|
I had just sat down at my desk
to begin composing a serious,
sensitive, compelling, thought
provoking piece on a legal
subject of great importance to
us all. I had been thinking
about the article for a while
and had it carefully mapped out
in my mind. I was excited and
ready to hit the first key when
I happened to glance over at a
pile of lawyer journals stacked
on the corner of my desk. My
eye caught a headline which
read,
“MAN
WEARING GORILLA MASKED
SUFFOCATED BY BOUNCERS”.
For a moment I thought
my 12 year old daughter had
absentmindedly left her latest
copy of the National Enquirer on
my desk. But when I looked at
the top of the page I saw the
words LAWYERS WEEKLY USA.
This, folks, was the real thing.
Being the weak-minded
human being that I am, and eager
to put off every important task,
I was powerless to resist
reading more about the man in
the gorilla mask. Please don’t
hate me.
It is 1999, somewhere
deep in the southeastern United
States. A man walks into a
restaurant wearing army fatigues
and a gorilla mask. Not unusual,
right? (I remember seeing him
one night at Snake River
Grill.) He throws a cup of
liquid at a bouncer and runs
out. Several bouncers chase and
catch him, then hold him face
down in the street. Gorilla man
dies of suffocation, and his
ex-wife sues the restaurant in
behalf of the children. The
case is settled for $150K. End
of story. No moral. No punch
line. No earthly explanation of
how in the world something like
this could possibly happen.
But by now I’m hooked.
I am wondering what other
newsworthy stories in Lawyers
Weekly USA you need to know
about. After all, it’s my job.
And as it turns out, there is
lots to report.
For those who have
something really important to do
at this moment, I beg you to
stop reading and go do it. For
the rest stick around a couple
of minutes, finish that double
decaf vanilla almond latte with
two percent, and read about
stuff you are not likely to find
anywhere else that a sane person
might look.
What about this
headline:
“CAN PRISON GUARDS BE SUED FOR
HITCHING INMATE TO POST?”
I am sure that you and
the little lady were asking
yourselves that very question
the other day but had no idea
where to find the answer. It
seems that the jury is still out
on this one, although the U. S.
Supreme Court has agreed to
decide whether it’s okay for
prison guards to handcuff a
prisoner to a hitching post for
seven hours without a shirt in
the hot sun.
Let’s take an informal
poll. I know we’re a little
sheltered living in our tiny
shangri-la, but does that really
strike you as violating the
Eighth Amendment against cruel
and unusual punishment? The
11th Circuit Court of Appeals
certainly doesn’t think so.
That court has taken the
position that a reasonable
prison official might do that
sort of thing and be justified
in thinking it’s perfectly
okay.
On the other extreme a
headline reads:
"50
YEAR SENTENCE FOR STEALING
VIDEOS IS ‘CRUEL AND UNUSUAL’"
A California court
sentenced a man to 50 years in
prison without the possibility
of parole for stealing 9 videos
worth $153.00 from K-Mart. I
ask you - if it’s okay to
shackle a human being to a fence
post for hours on end, could it
possibly be wrong to sentence
someone to 50 years in prison
for stealing a few videos? The
U.S. Court of Appeals thought
that was a tad too harsh and
reversed the sentence.
Honestly, it’s just so hard to
make sense out of this crazy
world anymore. Maybe it depends
on the video?
Here’s another
eye-grabber:
“PSYCH EVALUATION ORDERED FOR
FAKE LAWYER”
No kidding. What person
in their right mind would pose
as a lawyer? Not even on
Halloween, or April Fool’s day.
Well, that’s just what the judge
thought too. This 29 year old
impostor had fooled prosecutors,
defense attorneys and judges
for years. When the judge had
him arrested in the courtroom
for violating an order not to
practice law anymore, his lawyer
pleaded with the judge not to
send the faker to jail while he
underwent a mental health
evaluation. Why? Because some
of the impostor’s victims
(spelled “former clients”) are
in prison, and incarceration
“may pose a problem for his
safety.” Now that’s quick
thinking.
I was particularly encouraged by
this next headline:
“CHILDREN CONCEIVED TWO YEARS
AFTER FATHER’S DEATH”
You probably figured it
out immediately, but I had to
actually read the first
paragraph before realizing that
we’re talking about frozen sperm
here.
After a father was
diagnosed with cancer he had his
sperm frozen. The wife gave
birth to twins a few years
later. The Feds refused to pay
Social Security benefits to the
children.
In a powerful
declaration for the rights of
kids, the judge is quoted as
saying, “Posthumously conceived
children may not come into the
world the way the majority of
children do. But they are
children nonetheless.” Who
among us could have said it
better?
Here is a headline I am
sure will enrage you:
“FUNERAL HOME SUED FOR DUMPING
BODIES IN THE WOODS”
Talk about frivolous lawsuits!
(Just kidding.) A funeral home
somewhere in the deep south was
sued for digging up bodies. It
seems that cemetery workers
broke open burial vaults and
dumped the bodies in the woods,
and crushed down other coffins
to make room for new coffins on
top of them. Folks, it really
pays to read the fine print
sometimes. In some
jurisdictions “eternity” is
defined as two years. Just like
marriage.
|