Squeezed on:

By

After 10 years of marriage, some couples need to try something to reignite their passion. But this? Arthur Friedman told his wife that he wanted to watch her have sex with other men and women. So she did, and decided to go German – German Blinov, that is, one of the people involved in this hoped-for marital jumpstart. The feeling was mutual. Blinov, who was also married, divorced his wife. Natalie Friedman kicked Arthur to the curb.

lioncat2.bmp “As you sew, so shall you reap” is only partly true here, because Arthur turned around and sued Blinov for alienation of affection, claiming that he caused the Friedman marriage to end! Scary thing is, the jury bought it. The judge then awarded Arthur the perfectly logical sum of $4,802 (huh?). Seeking revenge, finding humiliation. To read more, click here.

Squeezed on:

By

baby.jpg 4real. Yes, for real. Pat and Sheena Wheaton named their son “4real.” Only one problem – in New Zealand all children must be registered with the government within two months of their birth. When the Wheaton’s registered 4real, it was rejected because names beginning with numbers are against the rules! But wait – the government is in negotiations with the Wheatons. Said Registrar-General Brian Clarke:

The name has not at this stage been rejected. We are currently in discussions with the parents … to clarify the situation.

Should negotiations fail, 4real Wheaton will go in the books as “Real Wheaton.” For real. (You can read more about this here.)

Squeezed on:

By

Kathryn Smith, 49, of Connecticut, had been dating Stephen Schnell for about 4 years. Schnell knew Smith and her 20-year-old son Nicholas Taylor were not doing too well, so he often gave her cash, took the two of them out to dinner, and bought Smith cigarettes. How did Smith and her son repay him? By hiring a hit man to kill him!

weasel.bmp The crazy thing (aside from the fact that the up-front payment to the hit man was $50!) is that Smith somehow thought she would get $100,000 from Schnell’s retirement plan – which he didn’t even have! Fortunately, the would-be hit man, an old flame of Smith’s, went straight to the police. Smith pled guilty to conspiracy to commit murder. Her son entered an Alford plea (a weasel’s way of pleading guilty).

How does Schnell feel about his former girlfriend? “I’m pushing for the 12 [years – the maximum sentence]; she deserves it. For everything I did for her and for her to do that to me, she deserves every day. Sentencing will take place in August.

 

By
Posted in: Wacky
Squeezed on:
Updated:
Squeezed on:

By

sexual%20predator.jpg
Dr. Byron Timberlake, an otolaryngologist in Front Royal, Viriginia, was found to have sexually molested 6 young male patients. His sentence – PROBATION. Oh, and he couldn’t see patients under 18. A few year later, his probation was lifted, as were the restrictions on his license. He’s been practicing in Virginia ever since. Regarding the sexual assaults, to read the “findings of fact and conclusions of law” in awful detail, click here. To view Dr. Timberlake’s profile on the Virginia Board of Medicine web site, click here. Where was the justice for these boys?

Squeezed on:

By

From the case of Salinero v. Pon, 124 Cal.App.3d 120, 177 Cal. Rptr. 204 (1981):

The owner of a six-story apartment building hired an independent contractor, the plaintiff’s employer, to wash the windows of the building. No safety devices – from which window washers could be suspended – had been installed on the building. So the owner and the contractor agreed that the windows would be washed by means of a ladder extended over the edge of the roof from which the workers would be suspended in a boatswain’s chair secured to the roof by a weighted sand bag. Brilliant! While the plaintiff was suspended in the chair some 35-40 feet above the ground, a fellow worker mistakenly removed the sand bag anchoring the plaintiff’s chair, causing him to fall and suffer injury.

[13 pages!] Spoiler alert – Salinero, the falling guy … [see below]
ladder.jpg

lost!

Squeezed on:

By

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.

wecsog-diploma.jpg

Squeezed on:

By

cat_yawning_canine_teeth.jpg
This is insane. It all started on May 25, 2003 in New Zealand when a cat named Lui started licking his balls – really. This led his owner to take him to the vet, where things went from bad to worse, ending with Lui dying 11 days later. Litigation involving Lui’s care has been going on for 4 YEARS! And the end could be more than a year away! Thank you, Kiwis, for today’s Juice.

Squeezed on:

By

barbie_head_1.jpg For real. MCA Records put out a song called “Barbie Girl.”(If you haven’t heard the song, lucky you. Not only does it SUCK, it becomes stuck in your head.) Anyway, it doesnt’ paint poor little Barbie in the best light, so Mattel sued MCA for using Barbie’s name without permission. MCA then agreed to place the following language on the album: the song is “social commentary and not created or approved by the makers of the doll.”

MCA’s response: fuhgeddaboutit. “It’s akin to a bank robber handing a note of apology to a teller during a heist. It neither diminshes the severity of the crime nor does it make it legal.” MCA’s response? Not pleased with Matell’s use of the words “bank robber,” “heist,” “crime,” or “theft,” they countersued for defamation!

The Judge ultimately found for MCA Records, and offered this little nugget: “The parties are advised to chill.” The case is Mattel v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002).

Squeezed on:

By

Sometimes a little effort goes a long way. Just ask one lawyer, Mr. Puricelli (who represented a man successfully in a civil rights case), who got upbraided for repeatedly failing to fix typos in his court filings. The judge described Mr. Puricelli’s written work as “careless, to the point of disrespectful,” and agreed with the defendants that it was “vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, verbose and repetitive.” What were some of the mistakes? Per the judge:

Throughout the litigation, Mr. Puricelli identified the court as “THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTER [sic] DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.” Considering the religious persuasion of the presiding officer, the “Passover” District would have been more appropriate.” [Judge Jacob Hart, presiding]

Mr. Puricelli, on the other hand, felt the court didn’t understand his side of the story. When the defendant asked the court to reduce Mr. Puricelli’s fees [that they were required by law to pay] due to his typos, Mr. Puricelli wrote this reply to the court:

Had the Defendants not tired [sic] to paper Plaintiff’s counsel to death, some type [sic] would not have occurred. Furthermore, there have been omissions by the Defendants, thus they should not case [sic] stones.

Do you think the judge reduced Mr. Puricelli’s fees?

Continue reading →

Squeezed on:

By

holmes.jpg
So said Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the United States Supreme Court in a case that blew me away when I first encountered it in law school. The case is Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Virginia passed a law allowing the state to forcibly sterilize certain “mental defectives” to promote “the health of the patient and the welfare of society.” Shockingly, not all of these folks wanted to be sterilized. Carrie Buck, a resident of the State Colony for Epilectics and Feeble Minded, was one such person. When you read how Justice Holmes sets forth the case, you can probably guess how it came down. (I guess the title of the post offers a small hint too.) Here’s what he said:

Carrie Buck is a feeble minded white woman who was committed to the State Colony … She is the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child.

Here is Justice Holmes’ reasoning and conclusion:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for a crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. (emphasis added)

Almost 20 years after I first read the case, it still sends chills down my spine.