Well, not in so many words, but it took a gay woman to stand up to the powerful Koch brothers where lesser men have stood shaking in their booties.
Click here to go to most recent posts.
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 January 2014
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Everyone's favourite tax lawyer
Famed tax lawyer, Roni Deutch is asked what other career she might have pursued had she not become a lawyer.
Friday, 19 December 2008
Q & A's from around the web
Why do police have locks on their lockers?? I MEAN, POLICEMEN DON'T STEAL!!
THey hve to keep the stuff they steal from citizens out of sight. For example, I had a cop let me go for speeding if I willingly gave him a P-38 German pistol I had on me at the time. I told him a speeding ticket did not warrant me giving him my $1,000 or more P-38 and he told me "What speeding ticket? You were breaking and entering." So, yes, cops do steal.
My husband is a cop and I am sorry to tell you that police do in fact steal. They mostly steal food out of the refrigerator but they have been known to take stuff from lockers as well. From all the b.s. my husband says about his job it sounds like it is pretty much like working anywhere else. People are untrustworthy and annoying no matter where you work. Cops are not above the law, they break it as well.
THey hve to keep the stuff they steal from citizens out of sight. For example, I had a cop let me go for speeding if I willingly gave him a P-38 German pistol I had on me at the time. I told him a speeding ticket did not warrant me giving him my $1,000 or more P-38 and he told me "What speeding ticket? You were breaking and entering." So, yes, cops do steal.
My husband is a cop and I am sorry to tell you that police do in fact steal. They mostly steal food out of the refrigerator but they have been known to take stuff from lockers as well. From all the b.s. my husband says about his job it sounds like it is pretty much like working anywhere else. People are untrustworthy and annoying no matter where you work. Cops are not above the law, they break it as well.
Friday, 24 October 2008
From the anals of time
At my age, pinpointing when something occurred, is sometimes tricky. My best guess is that the following occurred around the early 90's.
On a hot summers day, in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, young Gwen Jacobs was walking along the sidewalk of a busy downtown street. She suddenly decided right there and then that it was unfair for men to walk along topless while women had to be uncomfortably covered. She removed her top and nonchalantly continued her trek. In due course, as one might expect, the police arrived on the scene, "scene" being the operative word here, and promptly arrested her.
Gwen, the assertive and resourceful gal that she was, even at her tender 20ish age, secured herself a good lawyer. To make a short story shorter, the court was convinced that she was right in having equal rights to a man in regards to public (un)dress.
The effect of the case was immediate, if not widespread. In the following months, the occasional young, and even not so young, female could be seen exercising her new-found "freedom of expression", most often at beaches, parks or in one case, while watering the front lawn. Each incident that was spotted by a member of the hordes of press that were now scouring all venues they thought might yield another "Gwen", was immediately flashed across the television screens and had everyone wagging their tongues about it. Beach attendance figures broke all records that summer, attended by mostly adolescent boys (of all ages) hoping to get a head start on September's anatomy class.
Well, extremely conservative Canadians couldn't stand for such a public debacle. But what to do about it? When a "lady" of a certain age, in a small public pool, with even smaller children, insisted on exposing her ample bosom, thereby covering up her navel, enough was enough. The police arrested her and somehow managed to convict her of some sort of community standard statute. After that, one or two more incidents were reported to have occurred at the beach and that was the end of it. Canada was proud to revert back to the prude it has always been. And Gwen Jacobs was indelibly etched in Canadian history.
On a hot summers day, in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, young Gwen Jacobs was walking along the sidewalk of a busy downtown street. She suddenly decided right there and then that it was unfair for men to walk along topless while women had to be uncomfortably covered. She removed her top and nonchalantly continued her trek. In due course, as one might expect, the police arrived on the scene, "scene" being the operative word here, and promptly arrested her.
Gwen, the assertive and resourceful gal that she was, even at her tender 20ish age, secured herself a good lawyer. To make a short story shorter, the court was convinced that she was right in having equal rights to a man in regards to public (un)dress.
The effect of the case was immediate, if not widespread. In the following months, the occasional young, and even not so young, female could be seen exercising her new-found "freedom of expression", most often at beaches, parks or in one case, while watering the front lawn. Each incident that was spotted by a member of the hordes of press that were now scouring all venues they thought might yield another "Gwen", was immediately flashed across the television screens and had everyone wagging their tongues about it. Beach attendance figures broke all records that summer, attended by mostly adolescent boys (of all ages) hoping to get a head start on September's anatomy class.
Well, extremely conservative Canadians couldn't stand for such a public debacle. But what to do about it? When a "lady" of a certain age, in a small public pool, with even smaller children, insisted on exposing her ample bosom, thereby covering up her navel, enough was enough. The police arrested her and somehow managed to convict her of some sort of community standard statute. After that, one or two more incidents were reported to have occurred at the beach and that was the end of it. Canada was proud to revert back to the prude it has always been. And Gwen Jacobs was indelibly etched in Canadian history.
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
A Precedent in the Law
One evening, after attending the theatre, two gentlemen were walking down the avenue when they observed a rather well-dressed and attractive lady walking just ahead of them. One of the men turned to the other and remarked “I’d give $50 to spend the night with that woman”. To their surprise, the young lady overheard the remark, and turning around said “I’ll take you up on that”. She had a neat appearance and a pleasant voice, so after bidding his companion good night, the man accompanied the lady to her apartment where they immediately went to bed.
The following morning, the man presented her with $25 as he prepared to leave. She demanded the rest of the money stating “If you don’t give me the other $25, I’ll sue you for it”. He laughed, saying “I’d like to see you get it on these grounds”. The next day, he was surprised when he received a summons ordering his presence in court as a defendant in a law suit. He hurried to his lawyer and explained to him the details of the case. His lawyer said “She can’t possibly get a judgement against you on such grounds. But it will be interesting to see how her case will be presented”.
After the usual preliminaries, the lady’s lawyer addressed the court as follows: “Your honour, my client, this lady here, is an owner of a piece of property, a garden spot surrounded by a produce growth of shrubbery, which property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specified period of time, for the sum of $50. The defendant took possession of the property, used it extensively for the purpose for which it was rented, but upon vacating the premises, he paid only $25--one half the amount agreed upon. The rent was not excessive since it is restricted property, and we ask that judgement be granted against the defendant”.
The defendant’s lawyer was impressed and amused at the way his opponent had presented the case. His defence, therefore, was somewhat altered from the way originally planned to present it. “Your honour” he said, “My client agrees that the young lady has a fine piece of property, and that he did rent such property for a time and a degree of pleasure was derived from the transaction, however, my client found a well on the property around which he placed his own stones, sunk a shaft, and erected a pump. All labour being performed by him, we claim these improvements to the property were sufficient to offset the unpaid amount, and that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for the rental of the said property. We, therefore, ask that judgement not be granted”.
The young lady’s lawyer came back thusly: “Your honour, my client agrees that the defendant did find a well on her property. But, upon evacuating the premises, the defendant removed the stones, pulled out the shaft, and took the pump with him. In doing so, he not only dragged his equipment through the shrubbery, but left the hole much larger than it was prior to his occupancy, making it easily accessible to little children. We, therefore, ask that judgement be granted”.
She got it.
The following morning, the man presented her with $25 as he prepared to leave. She demanded the rest of the money stating “If you don’t give me the other $25, I’ll sue you for it”. He laughed, saying “I’d like to see you get it on these grounds”. The next day, he was surprised when he received a summons ordering his presence in court as a defendant in a law suit. He hurried to his lawyer and explained to him the details of the case. His lawyer said “She can’t possibly get a judgement against you on such grounds. But it will be interesting to see how her case will be presented”.
After the usual preliminaries, the lady’s lawyer addressed the court as follows: “Your honour, my client, this lady here, is an owner of a piece of property, a garden spot surrounded by a produce growth of shrubbery, which property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specified period of time, for the sum of $50. The defendant took possession of the property, used it extensively for the purpose for which it was rented, but upon vacating the premises, he paid only $25--one half the amount agreed upon. The rent was not excessive since it is restricted property, and we ask that judgement be granted against the defendant”.
The defendant’s lawyer was impressed and amused at the way his opponent had presented the case. His defence, therefore, was somewhat altered from the way originally planned to present it. “Your honour” he said, “My client agrees that the young lady has a fine piece of property, and that he did rent such property for a time and a degree of pleasure was derived from the transaction, however, my client found a well on the property around which he placed his own stones, sunk a shaft, and erected a pump. All labour being performed by him, we claim these improvements to the property were sufficient to offset the unpaid amount, and that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for the rental of the said property. We, therefore, ask that judgement not be granted”.
The young lady’s lawyer came back thusly: “Your honour, my client agrees that the defendant did find a well on her property. But, upon evacuating the premises, the defendant removed the stones, pulled out the shaft, and took the pump with him. In doing so, he not only dragged his equipment through the shrubbery, but left the hole much larger than it was prior to his occupancy, making it easily accessible to little children. We, therefore, ask that judgement be granted”.
She got it.
Saturday, 23 August 2008
Q & A's from around the web
Say I'm a butcher by profession and I set up my shop to allow people to watch me butcher my animals if they wish.....Would I be able to dress up one of my pigs in a cop uniform and butcher it in front of a crowd of people without worrying about any legal problems?
Only with the consent of the pig.
Only with the consent of the pig.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)