Assorted Stupidity

Assorted Stupidity #130

LTB logo

PROGRAMMING NOTE: The previous edition of Assorted Stupidity was not numbered (see Assorted Holiday Stupidity” (Dec. 26, 2019), but I have decided it is still part of the series, making this No. 130. I apologize in advance to future scholars for any confusion caused by this Grover-Cleveland-like gap in numbering.

  • “Taipei man says he killed rabbit for ignoring him,” reported the Taipei Times on February 8. According to the report, the man told police that the rabbit was affectionate to his wife, but “indifferent” to him, and that it sometimes bit him, which is why he decided he had to “teach the rabbit a lesson.” With any luck, his prison term will give her enough time to get divorced and move far, far away.
  • Why did Isabel Lok post a one-star review of a lawyer who had never even represented her? This article doesn’t answer that question, but then Lok didn’t answer it either. Nor did she answer the lawyer’s complaint for defamation, which resulted in a default judgment. Whatever the reason was, it cost her $750,000 (Australian).
  • As we’ve discussed before (see, e.g., this and this and also this and this too), if you’re even going to try to flee from the authorities via water, you really need a boat. But if you have a boat, you also need to be able to operate it. According to this report, a Brooklyn lawyer suspected of stealing client funds sold her house and then, along with her husband, bought a boat and tried to sail it to St. Croix. This bold plan to flee over 1,600 miles by sea came up—let’s see—1,550 miles short, because they ran aground in Atlantic City.
  • Also, had they reached St. Croix, they still would’ve been in the U.S., or at least in an unincorporated territory thereof. Can U.S. authorities apprehend you in such a place? They certainly can. You could try Morocco, which doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the U.S., but that’s even further than Atlantic City.
  • Finally, sources reported last month that a Syracuse woman who was forced to give away her beloved cat had sued the cat’s new owner, saying the latter was in violation of the terms of their cat agreement. Lacie the cat was apparently used to sleeping in bed, but the plaintiff developed health problems and became unable to lift her. Her lawsuit alleged that she made it clear she was only giving up Lacie “because the cat was so sad that she couldn’t sleep in bed anymore.” Plaintiff began to suspect that the cat recipients were not complying with this condition, and eventually they allegedly confirmed it. Negotiations failed, and at last report, both sides had lawyered up.