TresSugar

Nerd Boy Takes His 3-D Animation to Court

GiggleSugar — Thu, 22 May 2008 13:00:00 -0700

When a flying snowball pelted the dude below, one of the lenses in his glasses took the hit and broke. Whoops! Not only did nerd boy take this super serious flyby snowballing case to court, he made an animated 3-D reenactment of the "crime" to give the judge and viewers at home some sense of the pain and trauma he endured that dreadful day. (Cuz a one-sided snowball fight is hard to visualize, you know.)

A Courtroom Smackdown

GiggleSugar — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:00:00 -0700

Who has the time to wait for a judge's verdict? The following woman didn't, so she got her own revenge while exiting the courtroom. It was a childish thing to do, but no more distasteful than the victim's exaggerated and over-dramatic response to the deed. Faking much? You be the judge.

Headline of the Day

GiggleSugar — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:00:00 -0700

N.H. Judge Rhymes Ruling To 'Green Eggs And Ham'

Court rulings have become the stuff of child's play. A New Hampshire inmate filed a lawsuit because prison officials will not feed him a kosher diet. To get the court's attention (or just be a smart ass), the inmate attached a hard-boiled egg to his complaint. The presiding judge responded with:

"I do not like eggs in the file. I do not like them in any style. I will not take them fried or boiled. I will not take them poached or broiled. I will not take them soft or scrambled Despite an argument well-rambled...No fan I am Of the egg at hand. Destroy that egg! Today! Today! Today I say! Without delay!"

Long live Dr. Seuss! To read more, click here.

Source

61 Year Old Phone Sex Operator

GiggleSugar — Tue, 08 May 2007 13:00:00 -0700

Sue here has been "pleasuring men on a phone conversation line" since 1988 and she's not ashamed one bit. In fact, she gives Judge Mathis an in-person sample of her sexy time talk and, needless to say, the bailiff had to come to his rescue. I'm surprised Mathis didn't turn around and sue her for damages!

The People's Court: What's Your Verdict?

GiggleSugar — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:00:00 -0800

A not so little known show called The People's Court is in its ninth season of broadcast. Seriously, people--what the hell are we watching here? (You know you're guilty of tuning in at some point or another.) The show attributes itself to the rise of the entire "television court show genre" because it was the first to feature an hour's worth of "real litigants...real cases...real justice...all year long!" Right. I think the people and cases featured on the show are about as legitimate as the following Mad TV parody. So what's your verdict on The People's Court?

World Wide Web of Justice: People's Court RAW

CitizenSugar — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:15:14 -0700

I'll admit, in my youth I abused TV courtroom dramas. Hey, I was young, it was summertime, and the talkshow/reality TV circuit was in its nascent stages. That's why to this day I can recite the whole opening to The People's Court. You know, "both parties have agreed to dismiss their court cases and have their disputes settled here, in our forum, The People's Court.

You can imagine my excitement about this: People's Court Raw. It takes the court concept and smashes it into YouTube, letting bickering parties upload videos of their side of the argument, and letting the Internet community decide who wins. This is why the Internet was invented - so we can all be Judge Wapner. It's so brilliant, it just might work.

Cases on the docket now and open for voting: "Why do we need 4,000 giant dog beds?" and "Do you think it's OK if guys show emotion and cry?" That's it folks, you won't hear another peep from me today, I'm going to being playing bailiff on this site.

Would you submit a case for adjudication by a jury of your Internet peers? What question would you like settled? Is it even worth it without Doug Llewelyn asking the tough questions in the lobby?

Alabama Supreme Court to Women: No Sex Toys For You!

TresSugar — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:00:00 -0700

Love Stuff, a sex toy shop in Hoover, AL, recently filed a challenge to strike down a 1998 law that bans the sale of sex toys. Alas, anyone who wants to buy sex toys in Alabama will have to go elsewhere. The Alabama Supreme Court upheld the state's ban in a 7-2 decision on Friday, arguing against Love Stuff's claim that the ban violated a person's right to sexual privacy.

The Legislature argued that although you can still use your Pearl Rabbit in private, they have the right to ban its public distribution. In a statement that could easily have been written by the satirists of The Onion, the 11th Circuit stated in its majority opinion, "There is nothing 'private' or 'consensual' about the advertising and sale of a dildo."

In arguing that regulating commercial activity is not a private activity (and hence doesn't fall under Love Stuff's challenge that the law is a violation of privacy), Associate Justice Michael F. Bolin claims that the law banning the sale of sex toys is an issue of public morality. Do you see any connection between morality and the sale of sex toys? Does the court's view of sex toys and their sale seem outdated to you?

Court to Take on Reverse Discrimination, Voting Rights

LibertySugar — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:00:48 -0800

Change may come to America in the form of new standards in civil rights. On Friday, the US Supreme Court decided that it would hear two cases, one dealing with work discrimination and the other with voting discrimination. Depending on how the court rules later this year, these cases could change the landscape of US civil rights law.

The first case involves Connecticut firefighters who say that even though they scored highest on the exam, they were not given promotions because they were white. Instead, the test was scrapped after no minorities qualified, and the promotions were given to African Americans. The white firefighters have lost their legal battles so far, as lower courts ruled that federal law forbids exams that have a disproportional impact on minorities.

The other law in question, a provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, requires 16 mostly southern states to get federal clearance before making a change to their local voting rules. A lower court ruled last Spring that Congress was reasonable to determine that voting discrimination still persists, thus upholding the clearance requirement.

The election of the first African American president has sent a strong signal that national race relations have changed in the US, but organizations like the NAACP point out that a lot of work remains. Do you think it's time for the Supreme Court to strike down laws that help promote minority working and voting rights?

Source

Court Case Against God Tossed Out For Lack of Address

CitizenSugar — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:00:55 -0700

Ernie Chambers, A Nebraskan State Senator has been issued a setback in his lawsuit against God. That's right. God. He says the Lord Almighty has made threats against him and his electorate in Omaha and is responsible for "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants." His setback however, hasn't come in the form of a lightning bolt or a plague of frogs but rather from the court itself. It turns out that the judge has thrown out the suit because no home address could be furnished.

The lawsuit, Senator Chambers says, was filed to make the point that all persons should be able to have access to the courts regardless of wealth. Regardless of the reason, Douglas County District Court Judge Marlon Polk was steadfast: "Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice." Not being dismayed by the law . . . or reason (?) Chambers believes he has a hole in this ruling: "The court itself acknowledges the existence of God. A consequence of that acknowledgment is a recognition of God's omniscience. Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit."

Source

California Supreme Court Overturned Gay Marriage Ban

LibertySugar — Thu, 15 May 2008 10:56:15 -0700

Just moments ago, the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The court held that "to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

The court ruled 4-3. Unless overturned by the US Supreme Court, gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California. The SF Chronicle reports that:

Outside the city clerk's office, three opposite-sex couples were waiting at 10 a.m. for marriage certificates. City officials had prepared for a possible rush on certificates by same-sex couples, but hadn't yet changed the forms that ask couples to fill out the name of the "bride" and "groom."

The case goes back to February 2004, when SF Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of their gender because he doubted the constitutionality of the state marriage law. California's highest court just agreed with him.

Source