A court in Australia has ruled that three children will share in the estate of their sperm donor father. It turns out that the man they thought was their father was infertile. When he died, their mother told them the truth, including the identity of their biological father, Mr. Wijma. When he recently died, the three children claimed a share of his estate, and won, much to the dismay of Mr. Wijma’s two children from his earlier marriage. Oh, and just how did the kids prove Mr. Wijma was their dad? Their solicitor (lawyer) plucked an eyebrow [for DNA testing] from Mr. Wijma while he was in the hospital! For more details, read this article.
Squeezed on:
Motion For A Skin Change Operaton To White (But Not A Nose Job Like Jacko)
Mr. Washington’s “Motion for Reconsideration” (click hereto see the document) reads as follows:
A while back I filed a Motion for the American People to Kiss My Ass Also Skin Change Operation to White. It’s all right to be white. I think it’s cool and groovie. But I think I erred with my Motion for a Skin Color Change Operation because that would cost too much money and that would be a waste of taxpayers money. I move this court for a complex change like Michael Jackson; his skin is pretty and white but I decline on the nose job Jacko has; because he really messed up but he is pretty and white. I think it’s alright to be white and I move this court on the same.
And the court’s ruling?
Squeezed on:
Sexaul Harassment Or Not? You Make The Call.
Ms. Kirkland works at Morton’s of Chicago as the catering manager, where her boss is Mr. Hickey, the restaurant manager. According to the court, there is no genuine dispute as to the following (in other words, “it’s true”):
that Hickey told Kirkland that she “needed to get laid”; that Hickey told Kirkland to “blow me”; that Hickey asked Kirkland out on a date, which she rejected, the most benign of Hickey’s acts; that Hickey called Kirkland a “fat pig”; that he placed his hand inside of Kirkland’s blouse; that he asked Kirkland about the color of her bra and whether it matched her panties; that he pulled up Kirkland’s dress; that he pulled his pants down and exposed his buttocks to Kirkland; that he put his hand all the way up Kirkland’s dress; and that he waved a vibrator at Kirkland and other women.
Quite the charmer. The test for whether he created a “hostile work environment is
whether a reasonable woman would find that Hickey’s conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment.
What do you think? Is Hickey a sexual harasser?
Squeezed on:
Do Not Put Your Child In The Dryer!
You would think this is not something any parent needs to be told. You would be wrong. A Staten Island, New York woman put her 3-year-old son in a running dryer. Prosecutors said that the child suffered burns and bruises on his nose, neck, forehead, ears, back and buttocks. As part of the plea deal, the woman was required to attend parenting-skills classes. She failed to attend them! So the judge sentenced her to 90 days in jail. You can read the entire story here.
Squeezed on:
Judge And Lawyer Argue Over “Tie.” Who Wins?
In almost every jurisdiction, male lawyers must wear a jacket and tie when they appear in court. The idea is to appear dignified and professional – we are, after all, officers of the court. Most attorneys would probably agree that the courtroom is not the place to make a fashion statement.
Tom Cherryhomes, a New Mexico family lawyer, felt otherwise. Per the court,
On September 13, 1991, Cherryhomes appeared in Judge Shuler’s courtroom to represent a client in a child abuse/neglect proceeding. Cherryhomes was wearing a short-sleeved, conventional dress shirt with the neck unbuttoned. He had a light blue piece of cloth or bandanna tied around his neck, above his collar, and he was not wearing a jacket.
Judge Schuler reminded Mr. Cherryhomes that ties were required attire in his courtroom. Per the court:
[Cherryhomes] said he was wearing a tie, even if Judge Shuler did not like his choice, and referred to a book on nineteenth century western wear and a dictionary definition of “tie,” which he had brought with him. Judge Shuler disagreed with Cherryhomes’s interpretation of the meaning of the local rules requirement of a tie, and found Cherryhomes in contempt, fining him $50.
Cherryhomes requested a hearing, and an opportunity to explain himself. The Judge agreed. Shockingly, the Judge agreed with himself! Based on what you know of this lawyer so far, do you think he appealed? He did. And who do you think won?
Squeezed on:
Stealing Crawfish Twice, Kidnapping, Or Sexual Battery Of The Infirm? In Louisiana, Which Will Get You More Jail Time?
So here are the crimes:
A. Theft of crawfish is the misappropriation or taking of crawfish belonging to another or proceeds derived from the sale of such crawfish, whether done without the consent of the owner to the misappropriation or taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations, with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the crawfish, or proceeds derived from the sale of the crawfish.
§93.5. Sexual battery of the infirm
A. Sexual battery of the infirm is the intentional engaging in any of the sexual acts listed in Subsection B with another person, who is not the spouse of the offender, when:
(1) The offender compels the victim, who is physically incapable of preventing the act because of advanced age or physical infirmity, to submit by placing the victim in fear of receiving bodily harm.
(2) The victim is incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act by reason of stupor or abnormal condition of the mind produced by an intoxicating, narcotic, or anesthetic agent administered by or with the privity of the offender. …
B. For purposes of this Section, “sexual acts” mean the following:
(1) The touching of the anus or genitals of the victim by the offender using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the offender; or
(2) The touching of the anus or genitals of the offender by the victim using any instrumentality or any part of the body of the victim.
A. Simple kidnapping is:
(1) The intentional and forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one place to another without his consent.
(2) The intentional taking, enticing or decoying away, for an unlawful purpose, of any child not his own and under the age of fourteen years, without the consent of its parent or the person charged with its custody.
(3) The intentional taking, enticing or decoying away, without the consent of the proper authority, of any person who has been lawfully committed to any orphan, insane, feeble-minded or other similar institution.
So which crime will get you the most time?
Squeezed on:
IBM Heiress Adopts Her Lover. As A “Grandchild,” Does She Inherit?
So it’s 1978, and two women meet in California and fall in love. They move to New York, where they live together for a number of years. Since they are not allowed to marry in New York, in 1991, they go to Maine, where Ms. Watson, the IBM heiress, legally adopts Ms. Spado, her lover.
Ms. Watson’s parents died in 1993 and 1994, leaving trusts (being administered in Connecticut) – for their grandchildren. As a grandchild, Ms. Spado asked the trustees for her share. The trustees said #&%$@!, and %*$#@%@!, then asked the court in Connecticut to declare that Ms. Spado was not entitled to share in the trusts. The Connecticut court agreed. Ms. Spado has appealed that decision.
Meanwhile, in Maine, the trustees asked that the entire adoption be declared invalid. The court agreed. But when Ms. Spado appealed that decision to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, they sent the case back (in January 2007) … to the same Judge who originally granted the adoption!
Squeezed on:
Sane Feminist or Crazy Aunt Louisa? There’s Money At Stake. What Do You Think?
It’s 1944 in New Jersey. Louisa Strittmater died, with some money, or you wouldn’t be reading this. In her Will, she left her entire estate to ……. the National Women’s Party. Mercy! This did not sit well with her cousins (whom she saw very little during the last few years of her life), but who nevertheless said she was crazy, and asked the court to set the Will aside and give them the money. They lost Round 1, then appealed the decision. Per the appellate court:
The deceased never married. Born in 1896, she lived with her parents until their death about 1928, and seems to have had a normal childhood. She was devoted to both her parents and they to her. Her admiration and love of her parents persisted after their death to 1934, at least. Yet four years later she wrote: ‘My father was a corrupt, vicious, and unintelligent savage, a typical specimen of the majority of his sex. Blast his wormstinking carcass and his whole damn breed.’ And in 1943, she inscribed on a photograph of her mother ‘That Moronic she-devil that was my mother.’
Wormstinking carcass? Nice touch. So I’m thinking that maybe her parents were just jackasses? The court went on to say:
The master who heard the case in the court below, found that the proofs demonstrated ‘incontrovertably her morbid aversion to men’ and ‘feminism to a neurotic extreme.’ This characterization seems to me not strong enough. She regarded men as a class with an insane hatred. She looked forward to the day when women would bear children without the aid of men, and all males would be put to death at birth. Decedent’s inward life, disclosed by what she wrote, found an occasional outlet such as the incident of the smashing of the clock, the killing of the pet kitten, vile language, &c. On the other hand — and I suppose this is the split personality — Miss Strittmater, in her dealings with her lawyer, Mr. Semel, over a period of several years, and with her bank, to cite only two examples, was entirely reasonable and normal.
Dead male babies and kittens vs. reasonable and normal with her lawyer and others. What do you think the appellate court decided, sane feminist or crazy lady?
Squeezed on:
Another Reason To Fear Jail Showers?
The world apparently is aware of only half the dangers of jail showers. Mr. Flandro, a former inmate of the Salt Lake County Jails, brought a shower-related lawsuit against a Utah jail. In his suit, Mr. Flandro claimed that the jail showers violated his 8th Amendment rights because they were so dangerous that they amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. And what, according to Mr. Flandro, was so bad about the jail showers? The slippery floors.
Mr. Flandro argued that “the jail’s shower floor became slippery due to the mixture of shampoo, soap, and water.” The court, however, didn’t buy Mr. Flandro’s argument, observing that “[s]lippery shower floors constitute a daily risk faced by the public at large.”
Compare Mr. Flandro’s case to that of Mr. Hudson, who was handcuffed, shackled, and beaten by three prison guards. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. As stated by the Court:
At the time of the incident that is the subject of this suit, petitioner Keith Hudson was an inmate at the state penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Respondents Jack McMillian, Marvin Woods, and Arthur Mezo served as corrections security officers at the Angola facility. During the early morning hours of October 30,1983, Hudson and McMillian argued. Assisted by Woods, McMillian then placed Hudson in handcuffs and shackles, took the prisoner out of his cell, and walked him toward the penitentiary’s “administrative lockdown” area. Hudson testified that, on the way there, McMillian punched Hudson in the mouth, eyes, chest, and stomach while Woods held the inmate in place and kicked and punched him from behind. He further testified that Mezo, the supervisor on duty, watched the beating but merely told the officers “not to have too much fun.” App. 23. As a result of this episode, Hudson suffered minor bruises and swelling of his face, mouth, and lip. The blows also loosened Hudson’s teeth and cracked his partial dental plate, rendering it unusable for several months.
Seven of the nine Justices agreed that this may constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Not prison guard favorites Justices Thomas and Scalia, though. They basically argued that beating the crap out of a handcuffed inmate was not cruel and unusual!
Squeezed on:
“Oh Sh*t!” Attorney Says: That Coat With The Cocaine And Marijuana … It’s Not Mine!
Whatever you do, make sure you don’t grab Mr. Green’s raincoat!
Mr. Ryan, an Illinois attorney, was on his way into the courthouse. As described by the court (Mr. Ryan is the “Respondent”):
Deputy Kennealy, who was assigned to first-floor security at the Daley Center during May of 1999, testified that she was on duty at one of the security stations on the morning of May 24, 1999. At about 9:20 a.m., the Respondent approached the security checkpoint and emptied his pockets into a property tray. Kennealy recalled that the Respondent placed a pack of cigarettes and a napkin and, possibly, a set of keys in the tray. (Tr. 19-23)
Kennealy reached into the tray and picked up the pack of cigarettes the Respondent had placed inside, in order to conduct a search for weapons. At that point, she stated, the Respondent tried to grab the cigarette pack out of her hand and remarked, “Oh, shit, I have to get out of here.” (Tr. 24-26) The Respondent turned and began to walk back through the metal detector, and Kennealy and another deputy brought him back. (Tr. 24) Kennealy felt that the Respondent was attempting to flee at that time because he tried to walk out “fast.” (Tr. 31)(emphasis added).
Kennealy then looked inside the cigarette pack, and found a white powdery substance which was later determined to be cocaine. (Tr. 25-26, Admin. Ex. 6) She placed the Respondent in custody and took him downstairs to the lockup area. In a search of the remainder of the Respondent’s property at the lockup, Kennealy found cannabis in the napkin the Respondent had placed in the tray. (Tr. 25-26, Admin. Ex. 5)
So it’s not looking too good for Mr. Green. Just what did he have to say for himself? Do you think the court will buy it?