Legal Juice

The Juice is confident you will agree that Canton, Ohio needs to loosen the reins a little bit. Check out this law, that is actually on the books:

539.07  PLAYING OF GAMES.

(a)  No person shall play any game in any park of the City except such as the Superintendent of Parks designates and upon such portion of the park as the Superintendent designates. (1964 Code §511.08)

(b) Whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.

Think it's enforced often? Here's the source.

The source for today's Juice? A Change.org petition that came The Juice's way. No doubt this law will end homosexuality in Alabama... Clearly a class adhering to the requirements of this law cannot be called sex "education." The law is Section 16-40A-2 of the Alabama Code:

MINIMUM CONTENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN SEX EDUCATION PROGRAM OR CURRICULUM

... (c) Course materials and instruction that relate to sexual education or sexually transmitted diseases should include all of the following elements:

... (8) An emphasis, in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state.

This is just stupid and wrong on so many levels. Who is this "general public" referring to? Not the American public. And "homosexual conduct is a criminal offense"? Sure, some of it is (sodomy). But what about two men holding hands? You can read the full text of this small-minded, bigoted law here.

There's no shortage of laws out there that need updating. This Mississippi law, which not only outlaws polygamy, but outlaws even teaching about it, is ripe for tweaking.

SEC. 97-29-43. Polygamy; teaching of.

If any person shall teach another the doctrines, principles, or tenets, or any of them, of polygamy; or shall endeavor so to do; or shall induce or persuade another by words or acts, or otherwise, to embrace or adopt polygamy, or to emigrate to any other state, territory, district, or country for the purpose of embracing, adopting, or practicing polygamy, or shall endeavor so to do, he shall, on conviction, be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than one month nor more than six months, or both.

Suggestion: Delete the first clause! Here's the source.

The chances that authorities would try to enforce this Massachusetts law? Squadoosh!

Section 36A. Whoever, having arrived at the age of sixteen years, directs any profane, obscene or impure language or slanderous statement at a participant or an official in a sporting event, shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars.

Here's the source.

The Juice is a personal injury lawyer, not a constitutional scholar. Still, this Alabama law just doesn't pass the smell test. Judge for yourself.

Section 13A-14-4 - Fraudulently pretending to be clergyman.

Whoever, being in a public place, fraudulently pretends by garb or outward array to be a minister of any religion, or nun, priest, rabbi or other member of the clergy, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500.00 or confinement in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Yeah, good luck with that one. Here's a link to the actual law. (Click on "Title 13A", then "Chapter 14", then "Section 13A-14-4".)

It's time for the Chilean lawmakers to do some housecleaning. As reported by ilovechile.cl:

A recent study by the School of Law of the Universidad Bernardo O’Higgins (UBO), listed several situations sanctioned by the Chilean Criminal Code which may appear a bit… outdated by today’s standards.

Like what?

If you are a woman who has been widowed recently, know that if you choose to rebuild your life and get remarried before 270 days (nine months) after the death of your husband, you can face criminal charges.

Zoinks. Unlikely that one's enforced.

If you dissatisfied with the current social, economic, or political situation in the country, any decision to “ring the bells of the people” in order to encourage your countrymen to rise against the powers that be will be punished under Article 123.  Remember that this is not just for bells only, but of any other “instrument to excite the people to revolt for that same purpose”, such as speeches or printed manifestos.

A bit chilling, that one. As for dueling ...

Article 404 indicates that you must face “imprisonment in its minimum degree” if you challenge your opponent to a duel.

The same penalty will apply if your opponent, in a “fit of cowardice or wisdom”, refuses to participate and you decide to publicly chastise him for his denial.  In addition, those who choose to participate as sponsors of the duelers are also punishable.

So, unless you just say no to a duel, you're screwed. And finally ...

Article 496 of the Penal Code punishes all those who profit from making “premonitions” or interpreting dreams. Although this practice dates back many years, is still very popular.

Here's the source, which includes a few more outdated laws.

Do you think these provisions of the Tennessee Constitution might be unconstitutional?

ARTICLE IX
Disqualifications.

Section 1. Whereas ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.

Section 2. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Yikes. Here's the text. (Scroll down to page 553.)

Surely at one point this law served some purpose - maybe back when people knew what roentgen rays were. But now? It seems unlikely, though RCW 70.98.170 (Prohibition — fluoroscopic x-ray shoefitting devices) is still on the books in Washington. It reads as follows:

The operation or maintenance of any X-ray, fluoroscopic, or other equipment or apparatus employing roentgen rays, in the fitting of shoes or other footwear or in the viewing of bones in the feet is prohibited. This prohibition does not apply to any licensed physician, surgeon, *podiatrist, or any person practicing a licensed healing art, or any technician working under the direct and immediate supervision of such persons.

You'll find the law here.

Surely you will agree with The Juice that this food company has crossed the line. Fortunately, there's a watchdog group who is on it. As reported by redhotrussia.com:

The Prosecutor General’s Office received an official complaint from the public organization – “Russian People’s Council“. Its activists accused Wimm Bill Dann (food company specializing in dairy products) in promotion of homosexuality.

Reason: packages of milk and yogurt contain the image of rainbow, which according to the head of People’s Council is “the universal symbol of LGBT movement and therefore is the open propaganda of vice“.

No! Not ... a ... rainbow!

Complaint was filed by the Saint-Petersburg section of the organization. It should be noted that in the beginning of this year Saint Petersburg passed the law banning propaganda of “sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality or transgenderism among minors”. In its current draft the violation of this ban is punishable by fine.

Word is the group is working on a super-secret device that will zap rainbows whenever they appear in nature ... Here's the source.

Let's say you are in Akron, Ohio, you're gay, and you see someone you're interested in, who you think is interested in you. Well, you better be sure. Why? Check out this Akron ordinance:

133.04 - Importuning

... B. No person shall solicit a person of the same sex to engage in sexual activity with the offender, when the offender knows the solicitation is offensive to the other person, or is reckless in that regard.

Importuning? Really? Yup. Here it is.

Is it just The Juice, or do you also find it ironic that this provision is in the Texas Constitution's Bill of Rights? Here she goes:

Sec. 4.  RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Oh, so you're religion doesn't matter ... as long as you have one. Whew. For a minute there, it seemed like this dang provision just didn't belong in the "Bill of Rights." Here's a link to the text.

Actually, madam, your money isn't good anywhere in the United Kingdom. As a personal injury lawyer, but for his alter ego, this is not something The Juice would normally come across. No doubt Ms. Louise Munro would not have come across a law like the Coinage Act of 1971 either, had she not tried to pay for her gas with, well, coins! As reported by The Liverpool Echo:

Staff at the BP garage in Queens Drive, West Derby, told 24-year-old Louise Munro that they could not accept the 1p and 2p pieces she offered after her bank card failed because of a system failure.

Say what?

Ms Munro, from Roby, who went home to raid her piggy bank for the loose change to settle her debt, was even told by police over the phone that the garage was correct in refusing the payment after a row broke out.

According to the Royal Mint, 1p and 2p coins are legal only if something is bought for just 20p or less.

Under the little-known Coinage Act 1971 it is illegal to use 21 or more 1p pieces in a single transaction.

A truly brilliant customer relations move by the gas station...

Ms Munro, who denied she was being vindictive by handing over coppers, said: “I admit it’s annoying to have to count pennies but that’s all I had and I’m not the kind of person to leave a debt hanging. I wanted to settle it as soon as I could.

“As far as I was concerned it is legal tender – it has the Queen’s head on it and why would they produce them unless they could be used?”

Seems reasonable. After all, it's only £30, and it's not like it's a daily occurrence.

The dispute happened on Sunday afternoon after Ms Munro’s RBS debit card was rejected because of the bank’s system troubles.

And it was brought about through no fault of Ms. Munro!

... she returned three hours later with two money bags filled with carefully counted-out coppers.

But after the garage searched the internet to see if they could accept the change they stumbled across a newspaper article from earlier this year telling of an accountant who was sued for trying to pay an £800 bill in coppers. There they learned of the Coinage Act 1971.

A phone call to the police also confirmed that Ms Munro’s payment contravened the Coinage Act.

[Garage worker Mugeen] Mohammed said the petrol station has not cashed the loose change and wants Ms Munro to return with an alternative form of payment.

Really? People are probably just lining up to buy gas at such a customer-friendly station.

Merseyside Police confirmed they were contacted over the dispute but said it was a “civil matter”.

Whew. No jail time. You'll find the source here.

How could The Juice possibly know that people in Wyoming were fishing with guns? Well, do you think they would have passed a law prohibiting it if nobody was doing it? Exactly! Here's the law:

23-3-201. Fishing tackle; designation of waters for setline fishing; taking fish with firearm prohibited; snagging; penalties.

... (d) No person shall take, wound or destroy any fish of Wyoming with a firearm of any kind or nature.

Very sporting, right? And so much fun! Here's the source.

Can it really be a crime to father or have a second child? If it's your second illegitimate child, and you're subject to Mississippi law, then yes. As set forth in the Mississippi Code:

SEC. 97-29-11. Illegitimate children; person becoming natural parent of second illegitimate child; jurisdiction.

(1) If any person, who shall have previously become the natural parent of an illegitimate child within or without this state by coition within or without this state, shall again become the natural parent of an illegitimate child born within this state, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ninety (90) days or by a fine of not more than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00), or both. A subsequent conviction hereunder shall be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than three (3) months nor more than six (6) months or by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or both. Provided, however, that for the purpose of this section, multiple births shall be construed to be the birth of one (1) child.

(2) The circuit court of the county in which said illegitimate child is born shall have jurisdiction of any action brought under this section. No male person shall be convicted solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the female person giving birth to the child.

Here's the source.

Sadly, Michiganders, you are now on notice of this law, though you were previously bound by it nonetheless. Here's the law:

436.201 Drunkenness on train prohibited.

No person shall while in an offensive state of intoxication enter or be on or remain upon any railway train or interurban car as a passenger.

Putting aside that The Juice is a personal injury lawyer, nevertheless, he's convinced he could mount a strong defense for anyone charged under this law based on a single word - "offensive." Drunk? Hell yeah. But not offensively so. Case dismissed. Here's a link to the law.

Has The Juice lost it, you may be asking yourself? No, he's just referring to a very strange law that is on the books in the City of Everett, Washington. Here it is:

9.24.010 Hypnotism unlawful.

It is unlawful for any hypnotist or mesmerist, or other person, to exhibit or display, or permit to be exhibited or displayed, any subject of any hypnotist or mesmerist, or any person while under the influence of or alleged influence of hypnotism or mesmerism, in any window or public place outside of the hall or theater where such hypnotist or mesmerist is giving his entertainment or exhibition.

You are feeling very sleepy ... If you're really interested, you'll find the code section here. Just look for Chapter 9.24 (under Title 9).

Well, at least in Nebraska, that's what the law says. Here it is:

42-102. Minimum age; affliction with venereal disease, disqualification.

At the time of the marriage the male must be of the age of seventeen years or upward, and the female of the age of seventeen years or upward. No person who is afflicted with a venereal disease shall marry in this state.

Okay, but is it enforced? Not according to the annotations (cases citing the statute).

Marriage of one afflicted with venereal disease is not void but voidable [the unknowing party can walk] Christensen v. Christensen, 144 Neb. 763, 14 N.W.2d 613 (1944).

But ...

Where party afflicted with venereal disease enters into marriage with full knowledge thereof, such party is barred from seeking annulment. Christensen v. Christensen, 144 Neb. 763, 14 N.W.2d 613 (1944).

And ...

If parties are of the age of consent, the marriage is valid, even though license was wrongfully obtained. Baker v. Baker, 112 Neb. 738, 200 N.W. 1003 (1924).

Here's the source.

Remember the movie "Footloose," about the town that outlawed dancing? Although South Carolina doesn't ban dancing all the time, there is this restriction:

Title 52 - Amusements and Athletic Contests CHAPTER 13. DANCE HALLS

SECTION 52-13-10. Operation on Sunday forbidden.

It shall be unlawful for any person to keep open or admit persons to any public dancing hall owned or operated by him or to allow any person to continue thereat between the hours of twelve o'clock, midnight, Saturday and twelve o'clock, midnight, Sunday, and all such places shall be and remain closed to the public between such hours. The violation of the provisions of this section shall subject the offender to a fine of not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars for the first offense and for the second offense not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars or imprisonment for thirty days.

Yup, it's on the books. You'll find the law here.

Isn't everyone worried about being microchipped? If not by the government, then by someone else? No? Here's a law that's on the books in Wisconsin:

146.25  Required implanting of microchip prohibited.

(1) No person may require an individual to undergo the implanting of a microchip.

(2) Any person who violates sub. (1) may be required to forfeit not more than $10,000. Each day of continued violation constitutes a separate offense.

You'll find the source here.

Yes, Juice readers, this is still on the books, like all laws The Juice writes about.

860.11 - Injuring railroad structures; driving cattle on tracks.—Whoever ... salts the track of any railroad company for the purpose of attracting cattle thereto ... shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree ...

The cows are coming! The cows are coming! Here's the statute.(Click on "Chapter 860," then "860.11.")