Florida Woman Says Her Chest Too Big To Perform Field-Sobriety Test

[This is one of the craziest articles I’ve posted.  Some people will do/say anything to avoid a DUI ….flagranny2]

A woman was arrested in Martin County after failing a DUI field-sobriety test during which she blamed the size of her breasts for being unable to perform the tasks.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/news/30370444/detail.html#ixzz1lSOet7Ez

Advertisements

Seattle Woman ‘Marries’ Building

Alrighty now, I’ve heard of everything I can’t imagine what I’ll see/read next!!!! flagranny2

 

Calling it a “gay marriage” because the building is female, Aivaz was asked by the attending minister if she would “love and cherish and protect this warehouse.”

 

Read more to see if marriage was cemented: http://www.wesh.com/news/30338965/detail.html#ixzz1lCT01Ir7

Dentist Admits To Paper Clip Root Canals

“A former dentist in Massachusetts has pleaded guilty to fraud for using paper clips instead of stainless steel posts in root canals.”

Want Fries With That Arrest? Granny Nabbed at McDonald’s Drive-Thru After Confrontation

Monday, January 21, 2008
  

I would ask that anyone who does read this story to please read the comment.  The comment puts light on how and what really happened as told by the mother whose daughter was working at the time this occurred. 

This is a real example of how the media reports stories how they see it and not really what happened. 

A 75-year-old grandmother of eight was arrested at a Florida McDonald’s drive-thru after police said she wouldn’t pull her car forward.

Jean Merola was waiting for her coffee and fries when a police officer asked her to move her car. Merola refused, saying she was told to wait there by McDonald’s employees, MyFoxTampaBay reported.

Merola was charged with disorderly conduct and hauled off to Pinellas County Jail, where Merola claims she was searched, photographed and fingerprinted.

Jail records show she was released about 90 minutes later on her own recognizance.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Dog Removed from Washington State Voter Rolls After 3 Elections

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Has our elections simply gone to the dogs?  Jane Balogh thinks so after sending in a registration form with her dog’s name on a phone bill for identification and his “paw print” for the signature.  The dog actually received 2 absentee ballots for school board elections as a result. 

The dog’s owner proved her point, dog-1,  county officials-0.  I’ll bark to that.

SEATTLE —  Duncan M. McDonald is finally off the vo rolls after the Australian shepherd-terrier mix was sent absentee ballots for three elections.

King County Elections Director Sherril Huff said she canceled the voter registration Tuesday for the dog owned by Jane K. Balogh, 66, who registered her pet to protest a change in the law that she said made it too easy for non-citizens to cast ballots.

Balogh put her phone bill in the dog’s name, then used that as identification when she mailed in the registration form in April 2006. In November, she wrote “VOID” across Duncan’s ballot and returned it with an image of a paw print on the signature line.

She admitted the ruse when an election official called, but the dog was still sent absentee ballots for school bond elections in February and May.

“Quite frankly, the process did take too long, and it should have been addressed after the November election,” said Bobbie Egan, an elections office spokeswoman.

County election procedures are being reviewed to provide speedier action against voting fraud, Egan said.

The removal came three weeks after Balogh was charged in King County Superior Court with making a false or misleading statement to a public servant, a misdemeanor. She pleaded not guilty to the charge in June.

A sheriff’s investigator wrote that she admitted registering the dog under false pretenses “to make a point that anyone could vote, even an animal.”

A preliminary court hearing was pending.

Man With Headache Finds Bullet in Head

Thursday, June 28, 2007
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla Fox News

Honey my head is killing me, either you hit me with your elbow or I think I’m having an aneurisum.

I wonder if this is what Michael Moylan 45, said to his wife April when he woke up at 4:30a.m. with a terrible headache?

She drives him to the hospital

Doctors discover a bullet in his head lodged behind his right ear

Authorities obtained a search warrant for the couple’s home which led to the arrest of Moylan’s wife April, 39, who is being charged with attempted murder.

Evidence indicated Moylan had been shot at close range by someone (hmm, and that would be?)

His wife eventually tells authorities she “accidently” shot her husband. (accidently, close range behind right ear sure sounds like an accident to me…. lol)

How many people can be sleeping, get shot in the head or anywhere and not know it.  This blows (no pun intended) me away. 

Obviously there is more to this than meets the eye which I’m sure will be uncovered as they investigate further.

Moylan did not undergo surgery, but was transferred to a trauma facility and his current condition is not known.

Judge Tries Suing Pants Off Dry Cleaners has reduced his damange to $54 million

By ARIEL SABAR and SUEVON LEE
Published: June 13, 2007

And so the trial begins.  This is the latest update from my previous post of The man who sued his dry-cleaner for $65,500,000

WASHINGTON, June 12 — Roy L. Pearson Jr. wanted to dress sharply for his new job as an administrative law judge here. So when his neighborhood dry cleaner misplaced a pair of expensive pants he had planned to wear his first week on the bench, Judge Pearson was annoyed.

So annoyed that he sued — for $67.3 million.

The case of the judge’s pants, which opened for trial in a packed courtroom here on Tuesday, has been lampooned on talk radio and in the blogosphere as an example of American legal excess. And it has spurred complaints to the District of Columbia Bar and city officials from national tort reform and trial lawyer groups worried about its effect on public trust in the legal system.

“I don’t know of any other cases that have been quite this ridiculous,” said Paul Rothstein, a professor of law at Georgetown University. The trial, laced with references to inseam measurements, cuffs and designer labels, got off to a rocky start. Judge Judith Bartnoff of District of Columbia Superior Court limited Judge Pearson’s last-minute bid to broaden aspects of his case and cut short his efforts to portray himself as a “private attorney general” championing the rights of every Washington consumer.

“You are not a we, you are an I,” Judge Bartnoff said in one of several testy exchanges with Judge Pearson, 57, who is representing himself. “You are seeking damages on your own behalf, and that is all.”

Later, while recounting the day he says the cleaners tried to pass off a cheaper pair of pants as his, Judge Pearson began to cry, asking for a break and dabbing tears as he left the courtroom.

The lawsuit dates back to spring 2005. Mr. Pearson, a longtime legal aid lawyer, was appointed to a new job as a District of Columbia administrative law judge.

Judge Pearson says in court papers that he owned exactly five suits, all Hickey Freemans, one for each day of the workweek. But the waistlines had grown “uncomfortably tight.” So he took the suits to Custom Dry Cleaners, in a strip mall in gritty northeast Washington, for alterations.

When the owners, Korean immigrants who came to America in 1992, could not find one pair of pants, Judge Pearson demanded $1,150 for a replacement suit. The owners did not respond; he sued.

Using a complicated formula, Judge Pearson argues that under the city’s consumer protection law, the owners, Soo and Jin Chung and their son, Ki Chung, each owe $18,000 for each day over a nearly four-year period in which signs at their store promised “Same Day Service” and “Satisfaction Guaranteed.” In opening statements, Judge Pearson cast himself as a victim of a fraud on a historic scale, perpetrated by malicious business owners who had no intention of delivering on those promises.

“You will search the D.C. archives in vain for a case of more egregious or willful conduct,” he told the court. He called a series of witnesses who complained of rude or unresponsive treatment at Custom Dry Cleaners.

The defendants’ lawyer, Christopher Manning, told the judge that his clients were the victims. He characterized Judge Pearson as a man embittered by financial woes and a recent divorce, who had nursed a grudge against the Chungs since a spat over a different pair of pants in 2002.

“The plaintiff has decided to use his intimate knowledge of the District of Columbia laws and legal systems to exploit non-English-speaking immigrants who work in excess of 70 hours per week to live the American dream,” Mr. Manning says in court papers.

Mr. Manning said there was no mystery about the whereabouts of the pants: They have been hanging in his office closet for a year. Judge Pearson, however, has said those are “cheap” knockoffs the Chungs had substituted for his pinstriped Hickey Freemans.

He has rejected three settlement offers, the latest, in March, for $12,000. Last week, Judge Pearson revised a few claims and lowered his damages request to $54 million.

Judge Pearson’s future as an administrative law judge is in limbo. His two-year term expired on May 2, and a judicial panel has yet to decide on his reappointment.

In the meantime, Judge Pearson remains on the city payroll as an attorney adviser to the Office of Administrative Hearings, at a salary of $100,512.