Not so much stupid lawsuits, as a travesty of justice.

So, although all the comments have already been made, I thought I'd give my two cents on the Casey Anthony situation. I realize that many people think it's none of their business. But it does kind of bug me that a murderer is walking free.

Now she may not have meant to actually KILL the baby. But I believe that she at least tried to knock the kid out with chloroform so that she could go clubbing, and accidentally killed the kid.

I also agree with the news media that said the prosecutor made a brilliant remark too late. He said that every lie she told served a purpose, and that each lie GOT her something. And I believe that if the jury had heard that in the opening statement, they may have thought about it more often during the trial.

I think the prosecution also should have played for manslaughter instead of murder. If they played as if they sympathized with the baby-who-had-a-baby, the jury might have been swayed. Played as if they were very sorry for Casey as well as Caylee. And then Casey might have done 10-15 years.

I think it speaks volume that Juror 3 was quoted as saying "I did not say she was innocent. I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

So not even the jury thinks she's INNOCENT - they just think there was not enough evidence to prove guilt.

I think that it's sad that she's going to walk free, and undoubtedly try to have another kid, cause she's psychologically disturbed and thinks that she'll be a good momma this time.

Watch out world: your 4 yr old can now be sued!

Yep, as of Oct 1st, when Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, found a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.

The judge did not find that the tyke was liable, merely that she can be sued.

The relevant facts are as follows... In April of 2009, Jacob Kohn and Juliet Breitman, both 4, were racing their bicycles on the sidewalk of East 52nd St, while being watched by their mothers, Rachel Kohn and Dana Breitman. At some point in their race, they struck an 87-year-old woman, Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and was subsequently “seriously and severely injured,” suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later of unrelated causes, and her estate then brought a suit against the kids and their parents.

The Breitmans lawyers argued that the girl was not “engaged in an adult activity” at the time of the accident and was too young to be held liable for negligence. The Kohns did not try to dismiss the action against them. But, the judge found that while "infants under the age of 4 are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence" Juliet was 3 months shy of her 5th birthday, and there is no bright line rule for those over the age of 4.

He went on to say “A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street,” the judge wrote. He added that any “reasonably prudent child,” who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there. Judge Wooten state that the crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable. Here, however, Mrs. Breitman was not cheering her tyke on as she crashed into an elderly woman.

I find it a bit scary that 4 year olds can be held liable. But it seems a sign of the times, our kids have to grow up faster than ever before. Liable at 4 and potentially sexting or drinking by 12... it's a scary, scary world these days.

Obama Streaker Shouldn't Be the One to Pay!

So as most of you probably know, President Obama got to see a naked man the other day. Not that its likely that he had any desire to see Juan James Rodriguez's manly bits, nor is it likely he had to see them long before Rodriguez was hauled off by the cops, but still nudity occurred.

And Mr. Rodriguez got certainly more than he himself bargained for. Roidriguez was egged on by a website, which stipulated it would pay US $1,000,000 to anyone who streaked in front of the president, with the website name written on his or her chest and shouted the website's name 6 times.

However, instead of an easy million, Rodriguez was arrested, charged with indecent exposure, public lewdness, and disorderly conduct and only released on $10,000 bail. He also claims he spent $1,300 of his own money for the prank, some of it on the specially designed tear-away T-shirt and shorts he wore. Now, regardless of the validity of his own spending on his pre-nudity costume, it is likely that he will have to shell out quite a bit in legal fees and court fees in order to keep himself out of serious trouble.

However, the internet mogul Alki David, who's promoted this insane act, is now saying he's not sure Rodriguez met the terms of the wager. "It's a lot of money," David is quoted as saying. "We're not going to give the money away lightly." WHAT?!? You'll advertise that you give away this money lightly, and it didn't strike you as a lot of money when you put the offer up on your website. And seeing all of the stupid things people are willing to do on TV for far less money, you HAD to have a reasonable suspicion that someone would follow through on this nonsense.

Not only do I believe that David should have to pay up, and soon, I also believe he should share in the legal repercussions. He knows that being fully nude is pretty much illegal in all of the States, and he knows that conducting nonsense around and near the President of the US is also pretty much always illegal. He point blank incited illegal activities, and I don't think that Rodriguez should be the only one to suffer. You shouldn't be allowed to pull ridiculous pranks just because you are rich and escape scott-free.

This week in stupid lawsuits: Paris Hilton vs Hallmark

This just in, Paris Hilton and Hallmark have finally settled their lawsuit over the use of the catchphrase "that's hot."

Hilton recently sued the Kansas City greeting card maker for portraying her as a waitress in a diner handing a patron a plate and using her "trademark" "that's hot" line. I find the lawsuit completely ridiculous in that Hilton is far from the first person to ever utter the phrase, which she unsuccessfully tried to claim as a tradmark in 2007.

Hallmark argued the card was in the "public interest," which is laughable since Hilton hasn't been of public interest (minus recently being declared persona non grata in Japan) since before her suit was filed in 2007.

The terms of the settlement are unknown and not released by either party, but Hilton had been demanding $500,000. The only word out of Hallmark is the settlement was from the Judge, in that it was a "mutually acceptable conclusion," which hopefully means Hallmark won't be producing any more Hilton cards. And hopefully no one else will for that matter.

Capital Punishment Thoughts

So last Friday morning at 9am, the State of Virginia executed its first woman prisoner since 1912. Teresa Lewis, 41, was put to death for plotting the murders of her husband and stepson with two accomplices. Lewis was convicted of "masterminding" the affair in which two accomplices actually committed the murder. The accomplices received life in prison (where one of them committed suicide) but Lewis will be executed, as the Supreme Court has refused to hear her case, and the governor did not pardon her.

What's sad is that later evidence has shown that Lewis had somewhat diminished mental capacity, even though she meets the level to stand trial in VA, and it really looks as if she was manipulated in the whole sorry state of affairs.

The crucial piece of evidence that her attorneys wanted considered by the Supreme Court was a letter from one her 22 year old co-conspirators who she had entered into an affair with before agreeing to the murders. Matthew Shallenberger, who killed himself in jail in 2006, wrote a suicide note, in which he claimed full responsibility for the murder plot and suggested that he pushed Lewis into it. It read ... "From the moment I met her I knew she was someone who could be easily manipulated," he allegedly wrote. "Killing Julian and Charles Lewis was entirely my idea. I needed money, and Teresa was an easy target."

However, this evidence wasn't heard, and Lewis had a lethal injection. I feel bad for her. I'm not saying that she shouldn't have spent the rest of her life in prison, but I feel that if the men who committed the actual murders got life in prison, then it's a little unfair to execute a conspirator who didn't pull a trigger.

But I guess I feel that the whole capital punishment in unfair across the board. A couple of years ago, I went to a panel discussion on it, and met both the brother of the unibomber and the brother of Manny Babbitt, a Marine Corp, Vietnam Vet. The brother of the unabomber, who caused untold pain, managed to avoid the death penalty, whereas Babbitt didn't.

Babbitt earned a Purple Heart for courage under fire in the Vietnam war. He was hit by rocket shrapnel that opened his skull, he lost consciousness and was thought to be dead. He was loaded onto a pile of corpses by helicopter operators where he later regained consciousness, surrounded by severed limbs and bodies. He returned from Vietnam suffering from PTSD, exhibiting bizarre and violent behavior. Eventually he broke into the home of Leah Shendel, an elderly woman, and beat her. She later died of a heart attack.

His brother, Bill, turned him in, fully expecting that the war-hero brother would get all of the medical attention he clearly needed and deserved. But instead, not long after being awarded his Purple Heart, Manny Babbitt was executed one minute after midnight, May 4, 1999, in the state of California, on his 50th birthday.

I just remember thinking at that conference... "How ridiculously unfair!" One man who was a national hero, and suffering from mental illness and despair, who should have been sent to a psych ward for life, was killed, and another, who really shouldn't be allowed to live any longer, still publishes books from jail.

And now this Lewis case... I used to think that I was for capital punishment, that some crimes were so heinous that the accused did not deserve ANY chance of ever being able to hurt people again. But... the way the system works currently, the punishment isn't meted out in a fair way, and I think that if Babbitt and Lewis are the people we're executing and Ted Kaczynski is not, then perhaps we shouldn't be executing anyone.

Sarah Palin has to give the money back!

In addition to the stupidity of writing talking points on her hand and selectively choosing to become offended in regards to the word "retard" ... Sarah Palin is quite possibly guilty of any number of ethics violations.

While governor she was charged with over 20 ethics violation, which she claimed left her with over 1/2 million in legal fees. And then some idiots (who for whatever reason work for her) raised a fund to pay for her defense.

Problem is... she was still governor. This week a ruling from last year was upheld, specifying that the fund was illegal because it used her official position as governor to raise money for her personal gain. However, the independent counsel dispensing the ruling, gave Palin the benefit of the doubt, saying that she relied on bad advice from out-of-state lawyers. WHAT? WHAT?!?!?! Come on Sarah, I may not be brilliant, but I do know that it's bad to use public persona for personal gain. I mean you all but pulled a Rob Blagojevich here.

Now what is really and truly disgusting here, is that though she has to give back $386,000 plus, she gets to KEEP anything made after she resigned. AND she has gone and set up a new fund. Seriously lady? You've made millions off your public stupidity, and now you want other people to pay for your bad behaviour as governor? Her lawyer told reporters she ran up the debts in public service, so a fund was justified. WHAT? WHAT!?!?! You ran up the debts, breaking the law, and committing ethics violations, that was not serving the public, that was dis-servicing the public!

Seriously, why hasn't someone bought this woman a muzzle?

Legalize it!

In an effort not to write about the health care legislation, which I feel has been overdone, and really, if I hear one more opinion about it, I may just scream, I choose another topic...

It looks like California may be voting on legalizing pot. And not just in the medical sense (excuse for a minute here while I stop my siblings from packing their bags and loading up the caravan).

Today, Los Angeles County elections officials must turn in their count of valid signatures collected on a statewide legalization initiative. The Los Angeles Times reports that the number is virtually certain to be enough to qualify the initiative for placement on the November ballot.

Now, I'm not a pot smoker, but I say go for it, California. I'm not a pot smoker, but I am for the legalization of marijuana (and across the board, not just medically). Because I think it has the capability to take a chunk out of our defecit, create new jobs and generally boost moral. Because honestly, who's happier than stoners who aren't worried about being caught? And I think it has the benefit of making sure that all the pot sold would JUST be pot, you wouldn't have to worry about your kid accidentally smoking some sort of laced pot and getting addicted to crack/rocks/speed/whathaveyou.

Now, I think there should be serious limits and regulations put upon it. I think you should have to be 21, same as beer. I don't think you should be permitted to drive high, go to work high, or do any of the things you should not be doing drunk, while high.

Plus, can you imagine the jobs that would be created while scientists discover what the legal limit of being high is? Previously, unproductive, pothead members of society could be employed to just smoke pot all day while scientists poke and prod at them like monkeys. (Because I honestly don't think you could get a monkey to smoke pot, and therefore, humans would have to be used.)

And, instead of paying cops to head out and destroy marijuana farms and pot gardens, (which can be a deadly form of employment if the pot farmers are heavily armed) we can pay those same police to just inspect whether or not pot farms have licenses, and if they don't impose a big old fee, which will also help us out of the national deficit.

And I don't think we have to worry about our kids starting on coke or speed, because suddenly pot is legal. If properly restricted to age groups, it will still be as "cool" as booze is to teenagers. And kids are smart these days, they just want to be in an altered state, they don't want to be dead.

And it's not just California (although they are definitely getting the most buzz) Nevada has measure for 2012 which would allow state licensed pot stores. And a campaign in Washington State hopes to put a legalization measure onto the fall ballot as well. And I say go for it. Let's use drugs to dig this country out of its deficit.