Lowering the Bar

British Judges to Get New Attire; Fashion Critics Aghast

Earlier this month, a panel of British judges recommended a number of changes to the country's judicial-dress requirements, which have been roughly the same for hundreds of years.  Wigs will no longer be worn in civil and family courts, and the judicial robes have been redesigned to include, for example, a system of colored bands to indicate seniority.  Senior judges, for example, would have gold bands on their robes and High Court judges would be labeled in red.  A spokesman for the judiciary hailed the new design for being much more comfortable and practical.  "It is the result of considerable consultation," he said, "and a sensible way forward."

Appalling, said Hadley Freeman, deputy fashion editor for The Guardian newspaper.  Freeman especially did not like the colored bands or the truncated collar, which he said "cannot but make the wearer look like an evil pastor."

No, wait -- it's more like "something an alien android with menacing religious undertones would wear when waging war with Doctor Who."  Nor, Freeman continued, did they look any better on the Lord Chief Justice (who got stuck modeling the new robes for press photographers).

"Look at this poor man," Freeman said, referring to the pictures of Lord Phillips that appeared in newspapers.  "[I]nstead of appearing imperious, [he] now just looks like the man who sells you tickets for the Star Trek Experience at the Las Vegas Hilton."

According to a report in the Times, a public survey last year found that a majority of barristers, and of the public generally, were in favor of keeping the full regalia at least in the higher courts.  But Lord Phillips, it seems, "has wanted to be rid of wigs" since he was appointed three years ago, and has pushed the change through.  I haven't seen any reports that he has changed his mind about the new robes just because some critics don't like them, but in at least the second picture above, he doesn't look happy at all.

Link: Yahoo! News
Link: Telegraph (UK)
Link: Times Online

Wife Sues For Share of Formerly Secret Lotto Prize

On May 15, a judge ruled against a Miami woman who had sued her husband to get a share of a $600,000 lottery prize he won.  Donna Campbell said that last summer she began to suspect that her husband, Arnim Ramdass, was hiding something from her, apparently based on the fact that he had the phone disconnected and would not let her turn on the TV.

Maybe he just wanted them to spend more quality time together?

But no.  It turned out that he was hiding something, namely the fact that he and 16 others at work had won shares of a $19 million jackpot in the Florida Lottery.  His apparent plan to keep this a secret forever failed when he neglected two other sources of information, called "the mail" and "the Internet."  Campbell said she "started putting everything together" when a postcard was delivered offering congratulations on the purchase of a new house, which was news to her.  One Google search later, all was revealed.  "I said, 'Do you have any news you want to share with me?'" Campbell recalled telling her husband.  "He said, 'No.  What are you talking about?' I said, 'The lottery.'"

Mr. Ramdass then did the only logical thing to do in that situation: he disappeared.  After hiding out for several months, however, he returned to his job and eventually even came home.  The two are still married.  But according to Campbell's attorney, they "run into each other at the house but do not speak or e-mail or otherwise interact."

They are at least able to communicate by exchanging legal pleadings.  In her lawsuit, Campbell alleges that in June 2007, "Ramdass devised a scheme to avoid sharing any of his share of the lottery money with Campbell (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme')."  "The scheme" allegedly involved the cooperation of Janelle Ramdass, a daughter from a prior marriage, who claimed the money and then transferred it back to her father.  Campbell claimed essentially that this was a fraudulent transfer of money in which she had a 50% interest.

Mr. Ramdass moved to dismiss on the grounds that Campbell has no claim to the money except potential equitable claims arising from the marital relationship, so that her only remedy, if any, would be to seek the money in the course of divorce proceedings.  She doesn't want to do that - at least not yet.  As the Miami Herald reported, "Campbell has maintained that she wants to sue her husband for fraud first and divorce him afterward."

On May 15, a judge agreed with Mr. Ramdass, although she gave Campbell 20 days to amend her complaint.  Unless she can allege that the lottery ticket was bought with money from her husband's salary - considered a marital asset under Florida law - the judge held that Campbell "has no identifiable legal rights" to the money.  My guess is that Round Two will begin in the next couple of weeks.

Link: Local 10 (Miami)
Link: ABA Journal

Gallery of Bad Disguises, #4: The Thong Bandits

Before too long there will be enough material of this kind to create a separate category or gallery of Bad Disguises.  Previous candidates would include the Duct Tape Bandit and the Tree That Robbed a Bank, and to those we can now add the Thong Bandits of Colorado.

Police in Arvada, a suburb of Denver, released surveillance-camera images this week showing two men robbing a Diamond Shamrock gas station on May 16.  The report begins: "Brightly colored women's thong underwear disguised the identities of two men during a robbery earlier this month," but it really didn't.  Gentlemen, please be advised that if an underpants disguise is to be deployed, boxers or perhaps a boxer-brief of some sort would be recommended for maximum coverage.

One of the suspects helpfully wore a short-sleeved shirt so that the distinctive tattoos on his arms could be clearly seen, although he did successfully cover his lips and the tip of his nose by means of the thong mask.  Police described that suspect as about 5-foot-9 and 190 pounds with short black hair, and noted that "[h]e also has short black hair and has a cross tattoo about six inches long on his right upper arm and a tribal tattoo on his left upper arm.  He was last seen wearing a blue thong over his face."

Presumably he will have removed it by now, but just in case, anyone who sees such a man or has other information about the crime is asked to call the Arvada Police Department.

Link: Denver Post

UPDATE: Conviction in Hedgehog-Assault Case

William Singalargh, who as we learned in April had been accused of assaulting a 15-year-old boy with a hedgehog, was convicted this week on charges of "common assault" and "offensive behavior" and ordered to pay about $550 in fines.  Singalargh had faced up to five years in prison on the more serious charge of assault with a hedgehog, but that charge was dropped.

Police said the hedgehog was dead when they arrived, but that they did not know whether it had been dead or alive at the time Singalargh flung it at the boy.  He was not charged with any wrongdoing in the demise of the hedgehog.

Link: CBS News

Wind-Breaking Said to Be Last Straw in Employment Case

An employment tribunal in England has ruled that a woman's co-workers discriminated against her by using "laddish" behavior to maker her work life miserable, and that senior managers did not intervene.  Indeed, one of the managers seems to have been the main contributor to the problem via his habit of continually breaking wind in her direction.

Theresa Bailey was the only woman employed by Selectabase, a direct-marketing firm in Kent, and she lasted only two months before, she said, the wind-breaking and other misconduct forced her to resign.  The tribunal found that "sexist banter" was commonplace in the office, and that when Bailey complained she would be hit in the head with a beach ball.  She was not properly paid for time off when she needed to go to the dentist.  When she had trouble with her computer, she was allegedly forced to wear a badge reading "I'm simple."  Complaints about the restrooms resulted in the comment "that's why we don't hire women."  And then there was the repeated breaking of wind.

"The number of times the person at my side would lift up his bottom off the chair and fart and think it's funny is unreal," Bailey said in an email to the company director, Steve Selwood.  "I am no prude but I do think there is a time and a place for that behavior."  There is?

The tribunal sided with Bailey and awarded her roughly $6000 in compensation.  Company spokesman would not return calls by the Daily Mail for comment, so reporters got on the website and noted that Selwood described the lads at his company as "nice nice, not sugary nice," whatever that means.  Selwood also listed his hobbies as "snooker" and "swimming in the Black Sea," which I don't think qualifies as a hobby.

Link: Daily Mail

Fourth Circuit Reinstates Dirty-Dancing Lawsuit (Again)

On April 30, the 4th Circuit reinstated a seven-year-old lawsuit against the city of Marshall, North Carolina, by a woman who was banned from the town dance hall for allegedly dancing in a "sexually provocative manner."  The court ruled that Rebecca Willis's case should not have been dismissed, because she had not yet been able to fully investigate her claim that she was unfairly singled out for punishment and so was denied equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

Willis was banned from the "Marshall Depot" in 2001.  According to the opinion, Willis "particularly enjoyed dancing" there on Friday nights.  Even more particularly, she allegedly enjoyed dancing

in a sexually provocative manner -- gyrating and simulating sexual intercourse with her partner while "hunch[ed]" on the floor. . . . Some of the Town's evidence indicates that Willis wore very short skirts and would frequently bend over while dancing, exposing her [normally unexposed parts]. . . . Some community members, concerned about their children being exposed to Willis's dancing, complained . . . [but] rather than toning down her dancing, Willis began to dance even more provocatively.

I remember writing about a previous appeal of this case years ago (pre-blog, in fact).  Then, the 4th Circuit said that most of Willis's case should be dismissed but that the equal-protection claim could go forward.  I recall being entertained then by the facts of the case generally and by Willis's argument that she constituted a "class of one" for equal-protection purposes (although the 4th Circuit agreed with this).

What I am confident I did not know then is what I learned from this recent report: Willis was 56 years old at the time.

"[The ruling] just tickles me to death," said Willis, 63 [in 2008 and so, dear God, 56 at the time of the alleged hunching and gyrating and whatnot].  "I finally get my day in court. The town has persecuted me and took my rights away.  I hope to get justice out of this."

(Emphasis added.)  I don't want to suggest that those 55 and up should not be allowed to get jiggy with it (assuming that the allegations of jigginess are true).  But maybe there could be some sort of early retirement program?  Just a thought.

The 4th Circuit noted that there was at least some testimony supporting Willis's more moderate description of her dancing, and some evidence suggesting "that the town's actions, rather than being guided by concern for the public welfare, were actually motivated by a conscious desire to single her out for undeserved punishment."  Willis's attorney, Jon Sasser (who was hired by the ACLU of North Carolina), said that his team "look[s] forward to substantiating" that view of the town's motivations, although strangely enough the other side's attorney also said he thought his client would prevail.  They can't both be right, can they?  Puzzling.

The decision means that, after nearly eight years of litigation and two separate appeals, a federal court in North Carolina may now be devoting itself to a trial in which a primary issue will be just how dirty the dancing really was.

Link: Asheville Citizen-Times
Link: On Point News

Pirate Boards Macy's Flagship; Claims No Booty

On Memorial Day, police arrested a 29-year-old man in the Herald Square Macy's store in Manhattan after spotting him "brandishing" what was described as a curved, rusted, "pirate-style sword," presumably a cutlass.

The report also used the word "carrying," although I think it would be almost impossible to just carry a cutlass (especially through Macy's) without actually "brandishing" or even waving it around.  (Taste cold steel, mannequin!  Arrrr!)  But the distinction, if any, won't help the accused pirate, who is charged simply with criminal possession of a weapon.

The suspect, Lawrence Jackson, did not dispute that he was carrying a rusty metal sword, nor did he try to claim he was "just holding it" for someone else, as you often see in these cases.  In fact, Jackson had a perfectly reasonable explanation:  "He told police he was carrying the sword because he is a member of a kickball team whose players often wear pirate-themed costumes."

Now, that is either true and inexplicable, or it is possibly the worst explanation any criminal has ever come up with.  I really can't decide which would be better.

Link: CBS News

UPDATE: It appears to be true.

Link: Gothamist

Q: Does a Criminal Defendant Forfeit His Right to Counsel by Punching Said Counsel in the Face?

A: Yes.

Or, as one report put it, "[t]he Minnesota Court of Appeals . . . [has ruled] that a defendant gives up his right to a court-appointed lawyer when he beats up the one he has."

In State of Minnesota v. Lehman, an opinion filed on May 13, the court resolved this question, which it described as one of first impression in the state.  William Lehman was on trial for multiple felony assault counts, and a public defender was appointed to represent him.  After the prosecution rested, Lehman himself rose to ask for a mistrial (denied) and that a different attorney be appointed to represent him (also denied).  Lehman then moved for reconsideration by "wrapping his arm around [counsel's] neck and punching him repeatedly in the face."

Proceedings were temporarily adjourned.  When court reconvened, the jury was instructed to disregard the facts that defense counsel was no longer present, Lehman was now dressed in "jail clothes," and that his arms and legs were shackled.

After he was convicted, Lehman claimed on appeal that the trial court had erred by allowing his attorney to withdraw and to put him in jail clothes and shackle him.  Primary question presented: "Did the district court abuse its discretion by determining  . . . that appellant had forfeited his right to counsel by attacking his attorney in front of the jury?"  The court cited numerous decisions outside Minnesota for the proposition that "the right to counsel can be summarily forfeited for extremely serious misconduct similar to that which occurred here," namely beating counsel up, which seems to be done every now and then in a deliberate attempt to force a mistrial.

Maybe it will avert a future beating or two if I mention here that this strategy doesn't work.

The appellate court also ruled that it was not an abuse of discretion to use leg restraints alone for the remainder of the trial, for the sensible reason that leg restraints "would not control appellant's hands, which appellant had earlier used to attack his lawyer."

Link: St. Paul Pioneer Press
Link: Minnesota v. Lehman, No. A06-1912 (St. Louis County, Minn., filed May 13, 2008)

Ape Appeals

As expected, Matthew Pan (or his handlers, depending on how you view this story), has appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.  You may recall that Pan is a chimpanzee currently residing in Austria.  An animal-rights group took his case to court after the shelter where he had lived for 25 years closed for lack of funds.  The group says the only way to be sure that Pan is not deported and possibly mistreated is to have him declared a legal "person" so that a guardian can be appointed for him.

Austrian courts have refused to do this, although it appears that they have so far avoided the central legal question of personhood by ruling that even if Mr. Pan could be considered a person, there are no current grounds to appoint a guardian because he is "neither mentally impaired nor in danger."  Presumably the European court would take up the question of legal status if it decides to take the case.

According to a Daily Mail story on May 21, a British teacher living in Vienna has offered to adopt the chimp if he is declared a "person."  "Since he has no close relatives," she said, and since they would also be apes if he did, "I am doing this as the person closest to him."

Link: Daily Mail Online

Congress Forgets Part of Farm Bill

The U.S. Congress, which some of you may remember as a third branch of government, roused itself this week to override President Bush's veto of a popular farm bill.  That was the plan, at least, until somebody noticed that they had forgotten to send part of the original bill to the White House.  So technically, Bush did not veto the same bill Congress actually passed, and nobody seems to have a clue what happens now.

Apparently, bills are printed on fancy parchment before being officially sent to the executive branch for signature (or veto), but Democratic leaders said that a 34-page section of the 628-page bill somehow didn't make it.  Bush vetoed what was sent to him, although strangely he does not appear to have noticed the omission during his usual painstakingly careful reading of the legislation prior to acting upon it.  Not until after the House had voted to override the apparent veto did anybody notice that Title III was missing.

Seems to me (and this is entirely without research) that Congress passed a bill that the President has not yet had a chance to sign or veto.  He vetoed something else.  So nothing has happened to the original bill either way.   It isn't clear to me why they don't just print the actual bill now -- this time possibly having somebody check the page numbers -- and send it up there.  If they sent him a bill, and for some reason he vetoed his copy of Everybody Poops, wouldn't they just put the bill back in front of him?

For whatever reason, that doesn't seem to be possible.  Democrats were scrambling to get the whole bill with all its pages passed again before everybody goes home for vacation.  The White House, though, was enjoying the screwup and in no hurry to help along what it sees as a bloated and expensive bill.

The White House, too, purported to be baffled by what to do next.  "We are trying to understand the ramifications of this," said Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman.  "We haven't found a precedent for a congressional blunder of this magnitude."

You haven't?  Where've you been looking, in your fridge?

Link: CBS News