same day I saw our first snowflakes here in Washington, DC. Now, imagine - if you can - a law that both Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann would agree goes too far. That law outlaws throwing snowballs! And the offending municipality is ... Grand Forks, North Dakota. Here's the law:

9-0123. Throwing rocks, snowballs, and other objects.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to throw or cast, or encourage, aid or assist others in throwing or casting any rock, stone, snowball, or other object into, upon, against, or at any building, structure, automobile street, alley, or other public or private property.

(2) It is unlawful for any person to throw or cast, or encourage, aid or assist others in throwing or casting any rock, stone, snowball, or other object upon or at any person or persons. (Ord. No. 4125, § XIX, 3-20-06)

They have outlawed snowball fights! And even throwing a snowball at ANYTHING! Absurd.

And what about this: you would also technically be breaking the law if you skipped a stone (or a rock!) in a creek. Check it out:

It is unlawful for any person to throw ... any rock, stone ... into ...any ... public or private property.

Well done! A beautifully crafted law. Click here (click on Chapter IX, and scroll down to 9-0123) to see this wacky law.

Not only is it illegal for men to go topless in Easton, Maryland, it's illegal for "any person." What about babies? What about boys? Here's the law:

Sec. 18-9. Required dress, upper torso, penalty.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, whether male or female, to appear upon the streets, sidewalks and highways, or in any public building of the Town of Easton unless he or she is wearing a shirt, blouse or similar article of wearing apparel designed to cover the upper torso of said person.

(b) The penalty for violation of this Section shall be ten (10) days in jail or a fine of not more than One Hundred Dollars
($100.00). (Ord. No. 70,
1 and 2, 6/17/74.)

10 days in jail! Here's a link to the Town Code.

Should spitting really be criminalized? "Yes," said the powers that be in Cincinnati. Here's a law that was passed in 2006 as part of the "Neighborhood Quality of Life Unified Code"

Sec. 1601-27. Spitting in a Public Place.

No person shall spit upon any sidewalk, street, highway, alley, the floor of any bus used for public transportation, theater, railway or public transportation depot or platform or the floor of any school house, church or public building of any kind.

Whoever violates this section is guilty of spitting in a public place, a minor misdemeanor.

Is it ever enforced? At least once, anyway. As reported by kypost.com, a Ms. Davis was busted for "flipping the bird" and spitting on the sidewalk. But that's not why she was put in jail.

Police also found Davis had two outstanding warrants.

Oops.

Outrageous, right? But true. As reported by UPI:

Police in Australia have set what they describe as "very generous limits" for an upcoming auto race [The Bathurst 1000]

The limit?

... no more than a case of beer a day for adults.

Holy shiznit. You know Aussie's like their beer if a case a day is a "limit." For me, it would mean death by alcohol poisoning. And if you're not a beer drinker:

Racing fans who do not like full-strength beer have other choices. They can bring in 36 cans of beer with alcohol content of 3.5 percent or less, a case of pre-mixed cocktails or up to 4 liters (about 8 quarts) of wine.

Zoinks. That is a lot of booze!

Power corrupts, and absolute power ... So maybe Italian mayors don't have "absolute" power, but they recently obtained additional authority to enact new laws. Here are a few of them, as reported by Reuters:

In Eraclea, near Venice, building sandcastles is now illegal

In Capri, it is illegal to leave the beach area wearing a bikini.

In Forte dei Marmi, you may not cut your grass on the weekend.

In Eboli, you can be fined 500 euros (about $745 US) for public displays of affection in a car.

And in Novara, while 2 people can hang out in the park at night, 3 people hanging out is illegal.

How about this one?

Rodrigo Piccoli, 33, called national radio to protest after he was fined 50 euros for lying down in a park in the northern city of Vicenza to read a book. The mayor has since promised to drop the ban.

Buono idea , Signore Sindaco. (Good idea, Mr. Mayor.)

Though it certainly wouldn't be the case, I guess not many legislators are eager to appear to be in favor of sodomy, flag-burning, cohabitation, or unmarried couples having sex. That's probably why, per the Virginian-Pilot:

The state code [still] declares it illegal for unmarried couples to have sex. Cohabitation, sodomy and flag-burning are still outlawed in the Old Dominion. And don't even think about unloading or loading oysters from a boat on Sunday. Tobacco warehouses must keep the Sabbath holy, too, although legislators have recently acquired enlightenment about Sunday sales at state-owned liquor stores in large cities.

You can read more here.