Oddities and Ironies

     Recent oddities and ironies.
     
     A homeowners group has sued the City of Los Angeles to stop expansion of the Museum of Tolerance. That’s right – no tolerance for increased tolerance.
     A proposed class action has been filed against H&R Block for, among other things, violating California’s Labor Code by “failure to provide itemized statements.” Someone’s looking at an audit….
     Overheard in a courthouse elevator: “He told me to hand some articles about him to the judge.”
     “You can’t just hand things to a judge …. Don’t you watch television?”
     Judge Judy would throw things right back at you.
     This does bring up an interesting question: why can’t you just hand things to a judge?
     Oh sure, there are rules of evidence and procedure against that sort of thing and it’s not really fair to the other side in a case, but should we really care about all that? It’s not as if the judge is going to keep it a secret from the other side.
     And if both sides can freely hand stuff up to the bench, there will almost certainly be cookies and doughnuts involved.
     The courtroom will be a happier place.
      Headline from a recent press release: “Childless Men Jailed for Non-Payment of Child Support.”
     Well, it’s probably true that they haven’t been paying child support.
     Apparently, accused fathers are in need of DNA testing as much as accused murderers. And there are lots of women out there who are terrible witnesses.
     In case you’re wondering, the press release ironically came from a Chicago lawyer whose website is dadsrights.com. Apparently he’s standing up for non-dads too.
      To my shock and surprise, my Sunday Los Angeles Times this week arrived with a slick insert entitled “The National Law Journal Presents Personal Injury Litigators 2009.”
     OK, I’m a bit of a cynic. Somehow, despite the title, this publication didn’t seem like a journalistic effort. The word that immediately formed in my mind was: ad.
     The supplement was filled with posed photos of smiling lawyers, gushing praise, and phone numbers and addresses of said lawyers.
     Sure enough, once I got out my glasses, I found this in tiny print on page 6 of the supplement: “This is paid attorney advertising. Incisive Media, LLC does not warrant that the information contained herein is complete or accurate.”
     Heaven knows, The National Law Journal wouldn’t want to warrant that the information it “presents” is complete or accurate.
     Sigh.
     Here’s one for your collection of phrases you never thought would appear in an appellate ruling: “Waeschle’s alleged constitutionally protected property right to her mother’s brain is therefore not clearly established….”
     The case is Waeschle v. Dragovic from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and it’s about a woman upset that she didn’t get to cremate – not preserve or bury – her mother’s brain along with the rest of her body.
     The urn somehow just didn’t seem full enough.
     By the way, if you don’t think this was a vital issue, take a look at the long list of lawyers involved that precedes the ruling. You can’t discount the importance of brains.

%d bloggers like this: