Articles Posted in Juice Drops

Let’s say you are Sheikh Khalid Ben Abdfullah Rashid Alfawaz, you’re rich, and you’re getting a divorce in an English court. During a Hearing, here are some of the judge’s comments:

That the sheikh could choose “to depart on his flying carpet” to escape paying costs.

That the sheikh should be available to attend hearings “at this relatively fast-free time of the year.”

That he should be in court so that “every grain of sand is sifted.”

And the sheikh’s evidence was “a bit gelatinous . . . like Turkish Delight.”

What a card! The Sheikh was not amused. He asked the judge to recuse himself due to bias. When the judge refused, the Sheikh appealed and … won. He was booted from the case, and had to apologize. Not to worry, though. Lord Justice Ward threw him a bone.

No little part of my embarrassment comes from my belief that the injection of a little humour lightens the load of high emotion that so often attends litigation and I am the very last judge to criticise laughter in court. For my part I am totally convinced that [the judge’s] jokes were not meant to be racist and I unreservedly acquit the judge of any suggestion they were so intended.

Shazam! Next time I do something stupid, I want Lord Ward speaking on my behalf!

That’s what Natasha Riley, not pleased with the way things were going for her client, said to Judge Mangano in the Brooklyn Family Court during a custody proceeding. But Judge Mangano would have the last laugh. Because most lawyers aren’t dumb enough to address a judge that way [even if it is bullshit!], Judge Mangano became suspicious. Turns out Ms. Riley, who had at least 8 clients, and 4 court appearances, is not a lawyer! Her punishment? Five years probation and $3,267 in restitution. You can read more here.

Okay, so it’s not like a lot of smart people ingest a pill of unknown origin from a drug dealer but… Emma Louise Fischer and Tara Jay Loane, both age 21, definitely put some distance between themselves and the rest of the ecstacy pack.

It all started when the police busted a drug dealer, and started checking the numbers on his cell phone. They put names to the numbers, and then addresses with the names. Our young ladies happened to be on the dealer’s phone. When the police went to their house, they found another cell phone. On that phone was a video of 2 girls who filmed themselves … snorting ecstacy! Brilliant! Not surprisingly, they pleaded guilty.

When the moment comes, I think it’s safe to say that most of us would prefer not to be in a public place, especially a fast food restaurant. The moment came for Henry Chai in a Wendy’s Restaurant in Montgomery County, Ohio. Now, as fast food goes, I like Wendy’s. I don’t want to believe that little Wendy, with those cute red braids, would allow this to occur. And remember, these were just allegations.

There was no toilet paper! Mr. Chai had to use his handkerchief! When the nightmare ended, Mr. Chai did what I think most of us would – he sued Wendy’s, seeking

$2.00 for the loss of a handkerchief, $5,000 ‘for the unreasonable risk to his health,’ $2500 ‘for humiliation and negligent infliction of emotional distress,’ and $5000 in punitive damages for Wendy’s ‘wanton act of failing to provide toilet tissue in contravention of the Ohio Food Services Rules.’

Wendy’s lawyers hit the law books, then filed a one sentence reply to Mr. Chai’s complaint: “Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha.” Actually, they asked the court to dismiss the claim “for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” To Mr. Chai’s horror [don’t worry, he appealed], the court agreed.

The Court finds beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can state no cause of action upon which relief can be granted. The entire complaint consists of the Plaintiff’s frustration and inconvenience caused by the temporary omission of toilet paper from the men’s restroom area… The plaintiff had several alternatives and his lack of ingenuity caused an alleged $2 loss. This Court has held a scheduling conference [oh to be a fly on the wall for that one] and has considered the facts set forth in the motions and having spent adequate time reviewing the allegations and facts brought to the Court’s attention, this Court finds that the Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed further with this action.

Well, this did not sit well with Mr. Chai, so he appealed. And what do you think happened?

Continue reading →