Here's an out of control bit of legal wrangling that even three other lawyers with a combined 58 years of experience can't figure out. A contractor, Mark Koch, pled guilty to criminal violations and was required to pay restitution. A bankruptcy judge then ordered the victim of the crime, Mark Poveromo, to pay the restitution back to the contractor:

Poveromo was ordered by a Federal Bankruptcy judge in St. Louis to pay Koch back the money he stole from him. The bizarre ruling claimed that by filing a complaint with Thomaston Police which led to Koch's arrest, Poveromo interfered with the contractors' attempt to file for bankruptcy, even though Poveromo had no idea Koch was attempting to do so.

Now if it had been a civil judgment, that would probably have been justified, but somehow the bankruptcy court thinks it's justified interfering with a criminal judgment. Now the victim faces bankruptcy himself - apparently this judge is just looking to do what he can to pump up the caseload. Oh, and he threatened to place liens or seize business assets if Poveromo appealed his bizarre order!

Ripped off businessman has to pay scammer

Government lawyers gone wild

The federal government has filed an asset forfeiture lawsuit against billionaire record executive Henry T. Nicholas III, co-founder and former CEO of Broadcom. They're wanting to lay claim to his Newport mansion and his Las Vegas penthouse based on:

claims Nicholas kept a stash of cash at his mansion in Newport Coast and used the money to buy drugs such as cocaine and ecstasy and have parties with musicians signed to his recording label, Level 7. He also allegedly held similar parties at his Las Vegas condo and used his private jet to transport drugs there.

Image via Wikipedia

So, a law intended to pursue drug dealers is being abused by government lawyers to seize the home of someone accused of using drugs. And the connection is about as tenuous as they come - he kept the money used to buy the drugs at his house. Wait until some local DA realizes he can seize all the money in every bank in his county because meth heads used some ATM machines.

Democrat lawyers eat their own

Democratic trial lawyer Philip J. Berg, Equire has filed a nuisance suit against Barack Obama claiming he's ineligible to be President.

The suit centers around evidence like Obama's school records which supposedly listed him as an Indonesian citizen. The Courts should have no problem quickly throwing this out as it was filled out by Obama's parent or guardian, who had no right to renounce Obama's US citizenship for him. Also, Obama was not yet of legal age, calling into question whether he could have legally renounced his citizenship himself.

The suit mentions that Obama was listed in the records as a Muslim, calling into question the Constitutionality of the suit itself since the Constitution specifically forbids religious tests for public office.

Image via Wikipedia

Finally, the suit diverges off into questions of Obama's use of the last names of his stepfathers as a child and the fact that he did not disclose this on his Illinois Bar application - facts that even if true are completely irrelevant to the very narrow Constitutional qualifications for the Presidency.

Full disclosure: I'm a McCain supporter - but I still wish these people would shut the hell up.

You'd think he'd NOTICE he was eating a 9-ft. tapeworm.

Man sues Chicago eatery for $100K, contending he got a 9-foot tapeworm after eating undercooked fish there.

How does he know that restaurant is where he got the tapeworm?

In the lawsuit filed Monday, Anthony Franz said he ordered salmon salad for lunch from Shaw's Crab House in 2006 and fell violently ill. He later passed the giant parasite, which a pathologist determined came from undercooked fish, such as salmon.

At best, that proves he COULD have gotten the parasite there, not that he DID get it there.

I don't think she had that thong on right

52-year old Los Angeles traffic cop Macrida Patterson is suing Victoria's Secret over a defective thong. She claims a metal staple used to attach a rhinestone to the thong popped off and ended up in her eye, injuring her cornea.

It seems a bit hard to believe that she was putting the thong on normally, in the normal place, and this piece shot off with such force that it ended up in her eye. Did it get caught on her foot and get stretched, creating a sort of slingshot effect? If that's what happened, I certainly have sympathy for Ms. Patterson, but it's hardly Victoria's Secret's fault. It falls in the category of things so unusual that no reasonable amount of planning is going to completely prevent them.

Every other scenario I can think of was even less Victoria's Secret's fault - standing on her head in her skimpy panties and the piece fell in her eye, wearing the panties on her head, purposely stretching the panties.

Woman sues Victoria's Secret claiming thong injury

These Lawyers and Their Suits

An administrative law judge in the District of Columbia is suing a dry cleaner for misplacing the pants from one of his suits. The pants were found after a week and have been in the office of the dry cleaner's lawyer for over a year. The top settlement offer from the dry cleaner: $12,000. What's the judge want? $65 million.

The lawsuit was filed by a District of Columbia administrative hearings judge, Roy Pearson, who has been representing himself in the case....

Manning said the cleaners made three settlement offers to Pearson. First they offered $3,000, then $4,600, then $12,000. But Pearson wasn't satisfied and expanded his calculations beyond one pair of pants.

Because Pearson no longer wanted to use his neighborhood dry cleaner, part of his lawsuit calls for $15,000—the price to rent a car every weekend for 10 years to go to another business.

"He's somehow purporting that he has a constitutional right to a dry cleaner within four blocks of his apartment," Manning said.

Judge Sues Cleaner for $65M Over Pants

*WARNING* Squeamish much? Then skip this post.

Bill Clinton wondered what the definition of "is" is.

Now a Minnesota lawyer wonders what the definiton of "animal" is.

Bryan James Hathaway, 20, of Superior faces a misdemeanor charge of sexual
gratification with an animal. He is accused of having sex with a dead deer he
saw beside Stinson Avenue on Oct. 11.

A motion filed last week by his attorney, public defender Fredric
Anderson, argued that because the deer was dead, it was not considered an animal
and the charge should be dismissed.

“The statute does not prohibit one from having sex with a carcass,”
Anderson wrote.

Yeah. Let's all take a moment to ICK! and move on to what might actually be a legitimate question.

C'mon. Do I have to spell it out for you? All right I will.

What about salami or pepperoni sticks?

'Cause I'm guessing there are quite a few guilty women in Minnesota if that's the case.

[Gee, thanks for bringing this to my attention, Drudge.]

Aside: The sex of the deer was not mentioned in the article.