Squeezed on:

By

So much for customer service. In a Fairfax County, Virginia Food Lion, a customer and a Food Lion manager got into an argument over the use of certain coupons. It goes without saying that coupon use is a very contentious issue. So perhaps it’s not surprising that the manager then knocked over the customer’s grocery cart. While leaving the store, the customer was pelted in the back with an egg – thrown by the store manager. Ever loyal, other store employees laughed at the customer, and refused to provide information about how to file a complaint with Food Lion’s corporate office.

Perhaps not being satisfied with landing only one egg, the store manager filed criminal trespass charges against the customer. At the criminal trespass trial, since nobody from Food Lion showed, the case was dismissed. The customer then sued Food Lion for malicious prosecution and assault, and was awarded $3,800 in punitive damages, and $1,200 in attorney’s fees. Alam v. Food Lion, Inc., Fairfax County General District Court.

Squeezed on:

By

You be the judge. Over a period of years, Florida Judge Sheldon Schapiro engaged in the following conduct [which he admitted to in a Stipulation submitted to the Court] which is set forth in the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion.

A motorcyclist killed a child and fled the scene. At the bond hearing for the motorcyclist [to determine if he could post bond and leave jail pending trial], the child’s mother was present. The assistant state’s attorney told the Judge that the mother of the victim wanted to address the court. The Judge responded by saying “What do I need to hear from the mother of a [dead] kid for? All she will tell me is to keep the guy in custody and never let him out.” (The Judge says he used the word “deceased,” not “dead.” Sure.)

An assistant state’s attorney, who was 8 months pregnant, was hospitalized due to pregnancy complication on the third day of a trial before Judge Schapiro. Due to the hospitalization, she requested a continuance. HE DENIED IT! Against doctor’s orders, the attorney returned to court to finish trying the case.

That same attorney was arguing a motion to revoke bond [to force someone charged with a crime to post bond or go to jail pending his/her trial] before Judge Schapiro. He “summoned [her] to the backroom behind [his] bench and told her that she needed to emulate the style of male attorneys when addressing the court because male attorneys did not get as emotional about their cases as the female attorneys did.”

As a criminal defense attorney was making an argument in a sexual battery case, you cut him off and said, ‘Do you know what I think of your argument’ …, at which time you pushed a button on a device that simulated the sound of a commode flushing.

When the Judge thought an attorney was talking, he said “Why do I always have to treat you like a school child?” The attorney responded that the Judge routinely treated everyone in his courtroom like a school child. He was ordered out of the courtroom.

Not finally- but you get the idea – the Florida Supreme Court found that

In violation of Canon 1, Canon 2A, and Canon 3B(4), you have fallen into a general pattern of rude and intemperate behavior by needlessly interjecting yourself into counsel’s examinations of witnesses; embarrassing and belittling counsel in court; and questioning the competence of counsel by making remarks such as, ‘What, are you stupid?”

So what was the Judge’s punishment? Lose his job as a judge?

Continue reading →

Squeezed on:

By

If your honor has been besmirched, or if someone has 14 items in the “10 items or less” line, and “rock, paper, scissors” just won’t do, consider challenging the offender to a duel. If you are in Rhode Island, though, try flipping a coin. DO NOT CHALLENGE YOUR OPPONENT TO A DUEL.

Merely challenging a person to a duel will get you 1-7 years in jail, as will accepting the challenge, whether the duel is fought or not! And don’t ask your friend to set it up. That offense is punishable by up to 5 years in jail.

Undeterred, you decide to have the duel anyway, netting you another 1-7 years. Go alone. Anyone who helps you, acts as your second, or comes as your “surgeon,” is looking at up to 5 years.

Continue reading →
Squeezed on:

By

I really don’t know where to start with this Maryland law, so here it is:

A person may not sell or offer for sale a contraceptive device, whether or not advertised as a prophylactic, by means of a vending machine or other automatic device at a kindergarten, nursery school …

So, I guess that means no “condom” slot in the soda machine? How will the teachers cavort safely? Oh Maryland, what have you done?

Squeezed on:

By

This is not your garden variety “babe-calling” case. Ms. Aude sued Mr. Mullaney for negligently giving her herpes. (The jury found that he did, but that she was “contributorily negligent.”) Mr. Mullaney was represented by Allen Harris (and Benjamin Lipsitz). Ms. Aude was represented by Susan Green and Gary Bernstein.

At Ms. Aude’s deposition, “as [she] was leaving the room to retrieve [a] document, Mr. Harris remarked that she was going to meet ‘[a]nother boyfriend’ at the car. Ms. Green and Mr. Bernstein quickly told Mr. Harris that his comment was in poor taste and asked him to refrain from making further derogatory comments. The following ensued:”

MR. MULLANEY: It’s going to be a fun trial. [Oh, and he’s a lawyer, too. Very professional, no?]
MR. HARRIS: It must have been in poor taste if Miss Green says it was in poor tasted. It must have really been in poor taste.
MS. GREEN: You got a problem with me?
MR. HARRIS: No, I don’t have a problem with you, babe. [uh oh]
MS. GREEN: Babe? You called me babe? What generation are you from?
MR. HARRIS: At least I didn’t call you a bimbo. [have shovel, will dig]
MR.LIPSITZ: Cut it out.
MS. GREEN: The committee will enjoy hearing about that.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Alan, you ought to stay out of the gutter.

“According to Ms. Green’s legal assistant, Harris’s reference to Ms. Green as ‘babe’ continued throughout the litigation. In an affidavit … she stated that ‘in the course of her employment, [Mr. Harris] did telephone Ms. Green’s office and ask, ‘Is the babe in?’ He also referred to [the legal assistant] as ‘babe.”

Ms. Green then filed a motion asking the Court to put an end to this conduct (and some other defense conduct), and requested attorneys’ fees. So what do you think happened?

Continue reading →

Squeezed on:

By

If you want to be a taxicab driver in King County, Washington (county seat, Seattle), be advised that you cannot wear shorts, sandals, jogging or warm-up suits or sweatshirts or similar attire, or “any similar clothing.” Fortunately, raingear is allowed (unless it looks like a warm-up or a sweatshirt?). Unfortunately, you may not wear underwear “as an outer garment.” King County Code Section 6.64.680
If you still want to drive a taxicab in Seattle, heed the following: You must wear “suitable clothes,” defined as “full-length pants, collared shirts and shoes.” (I’m out, since I only wear a collared shirt in Court, or for my website photo.) You must also be “well groomed,” which requires “bathing or showering on a normal basis” (Is there a King County “Bathing and Showering Inspector?”). You must have “hair that is neatly trimmed, beards and mustaches [that] are groomed and neatly trimmed at all times in order not to present a ragged appearance, and scalp and facial hair [that] are combed and brushed.” Oh, and a poorly groomed taxicab driver involved in an automobile accident will be presumed to be at fault. (Okay, there is no such presumption. But you had no trouble believing it, right?)

Now, if you are STILL interested, make sure you have no convictions for the following crimes or you’re out of luck, no matter how well you dress: use of a machine gun in a felony, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, arson, robbery, and, of course, leading organized crime. King County Code Section 6.64.600. If you are really, really bored, the entire King County, Washington code may be viewed at www.mrsc.org.

Squeezed on:

By

OUCH! is a very mild reaction to the words “Lorena Bobbit.” (If you’re too young to know who she is, click here.) Things were not going well for our featured couple. As the court described it:

Terry Bach and Carol Crawford were in a relationship for over ten years and lived together for a period of time. In December of 1999, Mr. Bach claims that Ms. Crawford mentioned Lorena Bobbitt to him, which he interpreted as threatening, and shortly thereafter, he decided to break up.

This would appear to have been a wise move. …

Ms. Crawford also placed cut up pictures of Mr. Bach in a box of belongings he was supposed to pick up…Additionally, Ms. Crawford called Mr. Bach’s mother and stopped by her residence, often asking about the new women in Mr. Bach’s life…. Also, in the spring of 2000, Ms. Crawford was arrested for criminal trespassing on mr. Bach’s property and convicted. As a result of the conviction, Ms. Crawford’s brother hired a private investigator, Ms. Thacker… Ms. Thacker and Ms. Crawford appeared at a restaurant where Mr. Bach was eating and photographed him with another woman and the woman’s vehicle… Mr. Bach also alleges that Ms. Crawford drove behind him … and videotaped him… Also, in December of 2000, Mr. Bach found a man in the parking lot of a Sears store who was videotaping him. Mr. Bach approached him and took the videotape from the man, but he was unable to get the man’s name or license plate number. Mr. Bach has no evidence connecting this incident to Ms. Crawford [Yeah, probably just a coincidence!!!!!]

Setting aside the Lorena Bobbit threat (and the cut-up pictures – I see a theme evolving), of the few women I broke up with before they beat me to it (I can count them on one finger), I think I would be flattered if someone was so obsessed with me. Well, Mr. Bach was not flattered. He sought a domestic violence protective order. Do you think he got it?

Continue reading →

Squeezed on:

By

Ms. Lowe [cue the villain music] was driving Mr. Moffet’s car (insured by State Farm) when [warning: tree violence] it struck and damaged Mr. Fisher’s “beautiful oak tree.” Naturally, the tree [okay Mr. Fisher] filed suit. Losing at the trial level, the tree appealed. Read the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals to find out who won.

Syllabus (summary)

A wayward Chevy struck a tree

Continue reading →
Squeezed on:

By

Just when I was planning to hold the First Annual Cross-Dressing, Pinball Marathon in Big Bear, California, I came across three major legal hurdles on the books of Big Bear.

No person over the age of sixteen years shall by costume, makeup or disguise, impersonate a person of the opposite sex on or in any public street, sidewalk, park or place, except when such costume, makeup or disguise is worn or assumed in participation of some public celebration, holiday, parade or event.

Why oh why would a law like this be necessary? Was there a slate of cross-dressers who nearly took over Big Bear Lake? The good folk of the city must head for the hills on Halloween and International Crossdressers Day (It’s January 30th, according to Laura Amato.)

Pinball? In this fair city,

It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to keep, maintain, possess or have under control in any place whatever, either as owner, lessee …, any table game or device commonly known as a ‘pinball machine’ … or similar device by whatever name known, the operation, use or play of which is controlled by placing any coin, plate, disk, key or other device, or by the payment of any fee.

Continue reading →