Legal Antics

Happy 4th!

Have a great 4th of July!

Ain't that the truth.

Via the Billable Hour comes the following greeting card/comic:

I just love the way you blink, George.

Everyone's a lawyer.

Well, they are black men. And, this is New York City.

Isn't that enough?  (And, just to clarify, my commentary is dripping with sarcasm, criminal defense attorney that I am)

If So, I'll Need Big Trash Bags and Ten Minutes in My Apartment

Dispatcher's voice on walkie talkie: Four black males seen in the subway station, dressed as women. Repeat, four black males dressed as women.
Cop, into walkie talkie: Ten-four to central... Is that breaking a law?

--77th St Subway Station

Overheard by: AJ
via Overheard in New York, Jun 8, 2008

Oh c'mon--it was so worth it.

Via the Billable Hour comes the following greeting card/comic:

Dralph this, Mr. President

I always find that randomly citing "Roe v. Wade" stops my opponents in their tracks.

I learned it from this guy...here's a court transcript of his arraignment.  It made me laugh, but I feel a bit guilty for doing so. The defendant clearly has issues:

Judge Wilson explains, (this) "was a rather feeble attempt to have a formal arraignment" of a non compos mentis defendant "who twice invoked all the rights and privileges extended to him by Roe v. Wade. " (Hat tip:  Say What?)

Court: Mr. Defendant, I've asked your attorney to go over your indictment with you, and has he done so?

Defendant: Roe v. Wade. I was mugged by Alton Allen. (Long pause.)

Court: Okay. Has -

Defendant: I was onto a check-cashing racket going on at Polk's. So when they figured out I was onto it, they called the law on me. Alton just walked up and hit me in the fact. [sic] They threatened to shoot me with a gun and everything else.

Court(wisely): Okay.

Defendant: And when I lived at the Lufkin Donut Shop - the crack salesman living beside me -

Court: Excuse me. Would you be quiet, please? This is not a time for you to make a statement to the court, okay? This is a time for you to be advised of what you're charged with.

Defendant: I'm really not charged with anything. They just made it up. ... He hit me first and mugged me for 300 bucks.

Court: I understand that. He may very well have done so. And if you're found guilty of that offense ... it carries a range of punishment from two to 10 years in the penitentiary and up to a $10,000 fine.

Defendant: Roe v. Wade.

Court (wisely): Okay.

Defense Attorney: It's a plea of not guilty.

I learned it from this guy...here's a court transcript of his arraignment.  It made me laugh, but I feel a bit guilty for doing so. The defendant clearly has issues:

Judge Wilson explains, (this) "was a rather feeble attempt to have a formal arraignment" of a non compos mentis defendant "who twice invoked all the rights and privileges extended to him by Roe v. Wade. " (Hat tip:  Say What?)

Court: Mr. Defendant, I've asked your attorney to go over your indictment with you, and has he done so?

Defendant: Roe v. Wade. I was mugged by Alton Allen. (Long pause.)

Court: Okay. Has -

Defendant: I was onto a check-cashing racket going on at Polk's. So when they figured out I was onto it, they called the law on me. Alton just walked up and hit me in the fact. [sic] They threatened to shoot me with a gun and everything else.

Court(wisely): Okay.

Defendant: And when I lived at the Lufkin Donut Shop - the crack salesman living beside me -

Court: Excuse me. Would you be quiet, please? This is not a time for you to make a statement to the court, okay? This is a time for you to be advised of what you're charged with.

Defendant: I'm really not charged with anything. They just made it up. ... He hit me first and mugged me for 300 bucks.

Court: I understand that. He may very well have done so. And if you're found guilty of that offense ... it carries a range of punishment from two to 10 years in the penitentiary and up to a $10,000 fine.

Defendant: Roe v. Wade.

Court (wisely): Okay.

Defense Attorney: It's a plea of not guilty.

Pro se litigants are the best.

I would like to introduce you to an extremely litigious pro se inmate, Harry Franklin.  Back in 1983, Mr. Franklin was a thorn a certain district court judge's side, to say the least.  At the time that this decision was written, Mr. Franklin had filed well over 100 pro se claims.

The judge lamented the course of his lengthy relationship with Mr. Franklin in the first paragraph of Franklin v. State of Oregon, 563 F. Supp. 1310 (D. Ore. 1983):

This is another chapter in the Harry Franklin saga. No longer am I tempted to call it the final chapter, as desirable as that would be to me. I mention mournfully that only the finality of death-his or mine-would enable the other of us to use the term “final” in that way. And, of course, if mine comes first, I have no doubt that another judge will someday express lamentations such as these. They will be packaged and labeled, by reason of tradition, as opinions.

Mr. Franklin's numerous and humorous claims addressed in this decision, as described by the judge, included the following:

• Franklin alleges that while he was held in segregated confinement in the Yamhill County jail, an officer neglected to give him daily half-hour out-of-cell walks. This allegation is somewhat surprising because in other filings Franklin alleges he is crippled.
• Franklin alleges prison guards abridged his “right to be supplied” with T-shirts.
• Franklin sues prison guards who allegedly “wear clopping heels on their boots, which causes plaintiff to feel he's in a Natsy [sic] prison camp.”
• In a novel use of a discrimination lawsuit, Franklin complains about the racial diversity of the Parole Board. Not only does Franklin's complaint not state a claim for relief but his supporting affidavit shows that this action is entirely vexatious. Franklin must find a forum other than this federal court in which to ventilate his small-minded apartheid philosophy.
• Franklin complains the OSP staff violated his right to free speech by disciplining him for commenting on a guard's allegedly out-of-wedlock birth.
• Franklin seeks $2 million general and $1 million punitive damages for the mental frustration he says a Portland television station caused him when one of its programs allegedly misidentified a “14 wheeler tractor and trailer rig” as an “18 wheeler.”
• Franklin wants to be Governor of Oregon. Or.Rev.Stat. § 137.280(1)(a) stands in his way.
• Franklin sues “Ronal Reagan and his constiuants [sic]” for $8.9 million for “violation of undue restraint.” Franklin complains that an unspecified executive order requires Oregonians to wear seat belts and that the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee endorsed a model drunk driving bill.
• Franklin complains that he lost sleep on three occasions because OSP's steam heater pipes snap and pop.
• Franklin alleges he endures “Harassment by Water.” Specifically, Franklin complains that the sprinkling of the prison yard during the summer months makes it a difficult for him to find a dry place to lie down.
• Franklin complains that OSP rules on cleanliness conflict with his constitutional right to accumulate an unlimited number of newspaper clippings.
• According to Franklin, OSP's superintendent ordered officers to “strip cells of all boxes” thereby violating his “writes [sic] to have and to hold file cartons.”
• Franklin contends that the superintendent violated his “right to be at piece [sic] and/or treated better” by placing him in S & I near a vile-mouthed inmate. This complaint is rather disingenuous coming from one who was disciplined for his use of foul language.
• Franklin sues Oregon's Governor, Attorney General, legislators, and judges for failing “to pass Legislation which would keep our System such as The Courts, &/or Jails from being so corrupt.”
• Franklin claims a corrections officer falsely “arrested” him for destroying public property. Apparently, Franklin decorated the crutch the OSP infirmary gave him with slogans touting his gubernatorial campaign. The OSP disciplinary board declined to punish Franklin for this overzealous electioneering.
• Quite literally, Franklin seeks his just desserts. Apparently, the OSP food service bakes desserts in aluminum rather than stainless steel pans. Franklin will not eat desserts served from aluminum pans for fear that “scrapings” from the pans will “settle in [his] Human Joints.”

Whew.  I'm tired.  I'm not sure if it's from laughing or from cutting and pasting the vast number of priceless (and pointless) allegations. 

Our tax dollars at work, dear readers.  Our tax dollars at work.

I would like to introduce you to an extremely litigious pro se inmate, Harry Franklin.  Back in 1983, Mr. Franklin was a thorn a certain district court judge's side, to say the least.  At the time that this decision was written, Mr. Franklin had filed well over 100 pro se claims.

The judge lamented the course of his lengthy relationship with Mr. Franklin in the first paragraph of Franklin v. State of Oregon, 563 F. Supp. 1310 (D. Ore. 1983):

This is another chapter in the Harry Franklin saga. No longer am I tempted to call it the final chapter, as desirable as that would be to me. I mention mournfully that only the finality of death-his or mine-would enable the other of us to use the term “final” in that way. And, of course, if mine comes first, I have no doubt that another judge will someday express lamentations such as these. They will be packaged and labeled, by reason of tradition, as opinions.

Mr. Franklin's numerous and humorous claims addressed in this decision, as described by the judge, included the following:

• Franklin alleges that while he was held in segregated confinement in the Yamhill County jail, an officer neglected to give him daily half-hour out-of-cell walks. This allegation is somewhat surprising because in other filings Franklin alleges he is crippled.
• Franklin alleges prison guards abridged his “right to be supplied” with T-shirts.
• Franklin sues prison guards who allegedly “wear clopping heels on their boots, which causes plaintiff to feel he's in a Natsy [sic] prison camp.”
• In a novel use of a discrimination lawsuit, Franklin complains about the racial diversity of the Parole Board. Not only does Franklin's complaint not state a claim for relief but his supporting affidavit shows that this action is entirely vexatious. Franklin must find a forum other than this federal court in which to ventilate his small-minded apartheid philosophy.
• Franklin complains the OSP staff violated his right to free speech by disciplining him for commenting on a guard's allegedly out-of-wedlock birth.
• Franklin seeks $2 million general and $1 million punitive damages for the mental frustration he says a Portland television station caused him when one of its programs allegedly misidentified a “14 wheeler tractor and trailer rig” as an “18 wheeler.”
• Franklin wants to be Governor of Oregon. Or.Rev.Stat. § 137.280(1)(a) stands in his way.
• Franklin sues “Ronal Reagan and his constiuants [sic]” for $8.9 million for “violation of undue restraint.” Franklin complains that an unspecified executive order requires Oregonians to wear seat belts and that the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee endorsed a model drunk driving bill.
• Franklin complains that he lost sleep on three occasions because OSP's steam heater pipes snap and pop.
• Franklin alleges he endures “Harassment by Water.” Specifically, Franklin complains that the sprinkling of the prison yard during the summer months makes it a difficult for him to find a dry place to lie down.
• Franklin complains that OSP rules on cleanliness conflict with his constitutional right to accumulate an unlimited number of newspaper clippings.
• According to Franklin, OSP's superintendent ordered officers to “strip cells of all boxes” thereby violating his “writes [sic] to have and to hold file cartons.”
• Franklin contends that the superintendent violated his “right to be at piece [sic] and/or treated better” by placing him in S & I near a vile-mouthed inmate. This complaint is rather disingenuous coming from one who was disciplined for his use of foul language.
• Franklin sues Oregon's Governor, Attorney General, legislators, and judges for failing “to pass Legislation which would keep our System such as The Courts, &/or Jails from being so corrupt.”
• Franklin claims a corrections officer falsely “arrested” him for destroying public property. Apparently, Franklin decorated the crutch the OSP infirmary gave him with slogans touting his gubernatorial campaign. The OSP disciplinary board declined to punish Franklin for this overzealous electioneering.
• Quite literally, Franklin seeks his just desserts. Apparently, the OSP food service bakes desserts in aluminum rather than stainless steel pans. Franklin will not eat desserts served from aluminum pans for fear that “scrapings” from the pans will “settle in [his] Human Joints.”

Whew.  I'm tired.  I'm not sure if it's from laughing or from cutting and pasting the vast number of priceless (and pointless) allegations. 

Our tax dollars at work, dear readers.  Our tax dollars at work.

Just another version of "my lawyer is bigger than yours"

My School Has an Appellate Division

Eight-year-old boy, carrying real but child-size golf clubs: I have two lawyers, don't I daddy?

Father: Yes.

Eight-year-old friend: I have three.

--18th & Broadway
via Overheard in New York, Jun 5, 2008