Haven’t heard from The Patent Man lately, but his latest offering was worth waiting for—or not. Folks, I can’t even try to explain this sexual stimulation invention for women in my own words. Here’s the text of the patent abstract for an invention inauspiciously titled “Method of using a water pipe”:

A water pipe providing sexual stimulation includes a tube with an exit port at its upper end, an reservoir port at its lower end, and an inlet port. The inlet port is spaced from the lower end whereby the inlet port remains exposed when the lower end is inserted into a vagina. The lower end cooperates with the wall of the vagina to form a water reservoir holding water in the lower end and the vagina. A stem is received into the inlet port with an end opening submerged in the water reservoir. Suction applied at the exit port draws air through the stem to bubble through the water reservoir to generate stimulatory vibrations transmitted to the vagina. Optionally, a bowl holding combustible material communicates with the stem such that smoke bubbles through the water reservoir to simultaneously filter and cool the smoke and generate stimulatory vibrations.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. "Water pipe"? "Suction"? "Inlet port"? "Combustible material"? "Smoke"? All combined with a sensitive body part? Is it just because I'm a Torts professor or does this sound like it fails Judge Hand's formula?

Patent No. 7,122,000 is available at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office website (http://patft.uspto.gov).

San Antonio Senior Judge James Barlow, a longtime friend to lawhaha.com, responded to my ongoing query about the validity of legal humor legends with a true tale from his own court:

You asked about the things that tour the email circuit as jokes and stories and whether they are authentic. Here’s one that actually occurred in my court. A defense counsel whose voice was running but whose brain was not, asked: “How old is your 21-year-old son?” The story was picked up by the court reporters' association and widely circulated.

Thanks, as always, Judge.

In the post below this one, a lawhaha visitor queried whether those widely circulated legal humor legends - i.e., funny trial/deposition excerpts and wacky laws - are true.

Now visitor David Tartter has exposed one of the classics as bogus. Have you ever read about that "bizarre" Vermont statute that prohibits tying giraffes to lamp posts? I've seen references to it in books and in far too many forwarded emails.

When David came across it, he had a novel idea: he actually looked it up. Guess what he found? The statute prohibits tying any animal to a lamp post. While giraffes technically are included, it's doubtful the law would have assumed its legendary "wacky" status if it were reported as a statute that prohibited tying, say, dogs to lamp posts.

Here's the actual statute:

A person who wilfully and maliciously breaks the glass about a street lamp or gaslight, or a lamp or gaslight in the grounds about a public building, or, without authority, lights such a lamp or gaslight or extinguishes the same when lighted, or in any manner interferes therewith, or injures any part of the fixtures supporting such lamp or gaslight, or defaces the same by painting or posting notices thereon, or fastens a horse or animal thereto, shall be imprisoned not more than three months or fined not more than $50.00, or both.

13 V.S.A. section 3785

If anyone discovers other legal humor mythbusters, please send them in.

Below, Scott Martin raises intriguing questions I’ve long wondered about: to what extent are those funny, but shopworn “real life” litigation transcript excerpts that have been circulating for decades really true? And what about all those bizarre “real” statutes and ordinances that also regularly make the rounds? People frequently send them in to lawhaha. Some are the same stories I read back as a practicing lawyer 20 years ago. I never include them on lawhaha.com because they all lack documentation.

If you have any information about whether these legal tales are “real” or just “tall,” let us know. Here’s Scott’s thoughtful email:

Dear Professor McClurg:

I would very much appreciate your take on two odd phenomena that have long plagued my sensibilities as a lawyer: strange legal transcript excerpts and strange laws.

As you likely know, the “transquips” are humorous sections taken from the transcripts of “real trials.” They vary from Henny Youngmanish one-liners:

Q. Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?
A. No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.

To those with the long setup and stinging punch line:

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

As to “Strange Laws” here are a few attributed to my home state of Florida:

“If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle. It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit. Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown. Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.”

You can find them for all 50 states and countries throughout the globe.

The internet is rife with both of these forms of legal humor, and numerous books have been written on both subjects.

To me, these constitute legal humor—really humor of any kind—but only if they are true. However, I never, ever, ever see any accompanying citation to the cases or statutes from which these tidbits are taken. That really bugs me. While we don't expect a joke to be traceable back to its creator, the very nature of these two types of humor suggests that they could be easily verified. If it’s from a transcript, there is a written record traceable to a particular case. If it is a law, there should be a citation (aside from common law, which I doubt speaks to securing pachyderms to parking meters).

… [W]hy do these claims persist? Is it the same explanation as for “urban legends”— i.e., the more ridiculous the claim, the more likely it is to be believed?

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. Take it to a party. Read it out loud. It will be a hit even with non-lawyers because it's such an over-the-top, yet undoubtedly accurate, portrayal of "what jurors really think."

It's a transcription of a handwritten letter from a juror to the judge during a civil trial. I have a copy of the actual letter - always trying to ensure accurate reporting here at lawhaha.com. I deleted the juror's name and inserted paragraph spacing for reading convenience, but everything else (including errors) is reproduced faithfully.

Anyone who has ever sat through an entire trial can appreciate this poor juror's frustration. I assume the judge had to boot the juror, but was probably nodding while he read the missive, saying, "I'm with you, brother."

Your Honor

I am tired of spending day after day wasting my time listening to this bullcrap. This is cruel and unusual punishment. The plantif is an idiot. He has no case. Why are we here? I think my cat could better answer these questions . . . and he wouldn’t keep asking to see a document.

I’ve been patient. I’ve sat in these chairs for 7 days now. If I believed for a second this was going to end on Thursday I might not go crazy. This is going to last for another 4 weeks. I cannot take this. I hate these lawyers and prayed one would die so the case would end.

I shouldn’t be on this jury. I want to die. I want to die!! Well not die for real but that is how I feel sitting here. I am the judge, you’ve said that over and over, well I am not fair and balanced. I hate the plantif. His ignorance is driving me crazy. I know I’m writing this in vain but I have to do something . . . for my sanity. These jury chairs should come with a straight jacket.

An entire day today and we are still on the same witness. The defense hasn’t even started yet and we have 3 days left 3 days my ass. Not that the defense needs a turn considering the plantif and his lawyer (who looks like the Penquin) have no case!!!! Thanks for letting me get this off my chest. Please keep the disordelies nearby. I may need them.

Juror #5

Do have a dog? Do you like to take it for walks? Do you feel it’s your moral and social responsibility to clean up after it? Are you skilled at playing lacrosse?

If your answer is yes to all of the above, then the invention protected by U.S. Patent 7,090,268 (Aug. 16, 2006) might be the perfect dog-walking accessory for you.

As described in the patent application, the invention is “a simple portable device which allows the dog's owner to catch and hold the dog waste in a plastic bag before it comes in contact with the ground or grass without bending over.”

Basically, the invention sounds like kind of a lightweight lacrosse stick that you use to catch dog feces in. But just as in the real sport, you have to be quick on your toes to use this baby effectively. As the patent explains: “As soon as the dog shows a motion to excrete, this device is … placed underneath the dog's bottom and catches the dog waste, thus preventing the soiling of the ground or grass.”

Is it a good invention? Darn right. As everyone knows, “[d]ogs tend to excrete while they are walked” and “[o]nce the droppings fall on the ground or grass, it is difficult to collect them completely, especially when they are loose.” That’s why 98 percent of dog owners leave it to their neighbors to deal with.

This sounds like a good invention, although I’m not sure the dogs are going to sit still for it.

You’ll probably have to go look this one up to be convinced we’re not making it up. The U.S. Patent and Trademark issued a patent for a toy rocket powered by flatulence. U.S. Patent No. 6,055,910, May 2, 2000. The invention is a “toy gas-fired missile” that is prepared for takeoff by the operator placing “the inlet tube with its valve open adjacent to his anal region from which a colonic gas is discharged.” After being loaded, “[t]he ignitor is then activated to explode the mixture in the chamber and fire the missile into space.”

The “Status of the Prior Art” section of the patent offers a dissertation on flatulence, including the more-information-than-we-want-to-know revelations that a normal individual produces 400-600 ml of flatus per day and that the major components, in descending odor, er, order, are: nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, methane, and oxygen. The odor-causing ingredients are sulfide, skatole, indole, volatile amines, and short-chain fatty acids.

Perhaps you're knocking your head against your computer monitor, asking “Why, why, why?” For consumer safety — that’s why. The inventors offer the invention as a safer alternative to the “popular practice” of “ignition of one’s own flatus” by lit match or candle, or a cigarette lighter. Of course, “[a] major drawback” of this practice is the “hazardous coupling of fire, combustible gases and inebriated participants.” Serious burn reports are not uncommon, according to the patent application, “especially … when the participants remove their clothing.”

Accordingly, “[i]n view of the foregoing, the main object of this invention is to provide a safe toy which exploits combustible properties of flatus to fire a toy missile into space.”

And you thought we didn’t have sound ideas for an energy policy.

That’s apparently what the inventors of the “non-lethal gamecock sparring match” and equipment are trying to sell. And they got a patent for it. U.S. Patent 6,928,960, Aug. 16, 2005. With this invention, each fighting bird is fitted with a protective vest carrying sensors that send a signal to an electronic scoreboard each time they are pecked or clawed. The talons of each gamecock are also “covered with a protective device,” and their beaks are “taped shut.” Sounds very comfortable.

The interesting background of the invention explains it is designed to remedy a “cultural clash of values” pitting aficionados of gamecock fighting (which the inventors assert is an accepted and enjoyable form of entertainment in Latin and Asian cultures and many U.S. states) against those who object to the birds being killed or injured.

A Montana criminal defense lawyer filed a motion for the court to order a fist fight between the defense team and the prosecutors in a case in which the defendant allegedly killed someone who was bullying him or his friend or both.

The motion is not exactly a model of clarity, but the lawyer was trying to make the point that, in prosecuting his client for killing in apparent self-defense while being attacked with fists, the state was condoning fist fights. Here’s how the motion starts out:

COMES NOW counsel for Defendant, through his [sic] and respectfully requests this Court to Order a fist fight between Shaun Donovan and John Connor on one sided [sic] and Kirk Krutilla and Bill Buzzell on the other side.”

The lawyer then argues that the prosecutors had taken the position that it was “perfectly right, legal and moral” for the deceased to have attacked the defendant and states that the defense team

would love to give Donovan and Conner a chance to stand up for the principle they stand for; i.e. the brutal humiliation and beating up of weaker human beings is the most cherished principle in life. Therefore, the defense moves that before the hearing April 17, 2006 that the state be given a chance on what they cherish in a resolution of dispute and that there be a fist fight [between the prosecutors and the defense lawyers].

Not surprisingly, the prosecutors took issue with the defense’s characterization of the state’s position in the State of Montana’s Response to ‘Motion for Fist Fight,’ and requested “that the Court deny the same.”
The prosecutors insisted they were not standing up for a legal and moral right to beat up people. Instead, “the State has asserted from the outset that the infliction of thirteen lethal stab wounds on an unarmed aggressor by [the defendant and his friend]” was an excessive use of force in self defense.

What are the limits of using humor in law? This is a question to which lawhaha.com is dedicated. The prosecutors argued the defendant’s motion was “ill conceived” and that humor

should not extend to filed court pleadings in a case which has lead to the death of one young man, serious and possibly permanent injury to others and the specter of long imprisonment and community strife for others.

A legitimate point, but the overall tone of the defense motion doesn't suggest an intent to be funny so much as attempt to make a point, using an attention-getting and admittedly unusual approach.

Finally, and this might be the funniest part of the whole exchange, the prosecutors, after condemning the defense lawyer’s motion, puffed up and essentially insisted they could kick the defense lawyers’ butts, or as they put it, they were “confident they could acquit themselves respectably if it were necessary to settle any part of this matter by means of a physical contest.”

Florida International University College of Law student David Barman sends in two more patents reminding us again that, apparently, it's not as hard to get a patent as people think:

1. U.S. Patent 4,022,227 (May 10, 1977) is a patent for a “Method of concealing partial baldness” described more particularly in the abstract as “[a] method of styling hair to cover partial baldness using only the hair on a person's head. The hair styling requires dividing a person's hair into three sections and carefully folding one section over another.” Yup. It’s a patent for the dreaded “comb-over.” No joke. We’ve all witnessed the results of this amazing invention, which works so effectively that no one notices the baldness, provided they are sight-impaired and at a distance of more than 200 yards.

2. U.S. Patent 6,834,453 (Dec. 28, 2004) is for another genius invention: a piece of foam in the shape of an “M” that you wear on your head. The invention, appropriately named the “Head Mounted Letter ‘M’ Display,” is designed for sports fans who want to support their teams that begin with the letter “M.” The funniest aspect of this patent is all the complex diagrams of a guy wearing an "M" on his head. Go check it out at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office website.

Several lawhaha visitors sent in Mark Fass’s article in the New York Law Journal about an alleged curse on the family of Helen Palsgraf, the most famous torts plaintiff in history. Every lawyer remembers Mrs. P from law school. To test this theory, visit an elderly, dying lawyer in a coma and shout “Palsgraf!” Immediately, he will recite: “A man carrying a box wrapped in newspaper boarded a train at the Long Island Railroad Station ... cough, cough ... ack.”

The box contained fireworks. When it was dislodged by employees of the Long Island Railroad trying to help the man on the train, the fireworks exploded, allegedly knocking a scale onto Mrs. P. Mrs. P’s saga led to the legendary, and incredibly confusing, opinions by Judge Benjamin Cardozo and Judge William Andrews studied by students year in and year out at law schools great and small.

Now Fass reports that Mrs. P’s accident began a curse on the Palsgraf family, at least that’s what some of her descendants believe. One descendant fell off a ladder in 1965 and sued the manufacturer, but never made it to trial because the ladder was stolen. Another lost her thumb when a ping-pong table collapsed. A lawsuit led to a small settlement. Another descendent tripped while jogging over a broken curb, but was discouraged by lawyers from filing suit.

I’m not too sure about the family curse. Most families suffer their share of misfortune over half a century. Maybe the curse is on insurance companies, since Mrs. P appears to have started a grand family tradition of litigiousness.

The most intriguing Palsfraf mishap reported by Fass involves a descendant who lost control of his truck on an icy hill in 1968. The truck slid towards the edge of cliff. Guess what saved the life of Mrs. P’s closest living relative? The truck’s wheels got caught on a track of ... you guessed it, the Long Island Railroad.

Ben White, a former student of mine at Wake Forest law school, sends in this story of his real-world life as a prosecutor in North Carolina:

A man was charged with misdemeanor Cruelty to Animals. He decided to plead guilty, and the “victim” was allowed to speak to the judge (I suppose on her cat’s behalf). The defendant stated that his neighbor’s cat had chewed a hole through the floor of his trailer, and was constantly stealing his Little Debbie Snack Cakes. Upon discovering the “perp” of this egregious offense, he shot the cat with his .22 rifle. As the defendant was telling his side of the story, all the cat’s owner said (repeatedly) was “My cat is neutered. My cat is neutered.” A more profound legal argument I’ve never heard. Luckily, “Sprinkles” survived his wounds, to pilfer snack cakes another day.

I don't get it either. Was the "neuter defense" an attempt to gain sympathy for the cat?

Give credit to the students at the Pacific Coast University School of Law. Despite being caught up in the middle of exams, they took the time to spread some holiday cheer to law students everywhere by penning this ditty:

Rudolph Against Perpetuities
(To the tune of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”)

You know Proximate Cause and your Chain of Causation,
Corpus Delicti, and yes, Defamation.
But do you recall, Law School’s biggest mind boggle of all?”

Rue contingent remainders,
Executory interests too,
Also “subject to open” –
RAP analyses we’ll do.

Rue contingent remainders,
Executory interests too,
Also “subject to open” –
RAP analyses we’ll do.

Santa’s Clause in North Pole deed:
To Rudolph and his heirs,
But if Donner returns from Rome,
He and heirs can call Pole home.” (Huh?)

See how the reindeer puzzle,
First figure out if it’s in fee.
Springing? Or is it shifting?
Let’s Cy Pres or “Wait and See!”

Santa’s Clause in North Pole deed:
”To Rudolph and his heirs,
But if Donner returns from Rome,
He and heirs can call Pole home.” (Huh?)

Rue contingent remainders,
Executory interests too,
Also “subject to open” –
RAP analyses, RAP analyses, RAP analyses, we’ll do.
Do-do-do-do-do-do-do.”

Looking forward to an exciting and rewarding career as a paralegal with a high-powered law firm? Might want to rethink your career choice.

Consider an intraoffice research memorandum written by a paralegal at the New York firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. The memorandum contained the paralegal's insightful research attempting to resolve a split of authority regarding the cutting edge legal issue of where to find the best sushi in the city.

The memorandum, dated July 9, 2003, and labeled "Subject: Sushi Options," was addressed to Kelley D. Parker. It begins: “As requested, please find below selected alternatives for ordering sushi in Mid-town New York City.” The memorandum, complete with numbered sub-headings and eight footnotes, thoroughly researches takeout sushi options in Manhattan.

One smoking gun revealed by the research, which included “surveying frequent diners,” is:

Most restaurants in the area claim to receive fresh fish deliveries daily. However, I have learned that Mondays should be avoided, as fresh fish is generally delivered on Tuesdays. [footnote omitted]”

The memo concludes by expressing hope that the partner can avoid future sushi problems by choosing "the restaurant from which your dinner will be ordered on a going-forward basis."

Some people see the memo as a symbol of the dictatorial, hierarchical structure of the modern law firm, but they're overlooking its value as a contribution to the legal literature. Unfounded rumor has it that the NYU Law Review is considering a symposium issue consisting soley of restaurant reviews.

Is the memo real? According to the New York Times, calls to the parties named on the memorandum have gone unanswered.

The Patent Man sent in Patent No. 6,599,545, issued July 29, 2003, for the new, exciting and amazing invention of “Method for making a sandwich.” To be patentable, an invention must be new, useful and nonobvious. Does this one qualify? Since it's such a technical subject, let’s first explore the “The Background Art” of the invention, as described in the patent:

Sandwiches typically comprise two slices of bread, and a combination of sandwich fixings disposed between the bread slices.

There’s food for thought. Now that we understand the background art, let’s explore the invention itself, which is: “A method for inserting one foodstuff, such as sandwich fixings, into a second foodstuff, such as a bread bun, which includes forming a cavity in the second foodstuff.” Way over my head, but an expert-engineer friend deconstructed the invention for me as follows: “Basically, you drill a hole in a bun and jam some cold cuts in there.”

Here's an original ballad about Former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and his big Ten-Commandments rock, written by constitutional law professor Brannon Denning:

"The Ballad of Chief Justice Roy Moore" (sung to the tune of "The Ballad of Jed Clampett" and with apologies to Flatt and Scruggs)

By Brannon P. Denning

Come 'n listen to my story 'bout a judge named Moore
Had a rock so big could barely fit it through th' door
Had it installed in the middle of the night
Swore he'd never move it, not without a fight
Rock that is! Ten Commandments! Word of God!

Well the first thing you know there's trouble in the air
Federal courts say, "Roy, move it out of there!" Said
"Yonder in your office is the place it ought to be!"
That brought out all the faithful down to Montgomery
Alan Keyes that is! Jerry Falwell! Operation Rescue!

Judge Roy Moore said his rock was stayin' put
Said Judge Thompson could come and kiss his foot
Then Roy's eight colleagues hollered "Not so very fast!"
and signed their own court order to save the state some cash
Fines that is! Injunctive relief! Contempt of court!

Well now it's time to say goodbye to Moore's big work of art
But you'd better be believin' this'll only be a start
You're all invited back real soon down to Montgomery
To have a heapin' helping of his demagoguery
2006 Y'all! Moore for Governor! Send contributions!

He'll be back y'all, hear!

Melanie Ware must have been in a partying mood when she did her latest patent research. I'll let her tell you about it:

What party would be complete without board games? Each of the priceless treasures below is a patented board game, though I'm not so sure that Milton Bradley is beating down many of the patent holders' doors to put these things on the market. Let's get this party started!

1. You've heard of playing doctor? Well, your dream has come true. It's the "Intern board game"! United States Patent 4,136,879, January 30, 1979: "A board game portrays the trials, tribulations, and triumphs of an intern and is played on a board simulating a large teaching hospital."

2. For the wilder parties, here's a "Board game and method for teaching responsible drinking." United States Patent 6,276,686, August 21, 2001, provides in part: "Another objective is to provide a board game that teaches responsible drinking to a plurality of players." (That's it, share the love. Nobody wants to drink alone, it ruins the reputation.) "A further objective is to provide a board game that is easy to learn and fun to play."

3. When the “responsible drinking" goes too far, here's a "Board game simulating drunk driving." United States Patent 4,216,966, August 12, 1980. I think the title speaks for itself, but I've included the basic overview: "The invention relates to a game board apparatus which correlates consumption of liquor and the time span during which the liquor is consumed. The game board includes a pathway of connected playing locations upon which a player token is progressed .... Adjacent some of the playing locations are stop locations where liquor and time can be obtained. With the roll of dice, the player moves toward a happening such as the theater and enroute can be moved into a liquor establishment wherein liquor is consumed over a stated period of time all evidenced on a card drawn by the player. The amount of liquor consumed and the time of consumption in the various liquor establishments are recorded on a display board. Information from the display board is transferred to a blood alcohol chart which indicates sobriety or drunkenness. If a player is shown to be drunk, the sober player token head is changed to a token head indicating drunkenness and a police car is put into play by use of a second pair of dice.”

4. Since you've been driving drunk, it's only natural that you might get BUSTED, in which case you’ll need the “Double-standard DWI-rules game.” United States Patent 6,412,77, July 2, 2002, describes "A game for a multitude of players based on driving rules applied according to a player's social status." (Apparently, the game educates us on who's more likely to get out of a DWI.) "The object of the game disclosed herein, is to provide amusement for the players while they acquaint themselves with the financial liability incurred by being arrested for driving drunk. It is also is an object of the game is to provide amusement for the players while they acquaint themselves with the behind the scene manipulations resulting in special treatment for drunk-driving offenders according to their social status."

5. How about this one for after you fail the field sobriety test? “Board game apparatus involving criminal justice,” United States Patent 3,977,680, August 31, 1976. "This invention relates to an educational game which simulates the criminal justice procedure, from the initial police encounter, through Attorney selection, arraignment, the posting of bond and the selection of an appropriate jury. "

Melanie Ware, a pre-law student in Nashville, TN, sent in this duo of funny patents she found during a legal research assignment:

1. "Payment accepting trash receptacle"

Tossing trash is a great privilege that too many people have been free-riding on for years. But perhaps not for much longer if this baby catches on. Here’s a summary of brand new U.S. Patent 6,578,762, issued June 17, 2003:

The instant invention is a payment accepting trash receptacle. For the first time, it is possible to collect a fee for the use of a trash container, without the requirement that the trash container be attended by a person to collect that fee or payment.

And you thought littering was a problem now? But don’t worry. If throwing your trash away gets too expensive, just stash it in your garage and save your money for Melanie’s next discovery, the exciting ...

2. "Ice fishing hole simulator system"

Why bother to go outside at all when you can sit in your living room and stare into the hole that forms the centerpiece of this great new invention. U.S. Patent No. 6,578,299, issued June 17, 2003 is “[a]n ice fishing hole simulator system for visually simulating an ice fishing experience based about an ice fishing hole.”

Ever think that being a "taste-tester" might be a good way to pick up a few extra bucks? Think again. David Barman has sent in a real patent for an invention for a "semen taste-enhancement dietary supplement," which forms the basis for U.S. Patent No. 6,485,773.

This invention allegedly results in a "significant improvement to the taste of the male ejaculate by reducing its generally salty and/or bitter taste while also adding a pleasant flavor that is considered by 98.5% of all customers as very enjoyable."

Marketing testing started with 27 couples of various lifestyles, all of who reported "significant semen-taste improvement."

The secret ingredients include freeze-dried pineapple juice, broccoli powder, celery powder, strawberry powder and banana powder.

It's not called Weird Legal News for nothing.

As a Torts prof, I loved this tidbit sent in by Elise Hendrick. Good old Mrs. Palsgraf. You can try, but you can’t keep her down.

Elise was listening to oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Exxon Co. USA v Sofec, 116 S.Ct. 1813 (1996), and came across the following exchange between George Playdon, counsel for Sofec, and Justice Scalia. The two were engaged in a colloquy about the maritime supervening cause doctrine:

Scalia: I'm not sure that you need a “doctrine of supervening cause.” Is a doctrine of supervening cause anything other than Palsgraf? When you say, you know, that the negligence ... the causality ... had long since terminated. Once you say you're out of the scope of the risk, what do you need a doctrine of supervening cause for? And isn't that basically your case?

Playdon (chuckling): I smile—I never envisioned thirty years ago that I'd have the opportunity ...

Scalia: Of arguing Palsgraf!

Playdon (stammering, laughing): Obviously, Palsgraf is a foreseeability doctrine, just like Hadley v. Baxendale is a foreseeability problem.

Elise speculates that this may have been the first time the implausible case of Mrs. P has been mentioned in court since Palsgraf was decided in 1928.

From University of Illinois law librarian Paul D. Callister comes news of a momentous proposed Illinois law, House Bill 3086, that would amend the Illinois Criminal Code to ban the “splitting of tongues” except by licensed physicians or dentists and then “only if there is a therapeutic or clinical procedure for performing the procedure.”

What is “tongue-splitting”? Pretty much what it sounds like. According to the statutory definition, it “means the cutting of a human tongue into 2 or more parts.” Why this procedure is so popular that legal sanctions are required to prevent its apparently rampant medically unnecessary use is mysterious, but it's understandable the legislature wouldn't want people cutting other people's tongues into parts unless there was at least a "therapeutic or clinical procedure" for it.

But as Paul wryly observes: “Apparently, politicians may still speak with forked-tongues, but it is illegal to facilitate the practice among the general population without proper licensing and establishing medical necessity.”

U.S. Patent No. 4,320,756 appears to be a useful invention that could prevent deaths from smoke inhalation in the event of fire by allowing trapped occupants in proximity to a toilet an alternative source of air.

The illustration shows a man with a tube in his mouth. The tube runs into a toilet and back into the toilet sewage pipe, where breathable air apparently exists. But the inventor oversells the invention a bit by naming it the “Fresh-Air Breathing Device and Method,” and repeatedly extolling the “fresh air” one can access while waiting for help from firefighters.

Fresh air? Hmm, not too sure about that. The breathing tube connects to “a sewer line or soil pipe for draining waste materials and water upon flushing of the toilet.” It does contain a filter to help deal with the “residual sewer gases,” but it still sounds dicey.

By the way, an excellent part of the invention claimed is “the step of flushing said toilet” prior to inserting the breathing tube. Leave it to those inventors. They think of everything.

Good old American ingenuity and entrepreneurship. Just when you think everything worth inventing has already been invented, someone comes up with a great new invention like the one described in U.S. Patent No. 5,928,170: the “audio-enhanced sexual vibrator.”

This is a vibrator with a built-in “audio signal processor for recording and playing back personalized messages, before or after sexual interplay for enhanced aural stimulation.”

The main object of the invention is “to enhance the pleasure or satisfaction of a person during sexual intercourse, sexual simulation, or orgasmic therapy by providing a vibrating device which can record intimate or personalized messages, music or other sound effects ....”

However, “a further object of the invention is to provide a vibrator that can capture spontaneous thoughts or ideas occurring during a sexual situation, whereby those thoughts or ideas may otherwise be lost or forgotten if not recorded during the emotional or passionate state of sexual arousal.”

That’s too funny. If they could turn this into an Ipod accessory, they'd really have something going.

This isn't weird legal news. It's good legal news. I just don't have any other place to put it. My distinguished colleague and fellow founding faculty member at the Florida International University College of Law, Profesor Tom Baker, has just published a terrific bibliography of law review humor in the Drake Law Review. The title, which is almost as long as the bibliography, is: "A Compendium of Clever and Amusing Law Review Writings: An Idiosyncratic Bibliography of Miscellany with In Kind Annotations Intended as a Humorous Diversion for the Gentle Reader."

Tom collects and annotates more than 150 humorous law review articles in the bibliography. Any fan of legal humor will want to check out this valuable resource. If you can't track down the Drake Law Review, you can find Tom's bibliography reprinted in our forthcoming legal humor anthology: Jarvis, Baker & McClurg, Amicus Humoriae: An Anthology of Legal Humor (Carolina Press, forthcoming 2003)

You’d think the bathroom would be the one place you could escape to for some quiet time, but no.

David Barman sent in U.S. Patent No. 6,417,773, issued July 9, 2002, for a talking toilet. This invention allows one to record audio messages that are delivered to toilet users when a microphone hears the sound of the toilet flushing. The purpose of the invention is to promote good hygiene by reminding toilet users to wash their hands, but since users can record any message they want, there’s no reason the device couldn’t be put to other good uses like practical jokes or even political commentary. “There goes the economy” with every flush would have your guests in stitches.

For more toilet humor, David also sent in U.S. Patent No. 5,829,068, issued Nov. 3, 1998, which could prove to be the greatest invention ever for promoting peace in the war between the sexes. It’s for a hydraulic toilet seat raising and lowering device. No more, “Honey, you didn’t put the seat down.” Let this baby do it for you.

The Patent Man sent in another classic patent: official U.S. Patent No. 6,457,474, issued October 1, 2002 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The subject—heart attacks—is not a funny one, and, for all I know, "the invention" described may be the greatest thing since Salk invented polio vaccine, but it still cracked me up.

The patent is for a method of alleviating chest pain, especially from angina pectoris, as an alternative to nitroglycerin. What's the amazing invention? Drinking lime juice! That's the invention.

But, wait, maybe I'm not being fair. Maybe I'm oversimplifying it. Let's check out the official patent abstract and see:

A method of alleviating chest pain that stems from the heart, which method comprises: (a) noticing a pain in the chest; and shortly thereafter (b) taking an effective amount of lime juice into the body to alleviate the chest pain.”

Nope. Guess not. It really is a patent on drinking lime juice. Here's how the invention works:

In accordance with this invention, a person takes in lime juice after noticing the onset of the chest pain.

Don't worry if you don't understand it. It's a very complex scientific procedure. But let's at least clear up one other confusing point. What exactly is this secret ingredient? The patent explains:

“'[L]ime juice’ means lime juice or limeade or any combination that includes the juice of a lime ....”

Pucker up because the inventor recommends “drinking at least a glass daily [of lime juice] in non-concentrate form” as a preventative measure.

Sound inconvenient? It's not. In fact, one of the primary advantages of lime juice as a remedy for angina pectoris over nitroglycerin is that:

Since the juice is regularly stored in the refrigerator or freezer, it can be quickly located by the patient, particularly at nighttime where the refrigerator light plays a helpful role.

And you thought electricity was great.

Bless Judge James Barlow, from San Antonio. Here’s a distinguished jurist who regularly takes time from his busy schedule to send funny stuff to lawhaha.com. His latest offering, forwarded to him from a judicial pal in Tennessee, is a petition filed by a guy who, apparently because he’s the only one in the family with a driver’s license, was ordered by a Giles County chancery court to shuttle two kids of divorced parents back and forth during periods of visitation. Since it bears the clerk’s file stamp (dated May 13, 2002), it appears to be real. Check out this doozy and take note of the writer’s apparently genuine sincerity:

IN THE MATTER OF WHITE VS. WHITE

IN GILES CHANCERY

NO. 2196

INTERVENING PETITION
Comes the petitioner, Wm. Travis Gobble, who professes to be greatly aggrieved by the order of this court ... whereby your intervenor was ordered to provide transportation for Suzanna and ‘Log-Jam’ White, minor children of Derrell and Chrysty White, during periods of visitation between the said parties, in the following particulars:

1. Your intervenor is the only damn one in the family with drivers licenses [sic].

2. He should not be required to risk losing his.

3. On Friday afternoon by 1700 hours, and particularly on Sundy [sic] by the same time, your intervenor, generally has consumed three or more beers.

4. Three, or more, beers according to all the clients your intervenor has represented causes a driver to register .15 or higher on any cop’s “Get’m” scale.

5. According to MADD mothers, any driver who has consumed three beers, whatever he registers, is drunk and a menace to society.

6. Small children should not be subjected to such danger.

7. In addition thereto, your intervenor drives a small pickity-up [sic] truck with only two seat belts, neither of which he can make operable.

8. The two children are of such a size that both must be bundled inside a device resembling and [sic] over-sized football helmet. Your intervenor has tried, but has been unable to date, to secure said children into such a device.

9. In any event, he, two children and a fourth person would crowd his little truck.

10. In the event your intervenor elected to have a fourth, or a fifth beer enroute [sic] with said kids, he would have no place to sit said cans and would have to drive one-handed.

11. The kids themselves would be a further distraction.

12. A distracted driver is a dangerous driver.

13. Without a fourth person to assist him, should minor children commence to cry, a common occurance [sic], your intervenor would surely drop his beer and wreck.

...

16. As the common carrier, your intervenor would be trown [sic] into regular contact with both parents and subjected to all the allegations hurled from both sides. Your intervenor is too old to suffer such.

FOR ALL OF WHICH Wm. Travis Cobble respectfully moves this Honorable Court to assign said duties to some other caring soul.

Okay, so maybe it’s a little fancier than a stick, but it’s still pretty funny that someone could get a patent for “[a]n apparatus for use as a toy by an animal, for example a dog, to either fetch, carry or chew; includes a main section with at least one protrusion extending therefrom that resembles a branch in appearance.” U.S. Patent No. 6,360,693.

Go to the website of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to learn more about this amazing “invention.”

Included in the patent information are the “OBJECTS AND SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION,” such as: “It is an object of the present invention to provide an animal toy that a dog may carry in its mouth.” Damn. Why couldn’t I have thought of that?

And this one: “It is also an important object of the invention to provide an animal toy that is easy for a dog to pick up off of the ground.” Well, of course, that’s important. Dogs have a rough enough life as it is without having to suffer the annoyance of fetching a toy that’s hard to pick up off the ground. Think how aggravating that must be.

This must-have toy for your canine friends also floats, glows in the dark and is flavored.

This isn’t exactly “Weird Legal News,” but it’s too cute of a story to not post. I received it from a brand new 1L student at the brand new Florida International University College of Law. Here’s what he writes:

My son saw my first-year law casebooks and picked up my Torts book. His first comment was "1200 pages, that's more than Harry Potter!" (The fourth Harry Potter book has 700 pages.) Then he asked me, "What is Torts?" He's a bright boy, but he is only nine.

I asked him: "If you park your bike on the sidewalk, and a man hits your bike with a car, who did something wrong?” He said the man with the car. I asked why. My son answered “Because I'm allowed to put my bike on the sidewalk, but he isn't allowed to drive on the sidewalk." I said "Correct."

Then I asked him: “Does the man in the car have to pay for the bike?” My son said yes. Then I said, “What if you get off your bike on the street and you leave it there just for a minute, and a man in a car hits it?” My son said, "It's my fault." I asked why, and he said, “Because I shouldn't have left it in the street."

Then I asked him if the man in the car has to pay for the bike. My son answered, "No." I asked him why and he repeated, “Because I shouldn't have left it in the street.” I told him good job, that's what Torts is. He said, “Is that it?” I told him "Yes." Then he looked real confused and said, "Then why does the book have 1200 pages?"

Email from Patrick Strader:

I want to thank you for all of the entertainment value that you provided me with during my bar study last summer. Either due to the cathartic qualities of your site or in spite of them, I managed to pass the bar and have been practicing since the first of the year. I recently came across the following funny municipal code section. My favorite part is the finding of fact. Apparently, it seems this was almost an epidemic. This is from the Kern County (Calif.) Municipal Code:

9.12.010 Public sales of articles depicting female breasts.

A. Finding of Fact Leading to Enactment.

Residents of the county have petitioned the board of supervisors of the county to prevent persons who display, sell or offer to sell upholstered or stuffed articles depicting, simulating or caricaturing female breasts from vending such articles at sites adjacent to and near county highways. ...

The petitioners have represented, and the board of supervisors finds, that (unlike indecent and vulgar displays in movies, newspapers, television and other places, the offensiveness of which can be prevented or controlled by turning off the set, canceling a subscription, declining to purchase, or
nonattendance) the hawking of those articles named by its vendor and sold as "boobies pillows" along the public highways is a species of indecency and vulgarity which cannot be ignored or controlled by passersby, which assails the eyes and minds of all who are required to use county highways, and which should be barred and controlled for the peace, safety and welfare of the unincorporated areas of the county.

B. Display and Sale Banned Within One Thousand (1,000) Feet of Highways.

No vendor shall vend stuffed articles depicting the female breasts (sold as "boobie pillows") within one thousand (1,000) feet of any county highway.

C. Regulation of Display More Than One Thousand (1,000) Feet from Highways.
No vendor shall vend stuffed articles depicting the female breasts (sold as
"boobie pillows") anywhere in the unincorporated area of the county unless: [elaborate conditions are enumerated]

D. Violation a Misdemeanor.

Violation of subsections (B) or (C) of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollar ($500.00) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than ninety (90) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day of violation shall constitute a separate offense.

Patrick reports he came upon this ordinance accidentally, while searching under "B" in the code index for something mundane -- "Bills of Lading" perhaps, or "Boards or Commissions." He came to "Boobie Pillows" and, of course, had to stop and look it up.

Check out this “cease and desist” letter sent by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality regarding the unauthorized construction of two dams on some property, and the hilarious reply (some paragraph breaks for reading ease).

CERTIFIED

December 17, 1997

Dear Mr. DeVries:

SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm County

It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity:
Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department's files show that no permits have been issued.

Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, ... being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris dams and flooding at downstream locations.

We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the strewn channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request, or any further unauthorized activity on the site, may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter.

Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative Land and Water Management Division

REPLY:

Dear Mr. Price:

Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County

Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. ...

First of all, Mr. Ryan DeVries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, Michigan - I am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, nor authorize, their dam project, I think they would be highly offended you call their skillful use of natural building materials "debris."

I would like to challenge you to attempt to emulate their dam project any dam time and/or any dam place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no dam way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic.

As to your dam request the beavers first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity, my first dam question to you is: are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers or do you require all dam beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, please send me completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, ...being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws annotated.

My first concern is - aren't the dam beavers entitled to dam legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said dam representation - so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing dam flooding is proof we should leave the dam Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling them dam names. If you want the dam stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition - contact the dam beavers - but if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any dam attention to your dam letter-being unable to read English) - be sure you read them their dam Miranda rights first. As for me, I am not going to cause more dam flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders.

...

In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their dam unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green, and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I to live and enjoy Spring Pond. So, as far as I and the beavers are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more dam elevated enforcement action now. Why wait until 1/31/98?

The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then, and there will be no dam way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem: bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the dam beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office.

Sincerely,
Stephen L. Tvedten

Wow, first a Pace law school Torts prof gets sued for reenacting the famous intent case of Garratt v. Daily (scroll down to “Torts Imitating Life), and now a distinguished Torts professor at the University of Virginia law school has been sued for his teaching of the “eggshell skull” rule.

Professor Kenneth Abraham tapped a student on the shoulder as part of a discussion of the eggshell skull rule, which holds that if an actor tortiously inflicts harm on a person, he is liable for all of the physical (and in some jurisdictions, mental) consequences that result to the person, even if they weren’t reasonably foreseeable.

Talk about irony. According to an Associated Press report of the lawsuit, the student claimed the tap (which she described as a “caress”) caused her to experience disturbing memories of a rape and pregnancy she suffered earlier in her life. She’s seeking $25,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.

As a Torts professor who uses a wide (and sometimes wild) variety of classroom hypotheticals and stunts as teaching tools, these cases terrify me. On the other hand, I regret it never occurred to me to sue my Property professor for intentional infliction of emotional distress for teaching us the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Where else but California would butterflies be protected from molestation? Check out this ordinance of the city of Pacific Grove:

11.48.010 Interference With Prohibited.

It is declared to be unlawful for any person to molest or interfere with, in any way, the peaceful occupancy of the monarch butterflies on their annual visit to the city of Pacific Grove, and during the entire time they remain within the corporate limits of the city, in whatever spot they may choose to stop in, provided, however, that if said butterflies should at any time swarm in, upon or near the private dwelling house or other buildings of a citizen of the city of Pacific Grove in such a way as to interfere with the occupancy and use of said dwelling and/or other buildings, that said butterflies may be removed, if possible, to another location upon the application of said citizen to the chief of police.

I can see it coming. A massive class action asserting equal protection claims on behalf of cockroaches and all other bugs similarly situated under rapidly descending shoe heels and rolled-up newspapers.

Law professors teach students that the law is full of gray areas with very few black or white answers. But there are exceptions. Judge James Barlow, San Antonio, TX, sent in the following title opinion. He reports it was written in 1928 by a title examiner in Prewitt, Texas. The examiner's opinion was sought concerning a title abstract covering "the South 238 plus acres of the Edmundson Survey." The lawyer’s name was Kress Campel. If only all legal advice was so sure-footed:

Don't buy the G__ D___ land.

It has been my sorrow and burden to look over several horrible examples of a title-examiner's nightmare, but this alleged title takes the cutglass flyswatter. It is my private belief that you couldn't cure the defects if you sued everybody from the Spanish Government (who started this mess) on down to the present possessor of the land, who is in there by virtue of a peculiar instrument optimistically designated by the abstractor as a "General Warranty Deed." ...

[The lawyer then points out that the title defects probably cannot be cured by either limitations or laches.]

We might rely on limitation here except that I am reliably informed that nobody has succeeded in living on this land for a longer period than two years, before dying of malnutrition. Laches might help out, but anybody who undertakes to buy land under a title acquired by laches is (to paraphrase Mark Twain) setting out like the man who set out to carry the cat home by the tail -- he is going to acquire experience that will be of great value to him and never grow dim or doubtful.

...

This land has been sold for taxes eight times in the last 40 years. Nobody has ever redeemed one of these tax sales -- glad to be rid of it, no doubt. The last purchaser sued the tax collector a month after he bought it for cancellation of the sale for fraud and misrepresentation. He doubtless had grounds, but the incident will give you a rough idea of what kind of muzzle-loading smooth-bores have been fritzing with the title.

...

The next and most serious defect is a "quit-claim deed containing a general warranty" executed by Ellis Gretzberg (who just appears suddenly out of no where) in the chain of title to one Peter (Prolific) Perkinston. Unfortunately, Perkinston died, leaving two wives and 17 children, the legitimacy of two of them being severely contested. Fortunately, a shooting match between the two sets of claimants assisted the title slightly by reducing the original number to six and substituting eleven sets of descendants.

[He then takes up the deed held by the prospective vendor to his client.]

It is executed by a fair majority of one set of the offspring of Peter (Prolific) Perkinston, and is acknowledged in a manner sufficient to pass a County Clerk with his fee prepaid. Outside of the fact that it doesn't exactly describe the property under search, the habendum clause is to the
grantors, the covenant of general warranty doesn't warrant a thing and it is acknowledged before it is dated, I suppose it is all right.

I would advise you to keep the abstracts, if you can. They are a speaking testimonial to the result of notaries public drawing instruments, county clerks who would put a menu on record if a fee was tendered, and jacklegged jugheads posing as lawyers.

You can buy the land if you so desire. There are 573 people who can give you as good a title as your prospective vendor has, not counting the heirs of the illegitimate son of Prather Linkon who died in the penitentiary in 1889 while serving a term for sodomy.

I verified the story below with the sender - Layne Jeffery - to make sure he wasn't pulling my leg. He assured me the events occurred exactly as described. So here's an entry for the Lawyer's Worst Nightmare:

You wouldn't believe what happened to me the other morning. It all started with the dog throwing up her breakfast all over the carpet right before I was leaving for the office. After taking care of the mess and rushing out the door, I arrived at the office a few minutes before 8:00 am. As a recent graduate and new associate at the law firm, I was to meet the senior partner of our firm at our office by 8:00 because he was driving the two of us to the federal in Minneapolis where I was to be sworn into the Federal Bar in front of a U.S. District Court Judge at 9:00 am.

As I'm getting ready to leave from the office, I suddenly blow the rear end out of my suit pants. Now, I know that the steroids I had been taking for the recent MS I had been stricken by had put some weight on me, but the suit didn't seem to fit that tight, especially in the rear. Well, I guess the seam didn't want to hold any longer because it blew apart, revealing my bright blue boxer shorts!

Quickly, I devised a plan that involved grabbing the stapler from my desk and rushing to the men's room. I then proceeded to throw about 20 staples along the seam of my pants in hopes that they would hold the seam together and get me through the morning. After the staples were in place, I rushed outside where my boss and I departed for the courthouse. I had thought that the worst was over.

When we arrived at the courthouse, I approached the security checkpoint. Security is tight these days due to recent terrorist concerns. Without thinking, I emptied my change, wallet, watch, cell phone, etc. into the small box by the x-ray machine and proceeded to walk through the metal detector. It went off as soon as I entered it. I stepped back and checked myself for anything metal. Thinking I had put everything in the box already, I tried again. It buzzed again.

My boss had already gotten through the detectors and started to laugh because I was now holding up a line a people, it finally dawning on me that it was probably due to the large amount of metal staples holding my butt together. I was waiting for my boss to yell out, "check his butt" which I could see he was barely holding back from saying. Trying not to laugh, I proceeded to one of the security guards where I was checked out further, and finally able to pass through the checkpoint. How embarrassing!
Somehow we made it into court by 9:00 and I was sworn in as planned. Later, I went back in my office hiding behind my desk waiting for the opportunity to get out of there for the day, before the staples gave way.

I'd usually be thinking that I'd need a beer right about then, however it would have to have been a "light beer" because apparently I've gotten to fat to fit into my suits! So ended another week. Oh joy, the holidays are soon arriving!

FUNNIEST LAW REVIEW TITLE: Erik S. Jaffe, "She's Got Bette Davis['s] Eyes": Assessing the Nonconsensual Removal of Cadaver Organs Under the Takings and Due Process Clauses, 90 Columbia Law Review 528 (1990).

("She's Got Bette Davis Eyes" was a smash hit for Kim Carnes in 1981. Originally written by Jackie DeShannon and Donna Weiss in 1974, Carnes took the song to number one on the Billboard charts where it held the top spot for nine weeks.)

A Torts professor at Pace University School of Law in White Plains, NY, is being sued by a former student for allegedly injuring her during a re-enactment of a classic torts case. In the first week of law school, the professor was teaching Garratt v. Dailey, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955), the famous "intent" case in which a 5-year-old boy was sued by an elderly woman for pulling a chair out from under her as she attempted to sit in it.

The plaintiff alleges the professor caused her severe pain and mental anguish when he called her up to the front of the room, told her to sit in a chair, and then pulled it out from under her. According to plaintiff's lawyer, she fell to the floor with a thud, causing her skirt to fly up in front of her peers and aggravating an existing back injury.

Among other claims, the student is suing for battery, the same claim pressed by the plaintiff in Garratt v. Dailey.

Anyone know the statute of limitations for a products liability claim in Austria? A new study says that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s untimely death in Vienna in 1791 may have been caused by eating bad pork cutlets. This theory joins the more than 150 other theories offered over the years to explain the brilliant composer’s death. The major evidentiary support for the pork theory consists of a letter Mozart wrote to his wife 44 days before his death in which he said: “What do I smell? … pork cutlets! Che Gusto. I eat to your health.”

Since the incubation period for trichinosis—caused by eating undercooked pork—is up to 50 days, Dr. Jan V. Hirschmann of the Puget Sound Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Seattle theorizes the pork may have been the cause of death.

Hirschmann’s theory raises several interesting questions, including why is an American veteran’s hospital researching Mozart’s death? Was Mozart a vet?

Even if the products liability claim failed, Mozart’s survivors might have had a good action for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on interference with a corpse. One reason the cause of Mozart’s death has never been definitively determined is because his grave was dug up seven years after his death “so it could be reused.” Nice. Very nice. The AP reports that poor Wolfgang’s remains were simply “dispersed.”

A very-veteran criminal defendant was about to be tried in federal court in Wyoming on bank fraud charges. The allegation was that, while in the county lockup on an unrelated stolen-vehicle charge, he had used the jail phone to call a local bank and, posing as a prominent wealthy individual, persuaded the bank to deliver a cashier's check for $10,000 to the jail for the ostensible purpose of bonding out the man's "nephew" (the nephew's name, of course, being the defendant's own).

The government planned to use the jail's tapes of the phone calls as evidence, and faced the problem of proving that the voice on the tapes was in fact the voice of the defendant. At the final pretrial conference the Assistant United States Attorney, frustrated that the defendant would not stipulate that the voice was his own, announced that he intended to conduct a live, in-court demonstration to let the jury decide the voice identity by comparing the taped voice to the sound of the defendant’s voice reading some preselected text in the courtroom.

The court and counsel began discussing what text the defendant should read to the jury, and rejected various proposals. Finally, the defendant himself brought the discussion to a conclusion by proposing, "How about I read the Fifth Amendment?"

Apparently, there really was a method in Shakespeare’s madness: dope smoking. Several 17th-century clay pipes found on the site of his home may contain marijuana residue, according to South African researchers who were given permission to analyze them by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford-upon-Avon, England. Eight of the pipes contained residue suggestive of marijuana use. Two pipe samples showed evidence of cocaine.
Georgianna Ziegler, a Shakespeare expert, cautioned not to read too much into the findings, emphasizing that marijuana was used in Shakespeare’s times for medical purposes and that there is no evidence that Shakespeare ever used marijuana for pleasure.

I’m not so sure. As the bard once said after smoking his pipe, “The lady, like, doth protest too much, dude.”

Here’s a funny story from the wacky wonderful world of product warnings we live in:

I injured my arm last year—irritated a tendon in the shoulder somehow. The medication I needed for my shoulder made my stomach upset, so my doctor prescribed a second medication to settle my stomach. When I went to pick up the second medication, the pharmacist took a moment to explain the effects ending with, "If it upsets your stomach, take it with some food." I looked at him with a puzzled look and said, "I sure hope it doesn't upset my stomach -- it's supposed to settle my stomach!"

Talk about truth in advertising. You have to give this guy credit and maybe even a job. Here’s a classified ad from the “Employment Wanted” section of the Financial Post in Toronto:

Former Marijuana Smuggler
Having successfully completed a ten year sentence, incident-free, for importing 75 tons of marijuana into the United States, I am now seeking a legal and legitimate means to support myself and my family.

Business experience — Owned and operated a successful fishing business: multi-vessel, one airplane, one island and processing facility. Simultaneously owned and operated a fleet of tractor-trailer trucks conducting business in the Western United States. During this time I also co-owned and participated in the executive level management of 120 people worldwide in a successful pot smuggling venture with revenues in excess of U.S. $100 million annually. I took responsibility for my actions, and received a ten year sentence in the United States while others walked free for their cooperation.

Attributes — I am an expert in all levels of security. I have extensive computer skills, am personable, outgoing, well-educated, reliable, clean and sober. I am well-traveled and speak English, French and Spanish. References available from friends, family, the U.S. District Attorney, etc.