Squeezed on:

guy_making_loser_sign_md_clr.gif You live in Georgia, and you Lose a City Council election (the right to be in the run-off, actually) to a transgender candidate. Naturally (if you’re Georgia Fuller, anyway), you sue for fraud. One small problem, Loser lady, City Coucil Member Michelle Bruce IS AN INCUMBENT. Doh! This doesn’t stop Fuller from arguing that, as she calls him, “Michael Bruce,” has an unfair advantage running as a woman! We’re talking about a town of 12,000 people, which Michelle has been serving for 4 years! Said Michelle:

I’m Michelle. I’m the same Michelle they elected four years ago. They’re just distracting the voters from the issues. Everybody in my district knows me, everyone in Riverdale knows me. I’ve done a real good job representing the people. I am for the people.

Because I think Fuller’s lawsuit is one of the most idiotic I’ve ever seen (considering how many cases I review daily for this blog, that’s saying something), Bruce get’s the last word: “People want a candidate that will listen to them, protect them, save them money and be there for them. And I always will be.” Move on, Ms. Fuller. Move on. Here’s the story from PrideSource.

Squeezed on:

akon%20throwing%20fan.jpg Apparently so, according to witnesses and cell phone videos from a Fishkill, New York concert. As reported by MTV news:

During the show, which took place on June 3 and was caught on fans’ cell phone cameras, Akon allegedly threw a 15-year-old fan into the crowd. According to the Journal, a small object sailed by Akon’s shoulder as he was about to start performing a song onstage, which prompted him to say, “Oh, wait a minute. What was that?” He then urged the crowd to “point him out, point him out. Who is he?”

Audience members identified the alleged culprit, after which a security guard asked Akon if he wanted the boy brought onstage. Akon responded, “So go get him. Bring him out to me.”

As the fan was brought to the stage, Akon removed his shirt and chain and then grabbed the boy, tossed him over his shoulder and threw him into the crowd, saying, “Now we can start the show, y’all ready.” A moment later, Akon looked down at the crowd and said, “He’s OK, he’s all right,” then shortly later chastised the audience for a perceived lack of support. “See, now you got me feeling by myself,” he said in the cell phone video footage. “I thought I had fans and support.” According to TMZ.com, after the child was thrown, he fell on another teen who later said she had been diagnosed with a concussion.

The latest? Word is that Akon will be arraigned on Monday. Click here to read the MTV piece. Human%20Cannonball%20akon%20fan.jpg

Posted in:
Squeezed on:
Updated:
Squeezed on:

man%20in%20prison%20behind%20bars%20jail.jpg

We’re all guilty of forgetting things from time to time. But when you are a judge, YOU CAN’T FORGET TO RELEASE PRISONERS! That’s just what Spanish judge Adelina Entrena did. As reported in Think Spain:

One of [the three men], a man cleared of a robbery charge, went on to spend 437 days behind bars as a result. Two others needlessly spent 35 and 38 locked up after similar blunders.

A little over a month is bad enough, but 437 days! The judge got off easy. He was canned. He should be doing 510 days. Here’s the Think Spain article.

Squeezed on:

habbo%20hotel%20thief%20arrest.jpg

This is truly a bizarre crime. There’s a very popular game (6 million people play it each month) called Habbo. Per the BBC:

Habbo users can create their own characters, decorate their own rooms and play a number of games, paying with Habbo Credits, which they have to buy with real cash.

habbo%20woman.gif The crime? A 17-year-old Dutch boy has been charged with stealing 4,000 euros (about $6,000 US) worth of furniture! Who the hell would pay $6,000 for virtual furniture?

If you think that’s wacky, check out this story (from the same BBC article):

Virtual theft is a growing issue in virtual worlds; in 2005 a Chinese gamer was stabbed to death in a row over a sword in a game.

Shanghai gamer Qiu Chengwei killed player Zhu Caoyuan when he discovered he had sold a “dragon sabre” he had been loaned.

Posted in:
Squeezed on:
Updated:
Squeezed on:

judge%20gavel.gif There’s just no earthly explanation for the actions of New York Judge Robert Restaino on March 11, 2005. Judge Restaino was dealing with a group of domestic violence defendants who were there to report to the court, as they are required to do each week. Things were going okay … until a cell phone rang. Per The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct: “At approximately 10:00 AM, a device that appeared to be a cell phone rang in the back of the courtroom. Addressing the defendants in the courtroom, respondent stated:”

Now, whoever owns the instrument that is ringing, bring it to me now or everybody could take a week in jail and please don’t tell me I’m the only one that heard that. Mr. Martinez, did you hear that ringing?…

Everyone is going to jail; every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I’m kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going.

He was kidding, right? Wrong! He committed all 46 defendants into custody. (Oh, and “He did not question any of the prosecutors, defense attorneys, court personnel, program representatives or others who were present in the courtroom.”!!!)

So what does committing the defendants involve? Per the Commission:

After being committed into custody, the 46 defendants were taken by police to the booking area in the City Jail, where they were searched and their property was confiscated. They were then placed in crowded “holding” cells or jail cells. Thereafter, 17 defendants were released from custody after it was determined that the court still held bail that had previously been posted on their behalf, and 15 defendants were released after posting the bail set by respondent. The remaining 14 defendants could not post bail and were committed to the custody of the Niagara County Sheriff.

And what about those 14 folks?

The 14 defendants who could not post bail were shackled; their wrists were handcuffed to a lock box attached to a waist chain; and they were transported by bus to the County Jail in Lockport, a ride that took about 30 minutes. The defendants arrived at the jail between 3:00 and 3:30 and were searched again and placed in cells.

Then the Judge was paged by his clerk, who told him the media was asking questions about the incident. Wouldn’t you know it? The 14 remaining defendants were released about 2 hours later! Do you think Judge Restaino paid a price for his actions? He did. He’s no longer a judge. Here’s what the Commission concluded:

[Judge Restaino’s] behavior was such a gross deviation from the proper role of a judge that it warrants the sanction of removal, notwithstanding his previously unblemished record on the bench and the testimony as to his character and reputation.

The Judge’s conduct was much more outrageous than I have described above. (For example, “… one defendant said that he had a doctor’s appointment that day and might need surgery; another said that his mother was having surgery that day. One defendant, who had previously appeared four times as required, told respondent, “My little girl is coming home at 3:00. Can I be sanctioned next week so I can get my girl?” Respondent committed each of these defendants into custody.”) If you want to read the full Commission opinion, click here.

Squeezed on:

cavity.jpg Scottish Gran Elsie Melville just wants to see her four grandchildren. Daughter Donna Melville said that Gran is “domineering and interfering” (she called the SSPCA on her own daughter!) and gives the kids too much candy. (As reported in The Herald: “Mrs Melville was accused of taking two carrier bags of sweets to the children. The two oldest children had suffered dental problems and had had teeth removed.”) So Donna cut her mom off. Gran filed a civil action, in which she is legally referred to as “the pursuer.”

What did the Perth Sheriff Court decide?

The dental health of the children is undoubtedly important, but I regard it as significant that the pursuer has given an undertaking not to give them sweets during contact.

Posted in:
Squeezed on:
Updated:
Squeezed on:

priest%20teddy%20bear.jpg Boston Herald reporter Michele McPhee, while reporting on a purse-snatching that took place in a church, reported this:

In 1997, as a New York Daily News reporter, I covered the bizarre arrest of Episcopal priest Rev. Chester LaRue in my own neighborhood, Bay Ridge Brooklyn.NYPD detectives had received a tip that LaRue was selling cocaine out of the parish house at St. John’s Episcopalian Church. When detectives arrived with a warrant, they found the Rev. LaRue smoking crack as he typed out his sermon for Sunday Mass.

The crack-smoking priest was convicted of illegal drug possession, served three years’ probation and was ordered to perform 500 hours of community service at the Salvation Army soup kitchen.

Posted in:
Squeezed on:
Updated:
Squeezed on:

laura%20saperstein.jpg

It looks like she made a damn good decision. Mergers and acquisitions lawyer Laura Saperstein (pictured above) was making $200,000 per year in London when she decided to give up the law. (She also owns 12 flats in London, and runs a building business.) The 36 year-old took up boxing only three years ago, and won all of her amateur bouts, including winning the British amateur lightweight championship. She is so dominating that she has yet to be knocked down, or even hurt. So she went pro. Her first fight was November 18th. Think she won? She did. You can read more about her here.

Squeezed on:

cussing%20man.gif So when Timothy Joseph Boomer, then a 28-year-old engineer, fell into the Rifle River in Michigan, he let fly a bunch of curse words. No problem, except for (1) a law that makes it illegal to use vulgar language in front of women and children, and (2) the presence of a woman and 2 children. Incredibly, a deputy heard him and charged him with violating the 105-year-old law. What do you think happened?

The trial judge said the ban on cursing in front of women was uncontitutional, but not the ban on cursing in front of children! The appeals court chucked the whole law, reasoning that

“This … would require every person who speaks audibly where children are present to guess what a law enforcement officer might consider too indecent, immoral, or vulgar for a child’s ears.”

The case is Michigan v. Boomer, 655 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. App. 2002).