Squeezed on:


So, as a result of this diet, you’ve gone from 413 pounds to 308 pounds in 8 months. Awesome, right? Not according to much-lighter Broderick Lloyd Laswell. Not only is he not pleased, he filed suit against the responsible parties – his jailers in Benton County, Arkansas (the Sheriff and the Jail Captain). Here are some of his complaints, as reported in The Northwest Arkansas Morning News:

“There are noticeable differences on the size of biscuits and cakes, as well as the sides,” according to Laswell, who also wants hot meals to be served from the jail’s kitchen.

“On several occasions I have started to do some exercising and my vision went blurry and I felt like I was going to pass out,” Laswell wrote in his complaint. “About an hour after each meal my stomach starts to hurt and growl. I feel hungry again.”

“If we are in a small pod all day do next to nothing for physical exercise we should not lose weight,” according to Laswell. “The only reason we lost weight in here is because we are literally are being starved to death.”

If Jail Captain Hunter Petray is correct, it’s unlikely Mr. Laswell will starve to death. Captain Petray said that the meals average 3,000 calories per day.

Update: He dropped the suit! Perhaps this may be why, as reported by onpointnews.com.

Squeezed on:

Yes, death for a weed dealer. Regular Juice readers know that certain countries, like Malaysia, dole out harsh sentences for drug dealers Case in point: M. Jegatheswaran, age 32, had just over 2 pounds of marijuana in his motorcycle basket. Per the New Straits Times:

A traditional medicine seller was yesterday sentenced to death by the High Court for trafficking in 958g of cannabis …at a car park area of a public housing flat in Ampang Jajar, Jalan Permatang Pauh, about 10pm on May 8, 2007.

High Court judicial commissioner Nurmala Salim ruled that the defence had failed to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case.

Squeezed on:


Can you begin a life of crime while still in diapers. The short answer is, it Depends. (Get it!) But seriously, a baby was involved in the commission of a crime. How, you ask? Per The New Hampshire Union Leader:

A New Hampshire woman has been indicted for hiding cigarettes in her baby’s diaper before handing the baby to an inmate during a prison visit.

Snap! What are the charges for that?

Forty-five-year-old Wendy Parent of Belmont was charged with delivering contraband to a prisoner – a Class B felony punishable by up to seven years in prison.

First of all, “Parent?” Of course her name is “Parent.” Secondly, 7 years? That would be a little harsh for trying to pass some cigarettes. What about the inmate?

The inmate has not been charged and his identity and relationship to the baby have not been released by prison officials.

Here’s the source.

Squeezed on:

It’s always a good idea to check your doctor out online before your first visit. Had some of Dr. George Korol’s patients done so, they probably would have asked to see another doctor. As reported in The Edmonton Journal:

A Winnipeg doctor who previously lost his U.S. medical licence for violent criminal behaviour has been stripped of his ability to practise medicine in Manitoba …

First question [rhetorical]: How did he ever get a license in Manitoba?

Squeezed on:


When you gotta go, you gotta go, right? No. No. No. No. No. Especially “no” if your “target” is … the police station! What, you don’t believe The Juice? Do you believe The Detroit Free Press?

… in Royal Oak … at 4:39 p.m. Monday — in broad daylight on a weekday afternoon — [a man] was seen by several witnesses urinating on the side of the Royal Oak police station, according to Lt. Gordon Young. It gets better.

“After urinating, the suspect entered the station in an attempt to file a police report on an undisclosed matter,” Young said today.

But witnesses had quickly informed the police at the front desk, Deputy City Attorney Mark Liss said. The man was issued a citation, and likely will serve no jail time but pay a fine and court costs of $250; the maximum would have been $500 and up to 90 days in jail for public urination, Liss said today.

Wow. Click here for the source.

Squeezed on:


You can never be sure how someone is going to handle being insulted. No doubt this gent’s insulting days are over. As reported in The Daily Herald (Everett, Washington), according to court papers:

[Dallas Amber] Smith [18] and others were gathered at her ex-boyfriend’s home south of Monroe, watching a movie and drinking.

She boasted to party-goers that she was good at doing back flips and that she could do one off anything, court papers said.

A man, 19, challenged her to do a flip off the deck. Smith took off her shoes and attempted the maneuver. She couldn’t do it. That’s when the man laughed at her and told her that her feet smelled, [deputy prosecutor] Albert wrote.

Smith started to playfully wrestle with the man, rubbing her socks in his face. She started hitting him. After several seconds, he pushed her away, Albert wrote.

It’s a little weird, right? Check this out.

She grabbed her coat, picked up a steak knife and headed for the door. On the way, Smith walked up to the man and stabbed him in the back, court papers said.

The man and others called 911. A sheriff’s deputy found the man sitting on porch with the knife sticking out of his back, the blade buried a few inches in. His lung had collapsed from the stabbing.

Sticking out of his back! Someone is a wee bit oversensitive. The prognosis?

The man is expected to recover from the injury.

Whew. What did Ms. Smith have to say for her feet … er, herself?

Police arrested Smith at her parents’ home. She denied knowing about any stabbing and declined to speak with investigators.

Perhaps it’s a little late for the denial …

A witness told police that Smith came to his house that night and told him that she had hurt someone and she was in trouble. She told him someone had taunted her.

Doh! Here’s the source.

Squeezed on:


You may be wondering: “Can you break that?” Unfortunately for Mr. Doe, the answer is “yes.” And yes, it gave rise (sorry) to a lawsuit. The case, out of Massachusetts, is John Doe v. Mary Doe.

Facts. The summary judgment record, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Coveney v. President & Trustees of the College of the Holy Cross, 388 Mass. 16 , 17 (1983), establishes the following facts. The plaintiff and the defendant were in a long-term committed relationship. Early in the morning of September 24, 1994, they were engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. The plaintiff was lying on his back while the defendant was on top of him. The defendant’s body was secured in this position by the interlocking of her legs and the plaintiff’s legs. At some point, the defendant unilaterally decided to unlock her legs and place her feet on either side of the plaintiff’s abdomen for the purpose of increasing her stimulation. When the defendant changed her position, she did not think about the possibility of injury to the plaintiff. Shortly after taking this new position, the defendant landed awkwardly on the plaintiff, thereby causing him to suffer a penile fracture.

Yeowwwwwwwwwwww! So, did Mr. Doe make the case that Ms. Doe negligently broke his, well, you know? Nope. You can read the opinion here.

Squeezed on:

LSU%20tigers%20funny%20football%20picture%20sign.jpg No doubt regular Juice readers remember this “Motion for Continuance.” This one is not quite as funny (the bar is now pretty high), but it’s still Juiceworthy. In the Louisiana case of Harrell v. Spencer, et al., defense counsel filed, I shit you not, an “Unopposed Motion To Continue Trial Due To Conflict With The LSU Tiger’s National Championship Game.” In his supporting Memorandum, defense counsel states:

All counsel to this matter unequivocally agree that the presence of LSU in the aforementioned contest of pigskin skill unquestionably constitutes good grounds [under the statute – for continuing the trial]. In fact we have been unable through much imagination and hypothetical scenarios to think of a better reason.

What do you think the Judge did with the Motion? Granted. Trial continued to February 11, 2008. Okay, now I have a problem. February 11th is George Washington’s birthday. Really. As Stephen Colbert says, “Look it up.” You can read the Motion, Memorandum and Order here

Squeezed on:


Q: Who has ever even heard of “rabbit phobia”? A: All of Germany, and with the help of The Juice, the entire world! As reported by Spiegel Online:

In Germany, drawing rabbits on the blackboard can land you in court. A schoolteacher has made nationwide headlines by filing a lawsuit against a 16-year-old pupil who allegedly did just that. The girl is also accused of claiming that the teacher had a rabbit phobia…

As school pranks go, drawing rabbits on the blackboard may seem rather tame. But it has triggered a court case in the northern German town of Vechta where an outraged school teacher filed a legal complaint against the alleged offender, a 16-year-old schoolgirl, and accused her of spreading the vicious rumor that she suffered from rabbit phobia.

Marion V., who teaches German and Geography, refuses to say if she is actually afraid of rabbits. But [Juice Exhibit A] when she walked into the classroom and spotted the drawing on the board she burst into tears and fled.

[Juice Exhibit B] She was so furious that she accused one pupil of defamation. The court must decide whether the pupil did indeed hound the teacher, or if the legal action is an overreaction.

In a nutshell:

“The plaintiff, a teacher, teaches the accused pupil at a high school in Vechta and claims the pupil drew rabbits on the blackboard of the classroom and told fellow pupils the teacher was afraid of rabbits and ‘flips out’ when she sees a rabbit,” the court said in a statement.

“The teacher demands that the accused refrains in future from drawing rabbits on the blackboard and claiming that she, the teacher, is afraid of rabbits and flips out at the sight of them.”

Could there really be a legal basis for this case? Well, one is claimed …

The court said the lawsuit refers to the “infringement of general personal rights according to §823 Clause 1 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution.”

What about the poor girl?

The defendant, named only as Kim, came to court with her mother. Media reports said she looked shy and sheepish during the hearing. She said: “I didn’t draw the rabbit. I know the teacher from my previous school where she also gave lessons. All I did was tell another pupil that she used to run out of the classroom whenever she saw a drawing of a rabbit.”

[Juice Exhibit C] Marion V. has been off work ever since the incident, media reports said. She wants the court to forbid Kim from drawing rabbits and to stop telling other pupils that she suffers from rabbit phobia and goes nuts at the sight of the animals.

Kim’s mother is outraged. “The teacher didn’t talk to me before she filed the complaint. My daughter has had rabbit stress all year because of this. You can’t treat kids like this,” she told reporters after the 30-minute hearing on Tuesday, the second trial day, Bild newspaper reported. The first trial day was on April 27.

Juice Exhibit D …

This is the second time Marion V. has taken a pupil to court for a rabbit offense. The first case in 2008 ended with a settlement in which the pupil concerned agreed to stop claiming that teacher got a fit, started crying, shouting or fleeing the classrom whenever she saw a rabbit or even when she heard the word “rabbit,” the court said in a statement.

And if Kim loses?

Media reports speculate that if Kim is found guilty of drawing the rabbit, she will face a €5,000 [$6,521.50 US] fine if she ever does it again.

Shazam! What do you think the Judge decided?

A German teacher has lost a defamation suit Tuesday in which she claims that a 16-year-old student spread vicious rumors saying that she has a rabbit phobia. The court case, which triggered nationwide headlines, was dismissed on the grounds that the student proved the teacher’s phobia as fact.

Here’s the original story and the post-verdict story.

Squeezed on:


There’s an old saying:”If it seems too good to be true, it is.” There’s another old saying: “There’s an exception to every rule.” Here’s an exception, as reported by Reuters:

Standing in the aptly chosen “Frohsinnstrasse” (“Cheerfulness Street”) in the town of Aschaffenburg, the unnamed pensioner wore a sign around his neck explaining his philanthropy: “I am not unemployed or homeless. I have a wife. I am well. That’s why I’d like to give you a euro.”

A passer-by who feared the pensioner was running a scam alerted police, who were surprised at the man’s explanation that he merely wanted to share his happiness at retiring.

[Note: The passer-by also enjoys hunting golden-egg-laying geese.]

After explaining himself, the pensioner was allowed to continue his generous retirement celebrations, because after all there’s no law against giving away your own money to passing strangers, according to local police.

Really? There’s no law against just giving money away money? Shocking. Here’s the source.