There's A Class For That?

I heard something mentioned today that I didn't think could possibly be true. With a little perusing of the Innerwebs, however, I discovered that it WAS in fact true. And that's when I realized just how ridiculous things have gotten.

See, I heard that part of Lindsay Lohan's sentence (for whatever her most recent shenanigans were that saw her appear in court) is to attend (wait for it) anti-shoplifting classes. What the hell are those?! Anti-shoplifting? You need an entire class to work on that concept?! How does that work?! If the class is any longer than how long it takes to say "Don't steal from stores", I'm going to need more information. Anti-shoplifting classes. Wow. Just wow.

Sphere: Related Content

You Didn't Search Her Well Enough

It was just a month or so ago that I brought you the charming tale of a couple of super-sized women who were arrested for shoplifting many, many items by concealing the items 'neath their rolls of fat. Oh, and I can tell by the gagging sounds you just emitted that you remember said story all too well. So I guess you'd better brace yourself for this one, as it is quite similar in method to the previous story. I'm still trying to figure out some of the finer points to this story, but maybe you can help me out with some of them. Let's find out!

What we have is a story from the fine folks at CBS Minnesota (that's in Minnesota). It would seem that our "hero", a one Stephanie Moreland, was arrested on New Year's Eve under suspicion of stealing a $6,500 "short mink coat" from the Alaskan Fur Company. Now, when they say a "short mink coat", is that supposed to imply that the coat is not very long or that it was made from rather diminutive minks? I'm not sure, either.

Ms. Moreland was confronted in the store, but denied having taken said coat of mink. When she left the store, the clerk wrote down her license plate number and called police. The police tracked down the car and found a hanger from the store in the car. The article claims that "They searched her for weapons and booked her into their jail for the weekend on theft charges." Uh-huh. Yeah, I'm not quite so sure that she was really "searched'. I'm pretty sure that she was not "searched" sufficiently.

OK, so she's been in jail for a couple of days when "Three days later, a detective interviewed Moreland who admitted she stole the coat but claim she had already sold it." It's unclear to me why she admitted to the theft at that point. Maybe she thought they were going to let her go or something. I don't know, but she had carried on her little scheme to this point, I don't see why she didn't just keep going with it a little bit longer. Wait. What?

That's right. I said "her scheme". You weren't really buying any of that stuff that she was spewing out, were you? Oh, come on! She stole the coat all right. But she didn't sell it. I kind of wish that she had though. That's because (wait for it) "When the investigator informed Moreland he would be sending her to the Hennepin County Jail downtown, he was shocked when she lifted up her dress and pulled out the mink coat from her underwear." Oh. My. God.

Pulled the mink coat from her underwear?! What the what?! How big is this ol' gal again? Let's see...it says that she's 270 pounds. It does not list a height. I'm guessing that if she can conceal an entire mink coat, short or not, inside of her underwear, she can't be more than four feet tall. Good Lord, woman. And it was in there for three days?! How is that possible? What is going on over there at the jail in Minnesota? Clearly whatever it is, it does not involve thorough body searches at all.

The Bloomington Police Commander, a one Mark Stehlik, explained that “She had modified her underwear. She actually cut the rear of the underwear out so that from the back it appeared she was not wearing underwear and then stuffed it down the front.” What does that even mean? Cut out the rear of her underwear? I get that, but what does that have to do with it being able to appear that she's not wearing underwear? How does not appearing to wear underwear from the rear make it so it doesn't appear that you have a $6,500 short mink coat shoved down your front? Why does it matter if someone else thinks that she is wearing underwear or not? Is that some sort of a "thing" in the shoplifting community? I'm so confused. Three days of underwear mink?! (No, that is not a euphemism.) I hope they burned that thing after she pulled it out of...there.

There are really a lot of unanswered questions here. I realize that. But there's only so much I can do. If you know anything about this apparent underwear altering which is seemingly conducive to shoplifting, let me know.

Sphere: Related Content

The Fat Folds Of Christmas

OK, so it's officially the Christmas/holiday shopping season and people are out in full swing. And you know how you get when you're really doing a lot of Christmas shopping. You end up with bags and bags of stuff and not enough hands to hold them. Maybe sometimes you wish that you had another way to hold all of your newly begotten wares. Maybe sometimes you even wish that you didn't have to pay for things at all. And that's when you go back to thinking about how you wish you had another way to hold things that you didn't want to pay for. That's probably when you decide at the time that it's a good idea to attempt to conceal merchandise underneath your breasts (that must have been the size of Canada) and fat rolls as you walk out of an Oklahoma TJ Maxx. Wait. What now?

Correct. Meet a one 28-year old Ailene Brown and a one 37-year old Shmeco Thomas. (I'm guessing that "Shmeco" is pronounced phonetically, since someone clearly neglected to buy a vowel at some point during the naming process. And it would be remiss if I did not point out that Shmeco kind of sounds a little bit like and looks a little bit like the word Shamu. And that this story is about people concealing things underneath their body fat makes it sound all that more whale like!) Behold!

If you're wondering which one is which, Shamu Shmeco is the one that looks like Kenan Thompson from Saturday Night Live.

Now that we all know who's who, let's continue. It would appear that the two aforementioned ladies were shopping at a TJ Maxx in Edmond, Oklahoma. According to The Orlando Sentinel, "...police say they used their bodies to conceal the goods. Edmond police authorities say it was at the Edmond TJ Maxx that loss prevention officers found the duo stuffing items under their belly fat and breasts." Stuffing items. Underneath...their...belly fat and...(I don't know if I can go on without hurling)....breasts. Good Lord, I think I'm going to be sick.

Yep, just tucked a few things away in there for safe keeping, I guess. What the what?! If you're big enough that you can stick things in between your mammoth rolls of fat and have them not fall out or (hopefully) be discovered, how large are you exactly? What is the surface area of your body? What is your getaway car? A Rascal scooter because you're too fat to walk? Seriously now. There has to be more to this story than just this. Are they sure?

Oh, yeah. They're sure. (Whoever those loss prevention folks are, I certainly hope that they get a raise of some sort. I would not have wanted to be a part of this.) According to a one Officer James Hamm, "These two were actually concealing them in areas of their body where excess skin was, under their chest area and armpits." I think I'm going to be sick again. Do you want to know what they were trying to steal? Do you? Really? What if I told you that there were multiple items? Then would you still want to know? I'll wait. Let's say that you do (but don't say I didn't warn you). That's when I'd have to tell you that they tried to steal four pairs of boots, three pairs of jeans, a wallet and some gloves. Wait a minute.

Boots?! They were sticking boots under their boobs?! Boob boots?! Ewww! And did I mention ewww?! What kind of boots? Hiking boots? Those spiky heeled boots that no one I know could ever possibly wear, yet I see them in stores all over the place? What kind of boots? And three pairs of jeans? Look, I've only seen the heads of these ladies, but if this story is any indication of their actual size, those jeans must have been made by Omar the Tentmaker if they were picking them up for themselves. And what's with the wallet? Clearly, they don't have anything to put in it. Was it an impulse steal? At the register that they attempted to bypass?

According to the officer on the video (handily provided below) one of the women actually had three boots concealed underneath her breast and bra. Three boots...two boobs...you do the math! (I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I'm still a little in shock by all of this and usually when numbers get thrown around, there's math involved. My apologies.) Where were the other...five boots?! If you've got hoots big enough for three boots to be stuffed under there, those are some pretty big hoots! Good Lord, woman.

I think that we really need to take a moment to soak in just how many items we are talking about here. Thus, I have prepared this handy visual aid to help with that task. Behold!

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty darn sure that I could not conceal a single shoe anywhere on my body in the fashion that these two ladies did. But somehow, they managed to stuff eight boots in their somehow AND some jeans on top of that! And even once you have the eight boots concealed on your person, you're just getting started! You've still got three pairs of jeans, gloves and a wallet to go! And yes, I realize that the story said that just one of the woman had the three boots concealed underneath her hoots. Where were the other five boots?! Huh?! That means the other chick had the other five stashed about under her folds of...of...skin. Ugh.

People never cease to amaze. Or in this case, they never crease to amaze me. I know, I know. It's a poor play on words. Especially since we're all dealing with the mental image of all of those boots with boob sweat all over them. What? You hadn't thought of that? Well, think of it now because you know that's what happened! Here's to hoping that none of that merchandise was placed back on the shelf and was instead taken out back and burned in some sort of ritual. The video of this story is below. It's pretty much what I've already described, but perhaps you want to hear it for yourself.

Sphere: Related Content

Thou Shalt Not Steal Most of the Time

Can I call a priest a moron? What if he really actually is a moron? Then can I? Since there aren't really any rules for this sort of thing, I'm going to take it upon myself to assume that I can call him an moron and thus, I'm going to do so. You might even agree with me and want to call him a moron yourself. You can wait to make that decision until after you've read the gist of this ordeal if you'd like. I, however, am fully in the gist and will not wait any longer. You, sir, are a moron.

Today our story of moronism takes us across the pond to jolly old England and to the Church of St. Lawrence. (If you're on some sort of sightseeing expedition and would like to add this to your stops, that's in the northern English city of York.) According to a one Theunis Bates over there at Sphere, the Rev. Tim Jones presented his parishoners with an interesting direction for them to go forth and do with. According to the extremely misguided Rev. Jones, he explained to his parishoners that "...poor people struggling to survive should steal food and other essentials from shops, rather than raise money through prostitution, burglary or mugging." Um, wait. What now?

Correct. If you're poor, you should steal. Don't pimp yourself (or hooker yourself) out. Don't be burgling. Don't be mugging. Just be stealing. Plain old stealing. Hallelujiah! Let's go steal! Not so fast! It's not like he didn't realize that this would be controversial or anything. (Hmmm....I wonder if he realized how stupid it would sound. I'm guessing not. Continue.) He laid down some ground rules. Oh, good. Ground rules for...stealing? Yes! Ground rules for stealing, that is correct. OK, then. Let's look at those.

Stealing Rule One: "...do not steal from small, family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices." Um, wait ! That's all they have to do to make this OK with you?! To know that the rest of us are going to get screwed by higher prices as a result of Stealy McTakes-A-Lot over there?! That's it!? Tell me something. What, exactly, is all of this "knowing" supposed to accomplish? See, because usually, when you "know" something, it's so that you won't do it. "Just so you know, you cannot fly. Thus, if you jump out of that window, you will meet your splattery doom." That makes sense to know. But I don't know what good it is to "know" something if you're going to go ahead and do it anyway! "Just so you know, you're screwing over everyone else whose tax dollars are likely already enabling you to survive. Now shove this smoked ham underneath your coat and make a run for it!"

Stealing Rule Two: Rev. Jones says "I would ask them not to take any more than they need..." Uh, Rev? Ever been poor? I don't think that you have. You'd be amazed at how much you "need" when you have "nothing". You'd also be amazed at how much you "need" when you're being enabled to "justify" stealing. While it may be true that some may "need" food, does that automatically mean that they "need" prime rib? What about lobster? What about super buttery crackers, not just Saltines? You'd be amazed at what folks think that they "need" when they're being told "Go forth, my son, and rip off thine vendors."

Stealing Rule Three: This is the second part of Stealing Rule Two which was "I would ask them not to take any more than they need....for any longer than they need." What does that even mean? For any longer than they need? Does that mean only keep something that you've stolen for as long as you need it? (Tell me how that's going to work with this purseful of pork loin that I just pilfered.) Or does that mean to only steal as long as you need to steal (as outlined by the Reverend's guidelines, I suppose)? Do you know what the difference is between the time that it takes to steal something and the time that it takes to go to work every day, earn a paycheck, cash that paycheck and then go buy that thing? It's a lopsided comparison at best!

I'm sure that you can imagine that this didn't sit too well with folks like law enforcement and UK retailers, including something called the British Retail Consortium. (Now, I don't know what that is, but it's a really cool name. Consortium. Is that anything like a well-organized militia?) The Consortium's speaker, a one Krishan Rama, said "You'd expect a vicar to appreciate the difference between right and wrong...There are no excuses for stealing." A novel concept indeed.

As you can imagine (or, at the very least, hope) this whole thieving ideology didn't really sit well with Reverend Jones's boss. No, not that boss (though I'd have to imagine that he was none too thrilled himself), but rather the flesh and bones boss, a one Archdeacon of York, the Venerable Richard Seed. (I wonder, if you are an Archdeacon, does that automatically make you venerable? I have no idea. I don't even know how one becomes an Archdeacon. It sounds kind of cool, though. It has a sort of superhero ring to it. The Archdeacon of York is here to save the daaaaayy!) He tried to distance himself from the remarks of Reverend Jones by saying "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift, or break the law in any way." Finally! Someone with some sense over there in York!

But wait! Here's the best part! According to the above cited article, the Reverend later clarified his position on some British TV show. He said, in part,that he "never said it is OK to steal. It is a dreadful thing to steal." Wait. You never said it was OK to steal?! But there were rules! Three of them from what I inferred! It is "dreadful", but you said go for it! What do you mean you never said that?!

He said that "The sermon was in fact only meant to encourage worshippers to give more to charity, not incite them to snatch cookies from the corner store." Wait. How was it meant to do that? I'm not following you here. According to the Yorkshire Evening Post, you said, "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift." Huh. See, that doesn't really sound like encouraging worshippers to do anything other than steal things. Where does the encouragement for giving to charity come in? Oh, that's right. It doesn't!

This whole thing is wrong on so many levels. There's the stealing in and of itself to begin with. I think we've covered that one. But next is that now we have a priest who is lying to us! I don't think priests are supposed to lie! (I also don't think that they're supposed to be spending all of that time with those altar boys either, but that's an entirely different subject!) You really can't infer a whole lot from "My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift" other than what it says! He might as well have just said "That was taken out of context." What context?! You said steal!

But here's the part that just kills me. People who are poor, just like every other kind of people, come in two kinds. There are poor people who are smart and there are poor people who are just dumb as a post. Of those who are more likely to heed such a ridiculous suggestion, I'm going to guess it would most likely be the paste eaters. Tell me something, Reverend. Just exactly how good do you think these sorts of folks are going to be at all of the stealing? Seriously. He makes the assumption that if he tells folks to steal, that God is just going to guide them into doing it correctly and getting away with it. Just because you steal something, that doesn't mean that it's going to turn out the way you want it (that way being that you don't get caught and you get your stolen item for free instead of having to work for it like the rest of us, you thieving thief). You clearly didn't think this one through, Clem. Er, Reverend Clem.

So let's just assume (making it a given would be presumptuous) that one of these divinely inspired shoplifters doesn't make it through the front door with that lobster tail hanging out of their pocket and that package of frozen peas in their boots (I'm envisioning big boots, so stay with me here). Then what? I don't know about how things work in the UK, but over here in America, we arrest people for things like that. A lot of the time, they go to jail until they are bailed out. How much money do you think Thief-y von Petty Theft over there is going to have to put towards his bail? I'm guessing if he couldn't pay for that smoked salmon in his shorts, he isn't going to have a whole heck of a lot for bail, either. Then what?

I know! Call Reverend Jones! He'll come bail you out! He's the one that suggested that you steal from businesses in the first place! I'm sure that his congregation won't mind their collection plate dues going to bail out an obedient member of their flock! Sure! No problem! Then again, how much of a flock is he going to have left after this debacle? Right. Probably the same size of a flock as he had before he became the poster child for holiday looting, not to mention holiday scrambling and lying. Whatever. As long as he and his pilfering flock stay on that side of the pond, I won't have to worry about it on this side of the pond. Dear God! Unless he's put his message on YouTube!

Sphere: Related Content

61, Do I Hear 62?

Today brings us another look at our old (literally) friend, Ella Orko. Orko, as you may or may not care to remember, is an 86-year old woman with a colorful past and an extremely long and storied career as a professional thief. Her occupation has netted her recognition in the form of an arrest at least 61 times since 1956 and her vivid imagination has allowed her to come up with about 50 aliases, which almost amounts to giving a different name every time she was arrested, give or take about eleven. It's unfortunate she couldn't have put her talents to work doing something besides ripping people off her whole life, but she's 86 now. I highly doubt, at this point, she's going to be taking some classes at the community college to learn a new trade.

This woman came to our attention when Ms. Orko was arrested for stealing $252 worth of a variety of items ranging from packaged salmon (5 packs) to AA batteries (11 packs) to instant coffee (4 jars) to about the one thing that you'd think that an 86-year old woman would steal - anti-wrinkle cream (2 boxes of one brand and 8 boxes of another brand, I believe). She went to court just the other day to answer for this charge and it sounds like it was quite the scene.

She shows up to court like she's supposed to, only she's in a wheelchair and wearing a neck brace! Clearly, when you're someone who has been arrested 61 times, you know that you're not going to be able to play the poor, frail, feeble, elderly woman act and get away with it. No, you're going to need some props. And while I understand the strategy, I don't understand the choice of props. Come on, woman! You were caught shoplifting! Did you have that wheelchair THEN? I don't think you did! And the neck brace? For reals? Did someone rear end you in a car that you had stolen? What was that all about?

She even played as if she were hard of hearing. I don't know what that was supposed to do other than perhaps induce the sympathy factor from the judge. It's not like she could pretend that she didn't hear him and they would just give up and let her go. Fortunately, the judge, a one Honorable Marvin P. Luckman, wasn't buying it. His words? "I've been doing this for a lot of years. She's an actress."

According to CBS2Chicago she "was originally charged with a felony, but prosecutors agreed to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor in exchange for her guilty plea." Right. Because what if she had a felony on her record? That would be terrible! Then she'd always have to check that little box that says "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" on every form that she filled out. That might hinder her from getting a job! It could affect her for the rest of her life! Well, what's left of it.

Even as the judge was shouting in the courtroom, Ms. Orko played up the whole "I'm deaf" facade by mumbling, "I can't hear too good." You don't speak too "good" either. Shocking, I know. Though a man clear in the back row said that he could hear the judge just fine when he was asked, Ms. Orko, right there in front of the judge, claimed deafness. And the judge, not knowing if she was serious, but suspecting that she wasn't, took the matter to the most reasonable level that I can think of. He got off the bench, stood directly in front of her and then bellowed at her, "Do . . . you . . . have . . . any . . . questions?!" MOST excellent.

It's hard to tell if Ms. Orko was embarrassed by the judge's purposeful shouting or if she was merely indifferent, but she did say, in response to his shouted question, "No. Very seldom would some judge [step off the bench]. Thank you so much." And she would know if judges did something often or did something very seldom. She's in court often enough to make that assessment quite accurately, I'd imagine.

She ended up being sentenced to two days in jail, which she had already done after her arrest, so she was credited with time served and released. Apparently she had last been convicted (for retail theft - shocking, I know) in 2006 and served time in prison until sometime in 2007 when she was paroled. Now, I don't know if she was on parole at the time of her arrest, but if so, you'd kind of think that she'd be breaking the terms of her parole, wouldn't you? But really, even if she was, is it going to do anyone any good to send this 86-year old woman to prison again?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that she shouldn't be held accountable for stealing things (nor am I saying that she should just keep on stealing, because she shouldn't. Yeah, that should have stopped about 53 years ago!), but I'm saying that during the time that she has left, I wouldn't be surprised if she ends up getting caught more frequently than she has in her past. You know, what with the neck brace and wheelchair and all. If she has been arrested 61 times since 1956, I think it's fair to say that she has probably gotten away with stealing stuff a whole hell of a lot more times than she has been caught stealing stuff. And that has to be one heck of a life to have had (and not in a good way). In a case like this, instead of having her plead guilty to the misdemeanor, I have a different idea.

Tell you what, cupcake, we'll drop the charges in exchange for you sitting down and doing an hour, maybe an hour and a half, interview, but not with a cop or a professional shrink or anything like that. I'm thinking more like local talk show host or newspaper columnist. Someone who can just pick your brain with the typical questions (What was your family like? How was your childhood? Blah, blah, blah.), but also pepper it with some of the atypical questions (Do you watch the Home Shopping Network? How about COPS? Why not just get a job? Did you steal from your mother? Did she steal from you? Was it a generally steal-y family? Did you ride the rails like a hobo in the 1930s?). I think the sociological information gathered from something like that would be much more informative and useful than having her sit in jail for however long.I know that guys always seem to have these "women in prison" fantasies where all of the female inmates are always having pillow fights in their bra and panties (and always with the possibility that they might/probably end up kissing), but do you really want to have her added to the mix of imaginary real-life scenarios in your head? I didn't think so.

Thus, an interview it is! In the meantime, get a job, Granny. Perhaps maybe you could do some acting, just like that nice judge suggested.

Sphere: Related Content

Not the Best Career Path

The most sensible thing to do in life is just to find your niche and go with it. You are, however, going to have to make sure that when applying that principle, you want to make sure that your niche is of a legal bent. That is to say, don't make "habitual criminal" your niche.

Ah, but sadly, that advice came a bit too late for a one 86-year old Ella Orko (pretty name) who was arrested in Cook County, Illinois for shoplifting, according to Chicago Breaking News Again. Actually, that arrest was her THIRD arrest. In FOUR MONTHS! But don't worry! Really. She doesn't have dementia or anything like that. Whew! That's a relief, eh? Yeah, they know it's not dementia because she has 13 convictions on her record. That sounds like a lot, but then when you realize that she's been arrested SIXTY ONE times, it means that she's been convicted of only about 20% of her crimes. See? Now that I put it in perspective for you, it doesn't seem that bad, does it?

Nope. It seems worse.

Ms. (I'm exercising great liberty with that term here and just going with what it says for this one) Orko was first arrested in 1956 for petty larceny. Now, in 1956, you could steal a heck of a lot more than you could today for it to be considered petty larceny. So who knows what she was lifting back then. A cantaloupe? A Studebaker? Many more choices back then I would imagine. But that wasn't good enough for her and she aspired to have more in her life and managed to get herself arrested for grand larceny two years later.

Only two years and already she's made quite the move up the criminal ladder! She's a go-getter all right! And that knack she had for committing the steal-y sort of crimes and getting arrested for said crimes has continued to this very day. If that was her goal, she's extremely goal oriented, as she managed to get herself arrested 61 times since 1956. That's at LEAST once a year. That's also at LEAST once a year too many. It's a wonder they could keep track of all of the arrests, as she's used over FIFTY aliases during her stint as a professional lawbreaker, according to National Post. That's almost one alias per arrest. Well, she's innovative, I suppose. (What the hell else do you say about an 86-year old woman who has spent her entire life stealing? Innovative, I thought, was KIND.)

Wondering yet what an 86-year old career criminal shoplifter looks like? Of course you are. And far be it from me to disappoint. Behold!

(I swear that's her!) So what does an 86-year old woman need so badly that she must steal it? (And steal it all at once, it would appear.) Well, allegedly she helped herself to: "five packs of salmon, 11 packs of AA batteries, two packs of L’Oreal RevitaLift anti-wrinkle cream, eight boxed jars of Olay face cream and four jars of instant coffee." Hold it! What?!

Five packs of...SALMON, was it? What kind of "packs" of salmon? FIVE? Eleven packages of batteries?! How many remote controls has she stolen does she own! OK, that face cream and stuff? I've learned recently that stuff like that is expensive, and I'm sure that as a lifetime habitual criminal, she doesn't have a lot of cash lying around to splurge with, so that makes sense. (Though if these are the brands that she has BEEN using, I'd suggest trying a different brand. I don't know if those are working all that well. I'm just sayin'!) And listen, if you're going to steal coffee, don't steal instant. Steal yourself a Mr. Coffee and some real coffee and then make yourself a decent cup of joe. Who steals instant? Maybe she didn't have any room left to steal any filters. That must be it.But how was this possible? A one Robert Perez, the police spokesman said Orko "...hid the items in her pants." Wait. What? In her pants? What kind of pants was she wearing? Parachute pants? Made from an actual parachute? Cargo pants? The size of cargo ships? How are you going to fit all of that stuff in your PANTS?! You couldn't, could you? Let's try to imagine this, shall we? Behold!Yeah, see, that just looks silly. Did she really think no one was going to notice her walking out of the store like that? With salmon stuffed in her pants? (I'm really hung up on the salmon for some reason. I don't get that at all.)

Fortunately, this can all be explained away by the police spokesman when he said, "Supposedly, she's a habitual shoplifter." Um, "supposedly"? Arrested 61 times since 1956, used over 50 aliases, been convicted 13 times, yeah, I'd SAY she's a "habitual shoplifter"! When do you have to be back to your post at the Department of the Obvious, sir?

Well, look on the bright side. She IS 86 years old. Perhaps death will make an honest woman of her shortly.

Sphere: Related Content