Dear Topshop: You can’t just change the caption, you have to change the photo

This one is kinda funny.  So, Topshop made this tank:

That no one with any style would wear this tank is not the funny part.  Topshop bought the rights to this photo, but it apparently did not occur to them that they needed permission from, or to compensate, Rihanna for using her image.

Here is the funny part.  According to a lil fashion site JJC hearts called racked: after the singer, who didn’t like her name and image being used for a commercial purpose without her knowledge or consent, complained, Topshop’s Web site description changed to ‘Photographic tank with photographic motif of a girl wearing a headscarf.'”

Dear Topshop: I don’t think she was pissed about the caption.

Yada yada yada we have Rihanna v. Topshop and a UK judge ruled in Rihanna’s favor.  My guess is the price of that tank is bouts to skyrocket!

JJC VERDICT:  Rihanna wins this one hands down.  Also, who would wear this tank anyway?

Sidenote, I used to follow Rihanna on instagram but had to stop because I was tired of her stripper photos, half naked selfies, and weed shots.  It is kind of crazy what she instagrams.  

$1 million a day for kid who cops forgot in cell

A UC San Diego student just got $4.1 million settlement from the feds after they majorly effed up.  What had happened was he was arrested by the DEA after he was in the wrong place at the wrong time (he wasn’t a suspect, no charges were planned to be or actually filed against him, he was just at his friends house when it was raided).  The DEA locked him up and then forgot he was there. Left him there for 4 days.  He drank his own urine, hallucinated, and wrote a goodbye note to his mommy in his blood. Sad face.

JJC Thinks:
1) I haven’t gone 4 days without food or water but I am surprised he had to resort to drinking his own urine that quickly;
2) Obviously this is a terrible accident and we should expect more from the feds;
3) $4.1 million is a little more than I think the case is worth. The going rate when the police murder an unarmed person of color in Oakland is between $0 (see e.g. Derrick Jones) to $650k (see e.g. Mack Jody Woodfox) to $1.5 million (See, e.g. Gary King, Jr.) to $1.7  million (see e.g. Jerry Amaro III).  This kid survived. Traumatized, sure.  Spent a week in the hospital, terrible. But the kid is alive.  On the flipside, maybe Oakland law enforcement should start paying more for murdering people.  Forgotten in a cell for 4 days? $4.1 million.  Gunned down by the police? More than $4.1 million.

VERDICT:  Feds, try not to forget about people you lock up! Oakland Law enforcement stop killing people!

JJC hearts Rescues!

It is no secret that JJC hearts pembroke welsh corgis and that JJC is a proud parent to the world’s cutest sweetest pembroke welsh corgi.

That said, JJC does not endorse puppy mills, backyard breeders, or buying from a breeder when you can rescue a corgi or any other dog in need.

Thus, JJC wants to give a shout out to the Golden Gate Pembroke Welsh Corgi Fanciers Rescue. And, per a JJC twitter follower, a shout out to Hearts United for Animals, a no kill shelter in Nebraska that rescues and brings back to health dogs from across the country.

If you ask me, my husband and I rescued Jane Doe. She was one year old when she came to live with us.  She lived with a really nice family, but they had 2 older evil corgis who were very mean to Jane Doe. If you can’t tell, Jane Doe is the cutest sweetest corgi ever.  Here is a photo from the first day we met her:

 These two older corgis were jealous.  So Jane Doe had to live outside in a fenced area while the older corgis lived inside.  It was kind of unclear why the woman had Jane Doe but wanted to give her up after less than a year.  I believe she wanted to show her at dog shows (I’m telling you, this bitch [Jane Doe] is beautiful) but she is very timid and also has a few defects on her eye.  So, she wouldn’t make a good show dog. She has, however, made the best companion we could ask for. We actually call her goody four paws because she is such a good dog.  She has a best friend, a 10 year old golden retriever named Lucy Lnu.  Lucy Lnu is the sweetest dog in the world after Jane Doe.  But, she can be mischievous at times. If Lucy Lnu gets in trouble,  Jane Doe will run right up to you as you’re scolding Lucy Lnu as if to say “look at me, I didn’t do anything wrong!” Jane Doe is very innocent.

Jane Doe and Lucy Lnu Snuggling in their Doggy Hammock on a Road Trip

This Shit Breaks My Heart!

I got an email this morning subject line: Urgent. It was a lead for JJC. I bit. Oy Vey.  Get ready for this one — a dirty dirty opinion outta the First Circuit.  NOT for the easy-queasy.

A man with not very strong bowels, ironically named Strong, entered federal court in maine to do sum bidness. 

He realized in line for security that he was pooping his pants.  Suffice to say, the man has some medical issues.  The deputy rushed him to the bathroom wherein he had explosive diarrhea.  We are not talking about some watery poop in the toilet people.  We are talking about something like “spilled spaghetti sauce and there’s meat” as far as the eye can see. Poop in the toilet. Poop on the walls. Poop on the floor. Poop on the dispensers. Poop. Poop. And more Poop. Now, Strong disputed the strength of the explosion.  He said there were exaggerations about the placement of the feces, that it was entirely unintentional, and the mess came from his failed attempts to clean up after himself.  

This poor man not only suffered the humiliation of publicly pooping his pants, having explosive diarrhea, but then, he was charged with three federal crimes (willfully damaging federal property, creating a nuisance on federal property, creating a hazard on federal property),was convicted after a bench trial (you don’t have the right to a j/t when you poop your pants) (kidding, when max sentence is 6 months) and was sentenced to 7 days in jail.

On appeal, the 1st Circuit upheld his conviction finding there was sufficient evidence.  It goes without saying that it was undisputed that there was sufficient poop. The question on appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence that this poor guy was acting willfully. There was also dispute over whether the government needed to prove willfulness or knowledge for two of three crimes. That’s neither here nor there.  At the end of the day a dude walked into a court house, had explosive diarrhea and then got sentenced to 7 days in jail for said diarrhea.  Not what Pooh Bear envisioned when he talks about the rumblies in his tumblies.

The majority noted that this guy lost his social security benefits case so he had a motive.  I did some digging after a coworker aptly noted that this explosive diarrhea issue or underlying medical issue that caused it (he said it was because of heart medication?) may or may not have been the basis of his benefits claim. Because, if so, I’d say he’s got a good appeal for a denial of benefits.  Alas, the claim was for benefits for a child.

In any event, the majority’s logic goes like this: guy with a grudge has explosive diarrhea which they say may very well have been unexpected and not willful. Guy goes to bathroom. Guy gets a brilliant idea:

 “I am going to capitalize on this moment where I have explosive diarrhea everywhere including all over my clothes, and I’m going to smear it all over the walls and bathroom to get back at dem feds for denying my child social security benefits.  That’ll teach em!”  I mean. to me, it seams like a stretch.  But, apparently not to dem judges.

Well, at least two of them. The dissenter not only came out on the right, just, side, he did so funnily.  Here are a few highlights:

“The momentous importance of this case surely forecasts its deserved place in the annals of federal prosecutorial history. Before us is an appeal from a conviction of a citizen who was prosecuted for soiling federal property after he had the misfortune of involuntarily losing control of his bowels while on the premises of the United States District Court for the District of Maine.” [emphasis on funny words added.]

and later:

“Strong’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is unpreserved, so he must establish plain error, and the evidence is reviewed to determine if there was “clear and gross injustice.” United States v. Hicks, 575 F.3d 130, 139 (1st. Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Gobbi, 471 F.3d 302, 309 ( 1st. Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation mark omitted); see also United States v. Concemi, 957 F.2d 942, 950  1st. Cir. 1992).” [emphasis of funny words added.]

I’d say this injustice was VERY GROSS.  (too easy).

If you aren’t so grossed out thus far and are still reading, here is a quote from his  testimony makes me feel really really sad:

“Q. What was the nature of the excrement that erupted when you lost control of your bowels?
A. It was liquid and there was pieces in it.
Q. Okay. And what did you do after it happened?
A. The Security personnel walked me to the bathroom. I walked into the bathroom, I removed my jacket, I put it in the far corner, same jacket I wore today. I put it in the corner.
Q. What did you do next?
A. Then I removed my trousers, I removed my socks.
Q. What were the condition of your trousers and socks?
A. My jeans were just completely covered in feces on the inside. My socks were covered with feces, my legs, you know, had feces all right down—down my legs and on to my ankles. I took a paper towel—
Q. Was it dripping down your legs and ankles?
A. All the way to my ankles.
Q. And what did you do with the clothing when you took it off?
A. I put the jeans on the floor, I mean this is so prescribed I just don’t—I just put it right at my feet there. And then the boxers I took off and I put in the trash.
Q. And why did you throw the boxers in the trash?
A. They were destroyed, there was no—I mean, how could I carry them home? What was I going to put them in? I mean, it was covered in feces, there was—I mean, what was—I mean, I had my briefcase, I mean, what was I supposed to do with them? I threw them in the trash.
Q. Okay. Did you at any—did you at any time reach for paper towels?
A. Many times.
Q. What were you doing with the paper towels?
A. Cleaning my legs, my back side, it was on my sides, I mean, because it was—it was a mess, it was just a mess.
Q. Did you attempt to clean your jeans?
A. A little bit, I mean, I took paper towel, you know, through, you know, through them but I just—it was futile, it was just—
Q. At any time did you sit on the toilet?
A. A couple times.
Q. Would you explain what happened with you sitting on the toilet, please?
A. Well, I cleaned myself up, I started to urinate, and I stood up again and I kept wiping myself and then I sat down to put my socks back on. I didn’t have any boxers at that time, so I put my socks back on. I put my jeans back on, you know, I’ve been—I don’t know if you’ve ever had an incident in the kitchen where you have something spill or something, you’re grabbing everything and anything trying to mop up milk or—I don’t know if you’ve ever spilled spaghetti sauce and there’s meat, you’re trying to get it up as quick as you can. And that’s—basically it was just like this frenetic pace, but it was repulsive, I mean, the smell was—and I was embarrassed, I mean, here I had used the bathroom in my pants, a 50–year–old man and I was in a federal courthouse. It was very, very embarrassing. So, I mean, so it was a frenetic pace just to clean myself up. So I did the best I could . . .”

Triple sad face.

JJC VERDICT:  Shitty opinion. Poopy prosecution.  Loose Bowel Movement.

Daily Dose of Juice, Justice and Corgis

Today’s Juice

I finally got my hands on the 33 page (that is pretty long) indictment against RHONJ Theresa Giudice and her hubby. It ain’t pretty.  And the pulitzer goes to BuzzFeed for the best coverage. Even I don’t have the patience to analyze the indictment like that! Sadly (?) Joe Giudice is not a USC (united states citizen for those not used to regularly filling out client interview forms) so he could face deportation if convicted, in addition to prison.

The long and short of  it is they are accused of lying to get loans (e.g. she allegedly reported income from a job she didn’t have and also allegedly presented a fake tax return) from as far back as the early 2000s.  They are also accused of lying in bankruptcy filings and hiding money and assets from creditors in those proceedings.

*UPDATE*She hired this guy to defend her. Former AUSA. Member of all the right associations and organizations.  Super Lawyer. Clerked for a federal judge. Don’t know anything about him besides what I read, but what I read seems like he’s legit.

JJC VERDICT: I mean I am not a fan of prison or deportation. At the same time, maybe it is because I have seen  how mean Teresa and Joe are on the show, or because this is essentially fraud for pure greed–to keep up with their ridiculously lavish lifestyle–but I really don’t feel bad for them.  I don’t know, if you feel differently and think I should too, let me know why. I’ll keep my pitty-meter open. Tip for Teresa: when you get upset, you cannot flip counsel table at the jury.

Today’s Justice

Rough day for contra costa county judges.  You heard here first that Judge Maddock (pictured above…to be fair some defense lawyers have said good things about him in the past, but his ruling in this case was truly terrible) was reversed.

On the same day, Judge Bruce Mills was publicly admonished for judicial misconduct by California’s Commission on Judicial Performance.  His offense? His son got a ticket for smoking, his son was supposed to do community service for said ticket, his son failed to do community service (in his defense he was in an out of state rehab), so ole papa Mills walked down the hall and badabing badaboom his son was good to go with a different commissioner who accepted Judge Mills’ representation that his son was in rehab as proof of completion of the community service.  So how did he get caught? Well, what had happened was he went to his son’s arraignment on the ticket with him and that commissioner had beef with Judge Mills over some kind of Judge race that I was too bored to read the details of. Long story.  Judge Mills was so bitter about the beef that he expected that commissioner to recuse himself.  When he didn’t, Judge Mills did not paper him. So that commissioner told the kid to do 20 hours of community service. The kid failed to do it. The judge set an OSC re contempt (apparently how something like this is enforced because it was infraction so no probation.)  The commissioner was obviously personally interested in the case and likely looking forward to the court appearance of the kid after he failed to do the community service.  But, he happened to be gone the day of the court appearance and when he asked the fill-in commissioner what happened, she told him the whole story. WHOOPs.

I’m not going to lie, one night I was super bored and stumbled on the judicial commission’s website of published disciplinary opinions.  And you thought the bar discipline section of the daily journal was juicy? This stuff is SUPER entertaining.  Highly recommend adding to your favorites so when you’re in court with nothing to do you have some great reading material.

JJC VERDICT: Dear Judge Mills, super petty, not worth it, just play by the rules next time. Dear commissioner dude with a grudge: INTERESTING. I’m guessing your snitching on Judge Mills is going to hurt, not help, that beef.

P.S. while I was on their site, I noticed that Judge Seeman (finally) resigned in March because of this.His mug shot makes me sad. double sad face.

Today’s Corgi

My Corgi, who I will refer to as Jane Doe henceforth because, no joke, my husband worries about her privacy.  I kind of wish I really  had named her Jane Doe though, kind of an awesome name for a beautiful corgi like mine.

JJC VERDICT:  Jane Doe is a sleeping beauty.

Reversible Error to Deny D’s Motion for DA to Run Cop’s Rap Sheet!!!

Dear Judge Thomas Maddock, your ass just got reversed!!!

This one straight outta the trenches of Contra Costa County.   Wohooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here are the highlights:

“The trial court . . . denied appellant’s discovery motion to the extent it sought Officer Stonebreaker’s birth date and rap sheet.

….As a matter of due process, a defendant is entitled to discovery of all material exculpatory evidence, including impeachment evidence. (Strickler v. Greene (1999) 527 U.S. 263, 280-281; Brady, supra, 373 U.S. 83; People v. Superior Court (Barrett) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1314.) Such exculpatory evidence includes any misdemeanor misconduct involving moral turpitude disclosed in a witness’s rap sheet, as well as information relating to whether the witness has pending criminal charges and whether he is on probation. (People v. Santos (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 169, 178-179 (Santos); Hayes, supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 1244.) Additionally, Penal Code section 1054.1 provides “The prosecuting attorney shall disclose to the defendant or his or her attorney all of the following materials and information, if it is in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or if the prosecuting attorney knows it to be in the possession of the investigating agencies: [¶] . . . [¶] (d) The existence of a felony conviction of any material witness whose credibility is likely to be critical to the outcome of the trial.

The People correctly note rap sheets themselves are not discoverable. (People v. Roberts (1992) 2 Cal.4th 271, 308 (Roberts); Hill v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 812, 821.) While the prosecution need not disclose Officer Stonebreaker’s actual rap sheet, it must disclose the record of a felony conviction and any misdemeanor conviction involving moral turpitude. (Santos, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at pp. 178-179 [applying People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 295-296, and concluding misdemeanor misconduct involving moral turpitude must be disclosed “when such information is requested by the defendant and is in the prosecutor‟s possession”]; Roberts, at p. 308 [court erred as a matter of state procedural law by failing to order disclosure of all felony convictions to the defense].) The People concede as much when they state “appellant did have the right to information relating to [Officer Stonebreaker’s] convictions of any felon[ies] or misdemeanors involving moral turpitude” if the information was “ reasonably accessible‟ to the prosecutor.”

Here, “[n]ot only does the prosecutor have reasonable access to rap sheets, he is the assigned doorkeeper. Since the prosecutor has reasonable access to rap sheets, and he has “possession” under [In re Littlefield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 122], . . . a prosecutor shall on a standard discovery request inquire of „the existence of a felony conviction of any material witness whose credibility is likely to be critical to the outcome of the trial.‟ ” (People v. Little (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 426, 432-433, quoting Pen. Code, § 1054.1, subd. (d)].) In addition, “the birth date of a police officer is covered by Penal Code section 832.8 and can be discovered only by means of a Pitchess motion. (Fletcher v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 386, 401-402.)”

Juvenile In Justice

Dear WPSU, thank you so much for pointing out this video to me.  Photographer and researcher Richard Ross visited juvenile justice centers across our country to take photographs. Simple enough.  But oh so powerful.

Ross tells the stories of the voiceless.  Stories about the outrageous reasons they are there (e.g. stealing a bagel).  Stories about the more and deeper outrageous reason they are there (e.g. they have been sexually and physically abused, their parents are locked up). 
There are also heartbreaking videos. See e.g. this one about a kid in solitary confinement. Which, unsurprisingly, causes kids to kill themselves.  Yes, we as a “civilized” society put CHILDREN in solitary confinement.

We also impose gang injunctions on 6th graders.
You can look up the juvenile hall in your jurisdiction to see if he visited it here.
Here are upcoming and current exhibitions and lectures.

Finally, you can support him and me (disclosure: I get 4% ($1.20 if you buy via this link) by buying his book:

More info:

phone: 805-893-7205
twitter: @juvenileinjust

JJC has MANY plans to post about juvenile (in)justice issues including defenses of the day to use in juvenile court that are based on due process and the equal protection clause. I am still in the research phase though.  So, look out for them in the near future.