That's An Emergency All Right

Sylvester Stallone's son, Sage Moonblood (yes, Moonblood), was found dead the other day.  He was only 36, so one would have to think that there was something afoot other than natural causes.  But really, in the grand scheme of things, who cares?  Well, it would seem like the lawyer for the young Mr. Stallone cares quite a bit because he's going out of his way to give reasons for the death that I find to be rather amusing. 

Well, for starters, I know that the lawyer saying that a "health emergency" could have caused his death is one of the more amusing attempts at spin that I've heard in quite some time.  That's according to the Daily News. A health emergency! Yes, I'd say that anything that your body is going through that causes your subsequent demise is indeed a "health emergency"!  That's just a silly thing to say. 

Look, it seems likely at this point that the guy died from an overdose of prescription medication.  OK, fine.  Accidents happen.  But for some reason, people just do not like to admit when a celebrity has made a mistake that kills them.  And I don't get that.  Dead is dead and at that point, how they came to be dead is probably the least of the worries that one should have.  Then again, I'm not a celebrity (thank God), so what do I know? 

Sphere: Related Content

Jacket Jackass

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you're a lawyer. OK, let's say that you're a douchebag lawyer. (I realize that's not much of a stretch for you to make and that's the only reason why I threw that in. It's not like I want to make reading this blog some sort of chore for any of you.) And let's say that you're in an airport. Not just any airport. Let's say that you're in the airport in Houston. With me so far? You're a douchebag lawyer at an airport in Houston. Good. Continue.

While at said Houston airport, you decide that you're a hungry douchebag and stop at one of the food vendors at the airport food court. Let's say...pizza. Pizza it is. You stop for pizza. Maybe at a place named Famiglia. Maybe not. You're not sure. But what you are pretty sure of is that you want to take off your coat. And not just any coat. You want to take off your Polo leather coat, size extra large (that's XL in clothing lingo) and sporting a spiffy plaid lining and cost you $800. That's right. $800. (I said you were a douchebag lawyer. Why are you surprised?) Still with me? You're coatless and enjoying pizza in the airport. Got it? Good. Continue.

Then, after consuming your pizza, you leave and catch your flight. Oh, wait a minute. You seem to have forgotten your jacket! Dang it! Well, crap. You can always call when you land and see if it's been turned in somewhere. I mean, it probably hasn't. After all, it had a plaid lining! If someone just saw that bad boy lying around without an owner, how long do you think it would last? Ahhh...see? You're with me, aren't you? I thought so!

Now, at some point after you've landed, you call the airport. You call the food court. You call the pizza joint, whatever it was called. No such luck. None of them have your coat. Bummer. Well, I guess the only thing left for you to do is to sue the City of Houston, sue Continental Airlines, and sue the management company of the food court. Wait. What now?

Correct. Meet a one 62-year old William Ogletree. He's a lawyer at Ogletree & Abbott, a law firm in Houston. He is said douchebag alluded to above in my not-so-hypothetical scenario that I laid out. All of those hypothetical things really did happen to Mr. Ogletree and he really is suing all three entities because he believes that they failed to keep his coat in a safe place for him. Wait. They what?

That's right. For some reason, Mr. Ogletree does not seem to be a big believer in personal responsibility. Seriously. He forgets his coat and he thinks that because someone else didn't pick up after him that they are at fault for his coat disappearing. It's an $800 leather coat. What did he think was going to happen to it if he left it lying around? (I'm assuming that the sharp plaid lining wasn't noticeably visible.)

But he is, in fact, suing all three. What a jackass. He states that, in order to avoid everyone "blaming each other" in court "...all of the three entities need to come to an agreement on which party is responsible and notify me (Mr. Jackass), in writing, signed by all three". Uh-huh. He also feels the need to throw in "I am looking forward to discovering how all of you deal with lost property in the airport. I suspect that your record is dismal and that employee theft runs rampant." Well then. (You can click to enlarge the images above and below if you'd like to read this douchebaggery for yourself. If they don't enlarge correctly, try over here at The Smoking Gun. They have this in perfectly readable form. After all, that's where I found it.)

The part of his own argument that Mr. Ogletree fails to grasp is the part which includes the term "lost". Lost property. Property that is lost. It's lost. It's gone. It can't be found. Hence the term, lost! On top of that, who is the one who lost it in the first place? That's right! NOT the airport. NOT the food court! And certainly NOT the airline! (How did he think that he could drag the airline into this whole mess? The plane had nothing to do with it!) How in the world is this anyone's fault other than Mr. Ogletree's?!

I have no idea what Mr. Ogletree's perception of what it means to take responsibility for one's self, but I'm guessing that it's a lot different than mine. While I find it ridiculous that anyone should have to answer to such an asinine lawsuit, I certainly hope that none of the three parties involves caves into this extortionist. You're a grown man, sir. You lost your coat! It's your fault! Get over it! And buy yourself a new coat while you're at it. You're going to need it because I highly doubt you have much of a case here. Moron.

Sphere: Related Content

Maybe Next Time Go Greyhound?

Well, I did not see this coming. Brace yourself. That's right. According to the Associated Press, OJ Simpson "...feels hopeful he will win a new trial on appeal." Of course he does. And why would that be? Oh, right. "...because he believes jury interviews show "he was absolutely railroaded." Railroaded? Is that what they're calling it in prison these days? Railroading? (I don't know what your other options would be there, OJ. What's the alternative? Going Greyhound?)

Is anyone surprised, anyone, that OJ Simpson, OJ "I Vow To Find The Real Killers Because They Must Be Somewhere Over Here On This Golf Course" Simpson, feels that his egotistic, narcissistic, self-important ass got a raw deal? (Oh, he's in prison, huh? In that case, pun intended.) No. The single most surprised person that OJ was actually convicted of anything is, in fact, OJ! Of course he can't believe it and believes the system is screwed up. (He is SOOOO missing Johnnie Cochran right about now!) Let me tell you, if anyone on this planet should be hailing the basic principles that make up the justice system in this country, it is none other than OJ Simpson. He should be a huge fan of our justice system. HUGE. (Although, I'm guessing that, up until about a week ago, he probably was.)

OJ seems to feel "...very hopeful now, especially after the jury interviews. He knows that he was absolutely railroaded." This coming from his laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank attorney Yale Galanter. Both OJ and his lawyer believe that the jury foreman, a one Paul Connelly, should not have been on the jury because he "intimated that he thought Simpson should have been imprisoned 13 years ago" for that little to-do down in LA that he was miraculously acquitted of. OK, find me one person other than those that were on that jury 13 years ago that does NOT believe that he did it. ONE sane person. There aren't any. None. I checked. There are none. So that they think that the jury foreman "intimated" that he believed Simpson was guilty 13 years ago (and, technically, still is guilty) is not a shocker. They, of course, don't say how he "intimated" this, but just that he did. (I hope they're not counting the eyeball rolling and head shaking that everyone does whenever they hear OJs name. That's just a natural reaction, not an intimation. If everyone does it, it's not like you're so special if you do it too.)

Galanter goes as far as to say "He should not have been on that jury." Um, dude...little secret here I want to let you in on....YOU helped CHOOSE the jury! YOU agreed to having this guy on the jury! YOU! That was YOU! Actually, ALL of those jurors, YOU had to agree to have them serve! If he shouldn't have been on the jury, why'd you let him on?! It's not like they spin the Wheel of Jurors and whoever it lands on, you get. Doesn't work like that. Not usually.

The part that just kills me is how Galanter says that "...it was surprising that jurors said they were most influenced by surreptitious audio recordings made by collectibles dealer Tom Riccio during the six-minute hotel room confrontation." It was? Surprising, you say? Here's a guy who, made a tape recording of the whole ordeal. (So that he could sell it later, of course. Don't get me wrong. OJ was totally set up by these morons who wanted to profit off of him. I don't doubt that for a minute. It doesn't change the reasons why OJ went along with them. It doesn't change that he did what he did. He could have believed that they knew of people who had OJ's belongings and then done something that normal people would have done, like file a police report. But for the many, many shady and sneaky reasons that ARE OJ Simpson, he didn't and instead chose to go busting into a hotel room with a bunch of felons with guns. Makes for a good audio recording for sale, doesn't it?) This guy's recording has OJ clearly saying "Nobody leaves this room." That, under Nevada law, is enough to constitute kidnapping. Yes, how surprising that the jurors would focus on what OJ actually did and said. A shock to say the very least. Please.

Galanter had hoped that the jury was going to focus on other things. Things like "Anything that's not mine, give it back." Riiiiight. To show how honest he is, correct? He had also hoped they would have heard OJ say "You can't lie. You can't lie. You've got to tell the truth.'" OK, look, if I'm on that jury, that is the last thing I want to hear anyone, especially OJ, say in that situation. You can't lie?! Really?? So it's lying where you're drawing the line in this situation? Busting into the hotel room, people with guns, not letting people leave, taking things by force, all of that is OK with you, but lying is simply out of the question?! Yes, it is perplexing as to how on earth the jury overlooked that detail. Amazing.

They are also focusing in on the testimony that people had guns. OJ and his folks are trying to say that there wasn't a gun because no one mentioned a gun being shown. Other than in testimony. Testimony says "We had guns". But according to Galanter, "If I'm in a room and somebody pulled a gun, the first thing I would expect to hear is, 'Put that thing away,' or 'No need for that.' But in the six minutes, there is nothing said to indicate a gun was present." Nothing was said? See, that's not going to help you much. Because if there was a gun, the people who went in there with the guns knew it and they wouldn't say anything. And the people who are having a gun pointed at them? They're not going to say much either. They're just going to start rounding up all of their OJ Simpson trading cards and putting them in the pillowcases like it's Halloween and they're getting rid of all of their candy as quick as they can so that they can turn off the porch light.

I have no idea whether there were guns or not. I mean, seriously, just look at them up there. Can you trust any of them any farther than you can throw them? With or without their guns? The jury says that on the audio recording, there is mention of a "piece". And the guys who had all of their charges dropped in exchange for their testimony against OJ said that there were guns, for whatever that's worth. But I'm with the jury as far as how they went about their deliberations. They said that, basically, they couldn't trust ANY of those people that took the stand because they're all convicted felons and liars. So they went strictly by the evidence. If the evidence has someone talking about a "piece", I'm not guessing it's a piece of pie.

And in the desperation angle, Galanter is blaming the judge, a one Jackie Glass, for unreasonable time constraints during which to file an appeal, according for the sunny folks over there at the Las Vegas Sun. "She didn't give us the time we need to do a full-fledged motion." Whining is soooo unbecoming when it's coming out of the mouths of lawyers. Didn't give you enough time? Were you the only two people who did not see this coming? You probably should have planned ahead a little bit better.

So in the meantime, OJ sits in his itty bitty cell over there in Nevada with moods that alternate between "melancholy and hopeful." Perhaps once, just once, his mood could alternate between "accepting responsibility for what he's done and shutting the hell up." While that would be a welcome mood change for everyone who is sick of hearing about this guy, the one who it could and would ultimately help the most in the end is OJ himself. And considering that at this point, there isn't a whole lot else out there that IS going to be able to help him any more, he might want to think about it. Then again, he might not want to. After all, who knows what else he has to think about?

Sphere: Related Content

Lawsuit Legitimacy 101

Today's "I'm A Moron And I'm Going To Waste Everyone's Time By Filing A Ridiculous And Erroneous Lawsuit Just To See If I Can Get A Few Bucks Out Of Someone Because I Am A Sneaky Weasel" segment comes to us from West Valley City, Utah. For those of you unfamiliar with the little sections of Utah, allow me. West Valley isn't quite ghetto, but it's aspiring to be. That should paint a pretty picture for you.

According to the folks at the mediocre Salt Lake Tribune, a one Richard Cleaveland, an employee of Frito-Lay for approximately 10 years, filed a lawsuit against the tasty chip maker because he claims that he "faced discrimination after he complained about hauling Christmas trees, saying it made him uncomfortable because of his Jewish faith." Naturally, he is seeking a minimum of $100,000 in damages.

I'll get to other details in a second. But for right now, here's a question: Frito-Lay is in the Christmas Tree business? Since when? I don't recall seeing any crispy snack goodness tree lots during the holiday seasons come past. Is this new?

OK, back to the insanity. Are you freaking kidding me, dude? Apparently, he is not. Cleaveland, in addition to shoving that "a" into his name where it just doesn't look right, claims that he "...voiced his discomfort in December 2004 and was denied his religious accommodation request." Now, I'd be interested to know exactly HOW it is or was that hauling the trees, ie, driving a truck full of trees, being a truck tree driver, how THAT made him uncomfortable because he is Jewish? Good thing I asked because his lawyer, a one weaselly P. Corper James (Corper?) answered that question by saying "How hauling pine trees might be an affront to faith is less important than the retaliation that followed." Translation: He didn't give a fat rat's ass about hauling the trees, but the both of us might be able to make a quick buck off of this one.

According to the article, "The complaint alleges that since making his request, Cleaveland has been subjected to insults and jokes and "forced to observe other Christmas traditions." It says he's been slapped with worse shifts, faced disciplinary notice he'd never received before, denied jobs he'd gotten in the past and has faced difficulty in securing wages. All of this has amounted to "a hostile work environment," one that's reportedly harmed Cleaveland both emotionally and financially."

Well, of course he was subjected to "insults and jokes". That's what your co-workers DO when you make some pansy ass complaint with religion as it's weak, weak basis and expect to be taken seriously. Especially if you're not a particularly religious chap.

The weaselly attorney who is clearly perpetuating the filing of ridiculous lawsuits, tried to use Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explain to people (who have already figured out that the lawsuit is a racket, and not in a good way) why this is supposed to be important. He said that "An employee can make a religious accommodation request, and that employee is protected from any retaliatory conduct as a result of the request." Fair enough. But I'm still a little unclear on the part about how the $100,000 minimum is going to help "protect" him. Oh, that's right. It's not.

Now, even if I were to briefly consider his point of view (and I use the term "briefly" loosely, as it's really going to amount to a few seconds at best), I'd have to say that his argument is weak at best. Unless the "retaliatory conduct" is coming directly from the person to whom he made the request, then he's got nothing. But co-workers who find out that this guy's feelings got all hurt because he can't get out of tree hauling duty for the chip makers (I'm still perplexed as to the connection between Frito-Law and the Christmas tree commodity is) and then they start giving him a hard time, (perhaps by swiping his yarmulke every Friday) that's called normal or, at the very least, expected.

And when this shyster-y lawyer says that "HOW the pine tree hauling affected him isn't as important as the retaliation that followed", he's completely wrong on that one. The HOW is absolutely the most important part. If it's clear (which it seems to be to me) that moving around a bunch of trees had NO affect on this guy, then I see nothing out of the ordinary if his co-workers give him a hard time about it. In fact, I'd worry about the co-workers if they didn't give someone a hard time about trying to pull a stunt like this. Please.

I'd also like to know what he means by being "forced to observe other Christmas traditions". Like what? Like how? Oh, let me guess! They gave you the day off on Christmas?! WITH pay?! Those bastards!

Things like this greatly annoy me. It's a frivolous lawsuit at best and I, for one, will be shocked, just shocked if he wins. I can't imagine that he would. If people want to file lawsuits that are based on a technicality in a theory, they really need to look into finding a new hobby or something because they have way too much free time on their hands. And if they really want people to at least TRY to take them seriously (or at least, more seriously) they should really try not asking for any money in their suit. THAT'S when we'll know if they really feel like they're being screwed over. (You might notice that doesn't happen a whole heck of a lot. And what does that tell you?)

Sphere: Related Content

Terrorist Wants A Nose Job

So down there in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba (referred to on occasion as "Gitmo". I'm not sure why. I don't know that they're "gitting" anything out of those guys down there. Sometimes, the media comes up with these little catch phrases or pet names for people and/ or places that are just grating as hell. Brangelina, TomKat, Gitmo, the View.), we have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is the guy who allegedly was the architect (yes, architect. Just like Mike Brady, that is correct.) for the September 11th terrorist attacks on the US. He's also thought to be the one responsible for the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl. Now that's one heck of a name there, so expect mainstream media to shorten it to something a little more catchy any day now. Something like "KaSheMo". (Or, if they're looking to be completely childish and sophomoric, they'll start making stuff up and calling him Hussbein Phartine or Aussheet Modraurs.) I'm going with Sheiky.

You might remember when Sheiky was captured at the beginning of March, 2003 by the fine folks in our military (thanks guys). He wasn't exactly looking his best that day. Dude, if you're on the run in the hot-ass mountains of Pakistan, I understand the need to stay cool, but choose a better shirt before you leave the cave or the spider-hole in the morning.

At first, I couldn't figure out who this guy looked like. Then I realized that if Rosie O'Donnell and Ron Jeremy had a secret love child, it would be Sheiky. Seriously. Look at these guys and then look at him. Secret love child, I'm telling you.

(For those of you not familiar with who Ron Jeremy is, good for you. He's a porn star known for his, well, thing that porn stars are known for.)

But back to Sheiky. He doesn't look quite like that during his "military tribunal" hearing down in Guantanamo. No, he looks quite different. Courtroom artist Janet Hamlin came up with this rendition of Sheiky (no cameras are allowed in the courtroom, so the closest that we're going to get to seeing what goes on is through this chick and her crayons. It's a good thing she's good, otherwise we'd be getting courtroom sketches that look like this:)

But I digress. Back to the "military tribunal". So this guy is on trial for killing 2,973 people on September 11, 2001. He's not overly thrilled with the system, by the way. Yes, I know that comes as a complete surprise to you. Basically, he told the court that he rejected his American lawyers because they represent a country that allows same sex marriages. ( Interesting. Exploding planes into buildings is OK for this guy. But two chicks getting married, well, that's going just a bit too far, eh? Spare me.) And for some reason, the judge felt the need to continually point out to him that the lawyers were being furnished "free of charge". I understand the premise behind that information, but I think that the guy has things other than his finances on his mind right now. Like his martyrdom.

Sheiky told the judge, "I am looking to be martyr for long time. I will, God willing, have this by you." After the judge reminded him that he could get the death penalty, he then referred to the trial as an "inquisition" and said, "It's an inquisition. It's not a trial. After torturing they transfer us to inquisition-land in Guantanamo." (It sounds as if five years at Guantanamo was plenty of time for Sheiky to get a firm grip on the English language. Well, at least he made use of his time.)

So you get the picture. He's being accused (mainly because he did it) of orchestrating the 09/11 attacks and he's looking at the death penalty is convicted. But what is the one thing that he absolutely had to have taken care of? Correct. The representation of his nose in the courtroom sketches. Wait. What?

Sheiky was shown the sketch by artist Janet Hamlin during a court break. Apparently a court security officer has to sign off on the drawings before they are cleared for release for public viewing. Well, Sheiky took one look at that and was not pleased. He said that Janet got his nose completely wrong and suggested that she use the FBI photo taken after his capture in Pakistan in 2003 as a guide for drawing his nose. Dude! Focus here! Fo-cus! (By the way, one of the other defendants, Walid bin Attash (who I am tempted to call "Asshat" for short, but I won't), was thrilled with how he was portrayed. "Oh, look, that's me! That's great!" Glad you like it. Whatever.

But Hamlin, being obviously more gracious that I would have been (or ever am) , conceded that "his nose wasn't flattering." According to the fine folks over there at the Wall Street Journal, "She pulled out her pastels and worked over Mr. Mohammed's proboscis." Hamlin said that she "shortened it and slimmed it down." She also said,"I knew the nose was actually too big so I was laughing. Surprised, but I was glad to fix it." And she did. Behold! Sheiky!

See? She's good, isn't she? He's not looking so much like Ron and Rosie's love child now, though. No, now he appears to be the secret offspring of George Burns and Moses. Now, it had been my original intention to really bag on Janet for changing the drawing. I had thought she just should have told him to go pound sand (they have a lot of that over yonder; he'd probably be good at it.). But, you know, I get it. It's a trial and, if nothing else, honoring a request by someone that they be depicted factually, regardless of what a soul-less a-hole they may be, is probably the correct thing to do. And she's very talented. I was impressed. She has a blog and a website that you can check out should you feel the need.

So, you can see where this whole ordeal ranks as far as importance goes with ol' Sheiky there. It's obviously all about him first and screw everyone else. I hope this military tribunal thing does what it's supposed to do and the way it's supposed to do it. However, there really should be a provision in the procedure somewhere to address what happens if the guy wants to play martyr and fire his gay loving lawyers and be put to death. I say, if that's what you ask for (even though you know your lawyers are free of charge!), we just double check with you a few times to make sure that you're sure and then someone walks you out back and someone shoots you. There you go. Simple enough. Hey, he's a guest in this country! We should give him what he wants! If he wants to be put to death, I see no reason why we can't make that accommodation for him. (For cryin' out loud, we make every other accommodation for them. Why should this be any different?)

Sphere: Related Content

Can You Hear Me Now? That's Not So Good

You wouldn't think that the telephone could cause so many problems. Or be blamed for so many things. Actually, you'd probably think that there would be only a small number of things that you actually could blame on the phone. After all, it's a phone. But a woman in Tunis (that's in Tunisia. See how they did that?) has claimed that she was raped. During a phone call. By the guy on the other end of the phone. That is correct.

This from the fine, but very vague, folks over there at UPI. According to them, a 20-year old womand was having a phone conversation with a 30-year old man. The man says he never touched her, a seemingly believable defense since he was on the other end of the PHONE. While he didn't touch her, he DID say that he heard her scream (when they were "totally into" their erotic phone conversation) and that she reported bleeding. OK, stop. Wait. What?

She reported bleeding? To HIM? Honey, that's probably the reason why you're having "erotic conversations" on the phone with guys instead of just going out and getting a little. Guys don't want to all of a sudden hear that you're bleeding. Actually, women don't want to hear that either. A bit of discretion, ma'am. That's all we're asking.

The lawyer who is representing the family who is alleging that their daughter was raped, a one Maha al-Metebaa (Anyone else thinking about sheep right now?), said that this case needs careful investigation (do ya think?) because it has unprecedented allegations. (I should say that it does! Not only are they "unprecedented" they're also rather "unfounded".) The lawyer said that a medical examination determined that the 20-year old woman was no longer a virgin. (Ohhhh. OK. Do you see where this is going? Or, more accurately, do you see where this (she) has been?)

al-Metebaa said, "The intercourse did take place with all its details but verbally only. The sexual act did not really happen because the physical proximity factor is not there, yet it happened because there is a direct physical impact – the loss of virginity." Ah, geez.

So, because she's no longer a "virgin" and she said that during this conversation is when it happened, then it's true? Because she's not a virgin? Of course, there is absolutely NO possibility at all that she could have, oh, I don't know, lost her virginity at an earlier time and used this ridiculous story as a way to cover that up? Lost her virginity, misplaced it, forgot she had it, something like that. Bottom line: Has had sex before. More than once. Is lying her ass off.

And someone has to ask, so it might as well be me. Was there a wombat involved?

This definitely gives new meaning to "Reach out and touch someone."

Sphere: Related Content

Can We Protest The Protest?

As long as I was recently on the subject of the FLDS polygamist compound and other subjects that could be seen as being related to the FLDS fiasco (ie, penis theft), I figured I should probably add this. But I'm not happy about it.

Yes, there are a lot of people out there who are opposed to the whole polygamist lifestyle, but there are also a whole lot of people out there who are all in favor of the polygamist lifestyle (mainly the polygamists). Regardless as to if you think it's OK, it's against the law, so you just can't do it. If you'd like to work to get the laws changed, I think that is just a fan-tabulous idea. But until then, you really can't bitch too loudly when your gaggle of women is taken away from you. And even if you're not the one with the gaggle of women at your sexual beck and call, you still can't bitch. Apparently, some people didn't get that memo.

One of those who seems to be unclear on this concept would be Robert Breeze, an attorney in Salt Lake. Actually, this isn't the only concept Bob is unclear on. He also seems to be unclear on the fact that there is NO relationship between NBA basketball playoffs and the FLDS polygamist sect in Texas. That's the only reason I can come up with (other than he's dumber than a box of hair) for him to be calling for a protest rally Thursday night and Saturday night outside of the Energy Solutions Arena in Salt Lake when the Utah Jazz will be playing the Houston Rockets. (Side note: GO JAZZ!)

The following is from the blog "The Polygamy Files: The Tribune's blog on plural life" by Brooke Adams, the polygamy reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune. Brooke received the following notice from Breeze:

Protest Rally

Let the children go home!

Event: Utah Jazz vs. Houston Rockets

Dates: 4-24-08 and 4-26-08

Time: 6:30pm & 8:30pm (Right before Jazz game starts)

Place: In front of the Energy Solutions Arena, Salt Lake City, Utah

Make your own signs!

Examples: ''Shame on Texas!'' ''You messed up, Texas'' ''CPS = Gestapo'' ''Let the children go home!'' ''Stop Breaking Up Families!'' ''Free the Children'' ''Don't Trample Our Rights'' ''Guilty Before Charged?'' ''Star of David Moot with DNA'' ''CPS = Nazi's'' ''CPS = KGB'' ''CPS plays God again'' or bring your own idea.

Purpose: For nationwide coverage of American Citizens protesting against the civil rights violations of the families in Eldorado, Texas. Houston is coming to town to play the Jazz for the playoffs and will have sufficient coverage to reach the whole nation.

This rally is being sponsored by Bob Breeze, a Salt Lake City Attorney, who is concerned for the civil rights of these families in Texas. He has prepared letters to the Utah Jazz and Houston Rockets demanding they cancel the remainder of their playoff games as a sign of solidarity and respect for the citizens of Texas (former residents of Utah) who have had their homes raided and their children taken.For more information, contact Bob Breeze at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

*******

Let's see...how do I approach this? Oh, that's right. I know. WTF?!

Maybe I'm missing something here, as I can see no clear relationship between the FLDS polygamist sect in Texas and an NBA playoff game. (Although.....there IS only ONE basketball and TEN guys on the court. Maybe that's where he got confused. Whatever it is, this guy is nuts.) The picture below clearly illustrates the differences between the FLDS and the NBA.

Look, the NBA and the FLDS have NOTHING to do with each other! I don't care if one team is from Utah and the other team is from Texas. That has nothing to do with it! You should NOT be having a protest about anything in a setting that is totally removed from the issue that you are trying to protest. And you really shouldn't protest something that is totally moronic. If you would like to protest that the civil rights that were violated were those of the young girls who were being raped by older men who were satisfying their own perverted and narcissistic desires under the guise of a religion, feel free, Bob. But regardless, do it somewhere other than outside of an NBA playoff game.

By the way, Bob? Just because you're supplying the paint for this idiotic art project of yours, doesn't make your sign slogan suggestions there any less lame. What the hell does "Star of David Moot with DNA" mean anyway? Who the hell is David Moot?

And "cancel the remainder of their playoff games"? Then what? You are clearly unfamiliar with how the whole playoff system works. You are also clearly unfamiliar with your own sanity.

There's another implication of a stupid stunt like this that just burns my toast. It's not like Utah has all that great of a PR image as it is, and that's unfortunate because it's really not as bad or as weird as it sometimes gets made out to be. It's a great place and I miss it (on occasion). And there's great people who live there, people who are NOT polygamists, people who are NOT raping underage girls, people who do NOT agree with the FLDS sect, people who are NOT breaking the laws. But when protests like these end up getting some national exposure, it's not exactly an image booster for Utah.

Utah is a great place and it's full of a lot of great people and a few nutjobs like Bob Breeze. It's unfortunate that in situations like these, you only hear about the nutjobs. But Bob isn't representative of Utah overall. He's only a representative of anyone who shows up for his rally. So if you're going to make any judgments about this whole dealio, hopefully it will be that the Utah Jazz rule and that the Rockets are going get their ass kicked. Oh, and that you should never hire Bob Breeze if you're in the market for a competent individual to serve as your defense attorney.

By the way, protesting ridiculous causes in ridiculous manners is not something that Robert Breeze is unfamiliar with. In August of 2006, Breeze was the organizer of the "Death to Israel" rally that he held in Salt Lake in anticipation of a visit by President Bush. At that time, Breeze stated his goal was to "protest the torture and murder inflicted on Muslims by Israel and the penetration of the U.S. media by Israeli intelligence." Breeze and his group, The Center to Prevent Corporate Media Lying, had previously protested in front of KSL studios against the media coverage of the Iraq war. His "protesters" included residents from local homeless shelters who were paid for their participation in his event. Breeze called them "vicarious protesters." ("Vicarious" meaning "delegated".) I call them "fake protesters". When Breeze was asked if he wanted to see Israel eliminated and he replied, "The President of Iran has an excellent idea. . . . I would like to see them move Israel to Virginia and put all the current Virginians in a concentration camp. Then we'll see how popular Israel is in the United States." WTF?

Sphere: Related Content

Platypus-ian Closing Arguments - Finally

It's almost over. The trial of Hans Reiser is almost at a much anticipated and long overdue end. Prosecutor Paul Hora will finish up his rebuttal closing arguments tomorrow morning and then the judge will give the jury instructions and then....let the deliberations begin!

Naturally, there had to be just a bit more hilarity before this thing was over. Defense attorney William DuBois is sticking with his "my client is a platypus" theme and continued to project images of platypi on a screen in the courtroom. (I'm assuming he also continued referring to said platypi as "Hans", just so we don't forget that "platypus" = "Hans". While that's very considerate and thorough, I doubt anyone is going to forget that "platypus" = "Hans". Ever.)

Mr. DuBois did add an element to his description of Hans and that was that Hans is "an eccentric". And just so everyone would be clear on his definition of "eccentric", he projected onto the courtroom screen a page from Wikipedia that discusssed eccentricity, telling the jury, "I wanted to know what that was." So he read the following from the page,""This behavior would typically be perceived as unusual or unnecessary, without being demonstrably maladaptive." After that, Du Bois added, "Whatever that means." Wait. What? HE doesn't know what that meant, but he's reading it to the jury and expecting them to know what it means? Dude, back to platypus. Back to platypus!!

He continued with "Eccentricity is contrasted with "normal" behavior, the nearly universal means by which individuals in society solve given problems and pursue certain priorities in everyday life. For people who consistently display benignly eccentric behavior, there is a label: 'eccentrics'." He then stopped reading and told the jury, "Prosecutors say he isn't normal. I'll stipulate to that. He's not normal. I'm sorry Hans," he said to the platypus Hans. (Look, nothing is normal about this whole ordeal! Not Hans! Not Mr. DuBois! And certainly not the freakish platypus! NOTHING is normal. They should all be apologizing to us not each other!)

He then began to wrap up his argument by putting Hans in the not-so-favorable light that he has been known to do throughout this trial. He said, ""You may dislike him -- that would put you in the majority of people who know him -- but he didn't commit the crime." (You know, maybe I'm eccentric, but I might be starting to actually like Hans. I'm definitely not liking this defense or this defense attorney, however.)

Then Mr. Hora began his rebuttal arguments by stating to the jury what I had mentioned the other day. He told them that the platypus, while definitely odd looking and odd acting, also has that little spur on it's hind foot that has a poison venom in it that the platypus can use to attack other creatures. That clearly implied that "weird lookin' " doesn't necessarily equal "not able to kill something". He, unlike Mr. DuBois, did not feel the need to apologize to Hans. Shocking.

I have no idea how this jury is going to go on this one when they finally get the case. But I think that I know this much: I think that this jury is composed of at least twelve people and how ever many alternates that are, simply stated, the twelve-plus most patient people on this planet. To have had to sit through this for five months (thank God the platypus factor only became involved within the past week), to have had to sit and pay attention to this for five months, to have had to sit there and pay attention to this and not know that it would end up being five months and not know how long it was going to be at all and not know when (or IF) it was EVER going to come to an end....to be able to a) actually sit there, b) pay attention, and c) not hang yourself before it reached this point, well, that my friends, is the behavior of saints. And when those saints come to a verdict, whatever that may be, should be accepted and respected, if for no other reason than the ones I just stated.

Sphere: Related Content

Duck Billed Defense, Day Two

Yesterday was Day Two of the Duck Billed Defense of Hans Reiser, the platypus-ian computer programmer who is on trial for the death of his (yet-to-be-found) wife, Nina. If you were unaware that a human being could be compared to a platypus (let alone be compared to a platypus as a defense to murder charges), well, you wouldn't be alone. Then again, there have been a lot of things in this trial that I was unaware of. (That techno-geek S&M crowd of Silicon Valley, for one.)

When we last left the really, really f-ing weird closing arguments being given by the defense, William DuBois was clinging to a stuffed platypus and likening the egg-laying mammal (one of only 5 mammals that lay eggs) to his client, Hans Reiser. I suppose the analogy was supposed to be something like, "This is a weird duck. He is a weird duck. Weird ducks are innocent." It didn't really come across like that. It kind of came across as an old attorney holding a stuffed animal in court whilst making berating comments about his client in his unique and strategic attempt to show the innocence of his client.

When the defense's closing arguments continued on Thursday, the platypus theme was still present, although the stuffed animal had been replaced by an image of a platypus projected onto a screen in the courtroom. That followed with Mr. DuBois reminding the jury that "the platypus is Hans." (Not words I would want to hear my attorney say in my defense at my murder trial. But that's just me.) He said, "This is what they actually look like, but you get the idea." Um, actually, no I don't. This guy is that duck thing again why?

Then Mr. DuBois reminded the jury of why Hans was a platypus. (That seems like the most logical thing to start with, if you're asking me. Because if he doesn't explain it, there will be questions. ) DuBois smiled at the jury and said, "Did you know that the platypus is the only mammal that lays eggs? I was trying to think recently how a platypus could even evolve. It must have been a genetic mistake. That's why it reminded me of..." That's when Mr. DuBois's voice sort of trailed off and he glanced over at Hans. Ah, yes, the old "my client is a genetic mistake" angle. Then things start to get a little weird.

DuBois continued to explain to the jury why his client, the innocent, pseudo-egg laying mammal, would not have killed his wife with his children in the house. He explained that the children could have witnesses such a killing by being present, and if someone did not want to get caught, they wouldn't kill their spousal platypus with their platypi offspring (I swear, more than one platypus = platypi.) in the home. Or den. Or whatever they live in. He said, "Even for a platypus, that one's hard to believe." (I'd have to imagine that all platypi are, at this very moment, finding all of this "hard to believe". Either that or they have absolutely no clue whatsoever that there is a murder trial going on. One of the two.)

This was the basic line of reasoning that Mr. DuBois continued with throughout his closing arguments (which, by the way, he did not finish. Day Three of "The Platypus Is Innocent" will continue on Monday. They're taking Friday off. Shocker.) He explained repeatedly why "a platypus" acts the way it does. He was also a bit dismayed that twice during his arguments, the image of the platypus disappeared from the monitor for no apparent reason. Both times caused him to ask, "What happened to Hans?" Yes, he has started calling the platypus 'Hans'. I guess that's to continually remind the jury of his freakishly weird defense theme of 'egg laying, fur bearing mammals indigenous to Australia." (Yeah. It'd be hard to remember that all the time. Thanks for the refreshers there, Bill.)

And I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but there was a point when I'd have to say that Mr. DuBois got a little carried away with his platypus analogies. He got carried away to the point where he clearly didn't realize how wrong what he said must have sounded (and that's just to those in the court who knew what in the hell he was talking about. If you had just poked your head in the courtroom 30 seconds before this part, you'd have been really confused and probably horrified.).

It was when DuBois was stating that he thought that Hans was getting a raw deal by being charged with his missing wife's murder in the first place. That's when he said, "I just know this is one of the great screw-jobs of what happened to Hans Reiser. It's easy to screw a platypus." Yes, of course it is. Wait. What? (Did he just say it was "easy to screw a platypus?" WTF?!)

Even after THAT, he kept talking and he said, "I don't know how they stay away from predators. They must taste terrible." Now, maybe he didn't know he was speaking out loud and that other people could actually hear him. I don't know how else to explain THAT. It's the closing arguments in a murder trial and the defense attorney just told the jury that it's easy to screw a platypus and that they must taste terrible. Aside from not seeing the hidden legal precedence in those statements, they're just wrong on so, so many levels that I can't even go there. And I'd appreciate it if, in the future, if you didn't go there either, Mr. DuBois.

The prosecution will get to speak to the jury after the defense finishes it's platypus-ian closing statements. That should be interesting. Web-footed mammalian rebuttals. Stay tuned, won't ye?

Sphere: Related Content