THE CELLPHONE MADE HER DO IT

Gabriella Nagy cheated on her husband. She didn't want him to know (surprise!). But when he accidentally received her cellphone bill, he noticed long calls to an unknown number.  Curious, he called and when pressed, the male responder confessed to an affair with his wife. The husband promptly left Ms Nagy without telling her why. Eventually, she found out and ... she sued the cellphone company for $600,000 for improper release of private information; to wit, her cellphone bill to her husband! Rogers Mobile actually has to defend the case. As of May 2010, the case is set to be heard in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRAW THE MOON DOWN

Lynn Austin was a guest of the Florida Department of Corrections when she field a mandamus claiming that the penitentiary:

"... refused to allow her to observe, participate in, or perform sacred rituals, rites, or ceremonies on the evenings of and/or specified times for ... her Wiccan religion."

 She wasn't asking for much, after all:

"Ms. Austin requested ... that she ... be taken outside for time periods not to exceed one hour when the moon is visible on the dates of the full moon for private ... celebratory rituals."

Something to do with "drawing down of the moon".

Her claim was rejected with the Florida Court of Appeals which stated the obvious, noting that it was "necessarily limited by
the fact of incarceration".

BARBIE, THE EXPERT WITNESS

On March 27, 2002, Ms Terry Williams was involved in an automobile accident with Ms Kellie Meagher. At the time of the collision, Meagher was allegedly using a cellular phone furnished by Cingular. Her claim against Cingular was singularly creative:

"Cingular Wireless was negligent in furnishing a cellular phone to Meagher when it knew, or should have known, that it would be used while the user operated a motor vehicle."

The claim - surprise! - was dismissed but on appeal, her attorney claimed:

"... newly discovered evidence ... a cartoon recently published in the local paper (which) depicted the character “Blondie” talking on her cellular phone while driving and then causing an accident.

The appeal was dismissed but perhaps the biggest surprise is that Cingular Wireless was denied costs.

THE FOREIGN TONGUE RING ACQUITTAL

Brenna Guy alleged that her breathalzyer results were invalid because she had something in her mouth at the time:

"On August 24, 2001, Indianapolis ... pulled Guy’s car over and administered three field sobriety tests, all of which Guy failed. Guy then agreed to submit to a chemical breath test, which (the) Officer administered. Prior to administering the test, (the) Shaffer inspected Guy’s mouth and observed a small stainless steel tongue ring ... not really a ring (but) more like a bar with a ball on each end; in other words, a metal stud. (The) Officer then waited more than twenty minutes before he administered the breath test, but he did not ask Guy to remove the metal stud. Guy’s test results were 0.11%, and the officer placed her under arrest for Operating While Intoxicated. When Guy was booked into jail, she removed her metal stud upon request. Jail personnel returned the metal stud to her upon her release.Guy moved to suppress the results of her breath test."

In a hushed Court of Appeal courtroom, attorneys made representations that a tongue ring was a foreign substance and must of therefore invalidated the breathalyser. Legal dictionaries were referred to as even the judges could not agree between themselves as some lawyers pointed out that in some other states, by analogy, "subject is not required to remove dentures or false teeth before a breath test."

In the end, Guy walked out a free woman, the Court concluding that procedures for the administration of breathalysers must be adhered to strictly:

"... the person to be tested must not have put any foreign substance in her mouth within twenty minutes prior to the time a breath sample is taken. Because Guy had a foreign substance in her mouth not only within twenty minutes of the test, but also during the test, the State cannot show that proper procedures were followed in this case."

VINCENT LAFAYETTE LOMAX © ® ™

Vincent Lafayette Lomax (did we mention his name was Vincent Lafayette Lomax?) waltzed into court to defend himself against a charge of issuing bad checks. That's when the fun began.

Lomax told the court no-one, including the court, could use his name of Vincent Lafayette Lomax because he had a "common-law copyright of trade-name/trade-mark ... right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and the due process right not to have my property taken without -- not -- to be compensated for use of my property without due process".

On January 14, 2004, he appeared before Judge Donald Burrell, not the sharpest tool in the judicial shed, as we shall see.

Anyway, Lomax refused to grant Judge Burrell permission to call him by name. His exact words were: "I'm hesitant to allow you to use my name".

Burrell did not need Lomax's permission to use his name. But Burrell did not know that so, flustered, he held Vincent Lafayette Lomax (it does have a nice ring to it...) in contempt.

So that really lit a flame under Lomax's litigious butt and habeas corpus started flying around like footballs.

Because His Graciousness Honor Mr. Justice Burrell had dropped the football, the Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District had no choice but to throw out the finding of contempt.

REFERENCES: