Squeezed on:

By

It’s good to be passionate about your work, but not too passionate.

Take the case of Stanley Protokowicz, a Maryland divorce lawyer. He represented one Thomas Sanders (his best friend), who, shortly after divorce proceedings began, learned that his wife had been having an extramarital affair. Things began to go downhill at a meeting after a hearing before Harford County Circuit Court Judge Cypert Whitfill. As the Circuit Court for Baltimore County later explained:

It was during this meeting to discuss child custody and visitation that [Mr. Protokowicz] referred to Ms. Sanders as a slut. Although [Mr. Protokowicz] testified that it was Ms. Mervis (the lawyer for Ms. Sanders) who first referred to her client as a slut, the court finds [Mr. Protokowicz] was the first to use the term. Apparently [Mr. Protokowicz] was extremely emotional about Ms. Sanders conduct which he termed immoral. During this period there were rumors that there had been more than one adulterous affair during their marriage.

The Court continues (as if reciting the plot from a bad episode of Melrose Place):

Some of those rumors persisted and perhaps originated at the country club. There was some attempt by some members of the country club to bar Ms. Sanders’ use of the club swimming pool. Apparently Mr. Sanders was behind Ms. Sanders’ exclusion. . . In response to Ms. Mervis’ questioning as to why this was happening at the club, [Mr. Protokowicz] speculated that prior to the Sanders’ marital problems, Ms. Sanders was very popular at the club. Women members would circle around her when she put her chair down at the pool and now when she put her chair down, the others turned their chairs away.

Ms. Mervis referred to Ms. Sanders as a JAP, saying that if Ms. Sanders weren’t Jewish, she should be because she’s a Jewish American Princess. (Ms. Mervis attributes that reference to [Mr. Protokowicz]) In response to Ms. Mervis’ insistence on an explanation of why the women at the country club were snubbing Ms. Sanders, [Mr. Protokowicz] said, ‘Lisa, if I went into your Temple this week and shit on the floor, you wouldn’t welcome me back next week.’ Ms. Mervis testified that she was offended and took the remarks as anti-semitic.

Cat lovers might want to stop here. Dog lovers, click here to get to the microwaved cat.

Continue reading →

Squeezed on:

By

On January 30, 1974, a young woman, who shall remain nameless, was arrested for prostitution. Having solicited a police officer (doh!), she sought a sentence of probation. Magistrate Judge Richard J. Rome complied. Unfortunately, he also issued the following Memorandum Decision:

This is the saga of ___ ___ ___,
Whose ancient profession brings her before us.
On January 30th, 1974,
This lass agreed to work as a whore.

Her great mistake, as was to unfold,
Was the enticing of a cop named Harold.
Unknown to ___, this officer, surnamed Harris,
Was duty-bent on ___’s lot to embarrass.

At the Brass Rail they met,
And for twenty dollars the trick was all set.
In separate cars they did pursue,
To the sensuous apartment of ___ ___.

Bound for her bed she spared not a minute,
Followed by Harris with his heart not in it!
As she prepared to repose there in her bay,
She was arrested by Harris, to her great dismay!

Off to the jailhouse poor ___ was taken,
Printed and mugged, her confidence shaken.
Formally charged by this great State,
With offering to Harris to fornicate.
Her arraignment was formal, then back to jail,
And quick as a flash she was admitted to bail.
On February 26, 1974,
The State of Kansas tried this young whore.
A prosecutor named Brown,
Represented the Crown.

___ ___, her freedom in danger,
Was being defended by a chap named Granger.
Testimony was presented and arguments heard,
Poor ___ waited for the Judge’s last word.

The finding was guilty, with no great alarm,
And ___ was sentenced to the Women’s State Farm.
An appeal was taken, to a higher court ___ went,
The thousand dollar fine was added to imprisonment.

Trial was set in this higher court,
But the route of appeal ___ chose to abort.
And back to Judge Rome, came this lady of the night,
To plead for her freedom and end this great fight.

So under advisement ___’s freedom was taken,
And in the bastille this lady did waken.
The judge showed mercy and ___ was free,
But back to the street she could not flee.

The fine she’d pay while out on parole,
But not from men she used to cajole.
From her ancient profession she’d been busted,
And to society’s rules she must be adjusted.

If from all of this a moral doth unfurl,
It is that Pimps do not protect the working girl!

The matter was brought to the attention of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications to determine if Judge Rome violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. What do you think they decided?

Continue reading →

Squeezed on:

By

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 →

Squeezed on:

By

Spell check, the devil’s proofreader.

So you’re an attorney with a trial coming up, but are still recovering from back surgery. You want the court to continue the trial. You even have a doctor’s note! So you file a “Motion for a Continuance” with one teeny, tiny typo:

Plaintiff moves the court for a continuance of the trial for the reason that counsel for the plaintiff is recovering from dick surgery …

Now that has got to hurt! Click here – ouch! – to see the Motion and the doctor’s note (for the injured disk).

Squeezed on:

By

Mr. Smith (that’s his name, really) was sentenced to 21 years for six drug offenses. He requested a new trial, fired his lawyer, and represented himself at the hearing on his request for a new trial. Mr. Smith’s “first use of profanity occurred when he used the word ‘fuck,’ apparently for emphasis [Well I never!], in recalling an earlier conversation with his trial counsel who allegedly invited [Smith] to [appeal] based on ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.” The Judge warned him, but damned if it didn’t slip out again. Contempt #1. Six pages of trial transcript later, f-bomb number 2, and Contempt #2. And what do you think Mr. Smith said after the second contempt? “Shit.” Really. The Judge let that one go.

No more bombs for 37 pages of trial transcript. But when it became clear that Mr. Smith was SOL, he interrupted the Judge with “That’s bullshit. That’s bullshit.” The Judge ignored the BS-bombs. Mr. Smith later dropped the B-bomb (bitch), also ignored. But when it came time to sentence Mr. Smith for Contempts 1 & 2, things heated up a little bit.

THE DEFENDANT: What is the maximum on contempt, sir?
THE COURT: What is the maximum on contempt? If I am going to give you in excess of six months, I believe I have to give you a jury trial, is that correct …?
[STATE’S ATTORNEY]: Yes.
……….
THE DEFENDANT: … from day one, you have been prejudiced to the defense …. I am not asking you to believe me. I am only asking to bring forth witnesses in this case who could testify —
THE COURT: I asked you if you had anything you want to say as to what sentence the Court should impose —
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. You know what? You can give me six more months, motherfucker, for sucking my dick, you punk ass bitch. You should have a white robe on, motherfucker, instead of a black. Fuck you.
THE COURT: I find you in contempt again.
THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you in contempt again.
THE COURT: I find you three times in contempt —
THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you. And fuck.
THE COURT: On each charge, the Court will impose a sentence of five months to run consecutive to each other and consecutive to any sentence you are now serving or obligated to serve.
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. You better leave now, you, Ku Klux Klan.
THE COURT: The Court will adjourn. [Not so fast, there.]
THE DEFENDANT: Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you, you, Ku Klux Klan —
(Whereupon, the Proceedings were concluded.)

So what do you think the Maryland Court of Appeals decided – three contempts or one?

Continue reading →

Squeezed on:

By

While Mr. Swinyer was in jail, [former] correctional officer Cole admitted that he assaulted Mr. Swinyer by grabbing him around the throat and shoving him against the wall in response to – what else – a “donut” comment (really). Mr. Swinyer filed suit and litigated the case himself. The docket contains over 100 entries. In the end, more than 2 years after the case began, Judge Leighton held that the injury was de minimus and dismissed the case. (Here’s the Court’s decision.)

Understandably, Mr. Swinyer did not take the news well. Here is the Notice of Appeal he filed:

I hereby am informing you that I am appealing the asshole Ronald B. Leighton’s decision in this matter.

You have been hereby served Notice. You’re not getting away with this shit that easy.

Signed this 10th day of July 2006. George C. Swinyer, Jr. Click here to view Mr. Swinyer’s Notice of Appeal.

This was not well-received. The Court rejected the Notice of Appeal, stating that it was “not taken in good faith.” (Read it here.) Soon thereafter, the case was closed.

Squeezed on:

By

I sure didn’t. I was reading through the Idaho Code (couldn’t sleep – and was almost there when I got to the definition of “mayhem”)

Every person who unlawfully and maliciously deprives a human being of a member of his body, or disables, disfigures or renders it useless, or cuts out or disables the tongue, puts out an eye, slits the nose, ear or lip, is guilty of mayhem. (Idaho Code, Section 18-5001)

Now wide awake, I read on:

CANNIBALISM DEFINED — PUNISHMENT. (1) Any person who willfully ingests the flesh or blood of a human being is guilty of cannibalism. (2) It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of the provisions of this section that the action was taken under extreme life-threatening conditions as the only apparent means of survival. (3) Cannibalism is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding fourteen (14) years. (Idaho Code, Section 18-5003).

So, if you’re ever in Idaho, (1) watch your back, because someone can legally eat you if the cupboard is bare, (2) don’t drink anything red, and (3) if you’re not sure what it is, don’t eat it!

Squeezed on:

By

Certainly a Judge must control the courtroom. How a Judge may do this, not surprisingly, is determined by the law. One tool is the power to hold someone in contempt. [Hint: It’s a power used, a lot, below.] According to the Supreme Court, if the sentence imposed for contempt is less than 6 months, there is no right to a jury trial. Now, to our man in Maryland.

In 1990, Mr. Johnson was convicted of malicious destruction of personal property, placed on probation, and given a 3-year suspended sentence. He had to stay out of trouble for 3 years. Unfortunately, in 1991 he was convicted of burglary, and sentenced to 10 years. So Mr. Johnson is in jail for a couple years, when he is called to court for violating his 1990 probation – with just 10 days remaining on the 3-year suspended sentence.

Althought the prospect of serving an additional 3 years – on top of the 10 years he was already serving – did not sit well with him, his probation agent told him that the State would not seek to tack on the additional 3 years for violating his probation. WRONG! The Judge added on the 3 years, and a lively, lengthy, colorful conversation ensued. And just when you think it might be over …

THE COURT: Call the next case please.
[PROSECUTOR]: State calls Eugene Wright …

MR. JOHNSON: — at the same time. Don’t make no motherfucking sense.

THE COURT: Bring him back. Take him back.

MR. JOHNSON: No motherfucking sense.

THE COURT: Pull him back.

MR. JOHNSON: Yo, man, stop yanking on my motherfucking arms. Motherfucking —
THE COURT: Sit him back over there in front of the table. [Uh-oh]
THE CLERK: Give me the file back. He might be under contempt of court.

THE COURT: Now, stand up there. Come back to that table there. Step on up now. What’s wrong with you?

MR. JOHNSON: What the fuck you think wrong with me, man? Goddamn, I’m trying to tell you I ain’t have no motherfucking option in this shit, man.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. JOHNSON: What the fuck? You think everybody just want to go sit in prison for the rest of their life because you ain’t got nothing better to do than to sit up there and crack jokes. This ain’t no motherfucking joke, man. This is about my goddamn life.

THE COURT: That cost you five months and twenty-nine days in addition to the three years I’ve just given you [#1, and suspiciously shy of the 6 months that would require a jury trial]
MR. JOHNSON: Fuck this shit, man.

Continue reading →

Squeezed on:

By

Attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent their clients. Clients hire lawyers to do just that. And judges apply the laws as written, except those darned activist judges (which is all of them, depending, of course, on who you ask.)
Down in Florida, William Grisham found himself charged with assault. The State asked that he be committed to a mental hospital. During that time, the 180 days within which a trial is required to take place expired. His attorney told the judge that, according to a recent Florida law, his client must be released because his right to a speedy trial was violated. The attorney pointed out that the law specifically states that people committed to mental hospitals don’t lose their right to a speedy trial. So what do you think the judge had to say to that?

That may be the law but …

Continue reading →

Squeezed on:

By

And some folks say civility no longer exists in the legal profession. In the case of Avista Management, Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Co., Judge Presnell (United States District Court – Florida – Orlando Division) would no doubt agree. The attorneys in the case, whose offices are in the same building, could not agree on where to hold a deposition. Judges HATE to be pulled into such minor disputes. So, when Avista’s attorney filed a “Motion to Designate Location of a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition,” Judge Presnell denied it, and issued a novel ruling, paving the way for the first RPS Showdown.

“Instead, the Court will fashion a new form of alternative dispute resolution, to wit …” Enough legal jargon. The Judge ordered that the attorneys, each with a paralegal as a witness, play “one (1) game of ‘rock, paper, scissors'” [the RPS Showdown] on the front steps of the Courthouse on June 30, 2006. Of course, the Judge chose the Courthouse steps only “if counsel cannot agree on a neutral site.” Well, their offices are in the same building … (Click here to read the two page Order.)

So, with the big game just days away, due to either pre-game jitters, or the thought of scores of TV cameras focused on the event, the attorneys agreed on a location for the deposition. (I’m guessing that the game did take place – behind closed doors.) Noting that “with civility restored (at least for now),” Judge Presnell vacated his widely hailed “rock, papaer, scissors” Order. The RPS Showdown was not to be. (Click here to see the Order.)

Continue reading →