Articles Posted in Best Of

Forget about flying first class. Men may soon be asking for “Martz” class. Why? Pilot Martz was flying a helicopter while receiving oral sex from a porn actress! How do we know this? It’s on video! (“The video shows the woman disrobing before engaging Martz in a sex act while the San Diego landscape is passing by the [ahem] cockpit windows,” as reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune.)

In his defense (in filings relating to his pilot’s license) Martz “… said … that the video showed he had his hands on the flight controls while receiving oral sex.” Shazam! I guess if you’re going to fight it, you have to offer something up. So what happened?

[The] judge has upheld the revocation of the license …

Is there any future (in flying) for Mr. Martz?

[He] … will have to reapply for his license next year when the revocation ends.

Did his past record play a part? Perhaps …

Martz is a commercial pilot with a history of FAA violations, including two license suspensions and two revocations going back to the 1980s.

Furthermore…

Lawyers for the federal agency argued Martz’s conduct was careless and reckless. His attention was diverted from flying; the woman’s position prevented him from reaching flight controls; and she could have caused him physical harm that would have precluded him from operating the helicopter, according to Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman.

And, um, you’ve read Martz’s defense. [Also, “Martz has argued that since the 2005 incident, he served a suspension last year on an unrelated matter and had corrected any defects in his flying skills.”] “Hence, careless and recklessness cannot be made as a finding of fact,” according to Martz’s filing.

Um, yes, they can. The end? Not necessarily. “Martz can appeal the ruling to the NTSB.”

Reverend Robert Whipkey was arrested in Frederick, Colorado for jogging naked (around the high school track) at 4:30 a.m. He was busted while walking home, still naked. So what was his defense to the indecent exposure charge? Per the Daily Camera:

Whipkey’s attorney argued his client’s actions didn’t satisfy an element of the indecent-exposure law that requires proof he “knowingly” exposed himself. Defense attorney Harvey Steinberg said Whipkey thought he was alone.

“Did he say, ‘Hey, look at me. I’m naked. Take a look at my genitals?’” Steinberg said. “When he realized for the first time that someone was out at 4:30 a.m., he immediately covered up.”

Do you think the defense worked? As Maxwell Smart would say, “missed it by that much.” The jury found Reverend Whipkey guilty.

Mr. Joe Scola, of Gloucester, Massachusetts, heard the front door of his restaurant slam. As reported in the Gloucester Daily Times,

When he glanced outside, he saw his waitress returning from a break. She asked him, “Who’s that guy carrying the meat down the street?” Scola recounted yesterday.

The dude was loaded up with 20 pounds of Scola’s frozen meat. So Scola chased him and caught him.

Oscar Reynolds Jr. was acquitted of robbing the Liberty Bank in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Guess what Mr. Reynolds was doing about a month after the acquittal? He was robbing that same bank! Unlike the first time, where he was acquitted because he could not be positively ID’d, smart money says Mr. Reynolds will see the inside of a cell this time. Why? Per The Jonesboro Sun:

In a police interview Reynolds “admitted to entering the bank with a gun and committing the robbery.”

Doh! And …

“There also was money found under the mattress in the bedroom where Reynolds was [hiding]. One of the bills found had a serial number that was logged by the bank as being stolen.”

“A firearm was found in the adjacent apartment that matched the description of the gun that the suspect used.”

Cab Driver Tewfik Boukhelal jumped out of his cab – while it was moving! This was not okay with his two passengers, especially the one who was knocked unconscious as she too jumped out of the moving cab. Why did he do this? Because Mr. Boukhelal thought the passengers (1) had released a substance, and (2) were going to steal from him. Say what? I’m having a really hard time reconciling these thoughts. Headache coming. (See below.)

The Judge hearing the case remarked that it was “the most bizarre case of dangerous driving” he’d ever seen. The penalty? No more driving for Mr. Boukhelal, at least for the next 18 months. He was also put on probation for 12 months, given 160 hours of community service, and must retake the driving test. No worries, though. He found a new job as a translator. You will find the rest of the story here.

From the case of Salinero v. Pon, 124 Cal.App.3d 120, 177 Cal. Rptr. 204 (1981):

The owner of a six-story apartment building hired an independent contractor, the plaintiff’s employer, to wash the windows of the building. No safety devices – from which window washers could be suspended – had been installed on the building. So the owner and the contractor agreed that the windows would be washed by means of a ladder extended over the edge of the roof from which the workers would be suspended in a boatswain’s chair secured to the roof by a weighted sand bag. Brilliant! While the plaintiff was suspended in the chair some 35-40 feet above the ground, a fellow worker mistakenly removed the sand bag anchoring the plaintiff’s chair, causing him to fall and suffer injury.

.
[13 pages!] Spoiler alert – Salinero, the falling guy … [see below]

lost!

If Alexander Yermilov is saying this, you should listen. If not, you might find yourself on the business end of an ax. As reported by UPI:

Prosecutors said a man in the Chita region of Russia killed two friends he found dismembering his pet dog so they could prepare a meal.

The regional branch of the Prosecutor General’s Office said Alexander Yermilov took an ax to his friends whom he found butchering his Great Dane when he returned to his home in Natsigun in December, The Moscow Times reported Thursday.

After Yermilov struck Irina Maryasova and Nikolai Sedunov several times, killing them on the spot, he called the police and confessed, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors said the reason why the two killed the dog or wanted to eat it was unknown.

For 57-year-old truck driver Mohamed Nor of Malaysia, 3 wives and 18 kids (ages 4 to 34) are not enough. So he is seeking the permission of the Syrariah High Court to marry a fourth women. And guess who has consented to the marriage? Wives 1,2 and 3. Said Judge Shaikh Ahmad, per the New Straits Times:

“I find it rather strange because since becoming a (syariah) judge, this is the first time where all three wives not only allow their husband to marry another woman but are very supportive of it,” he said during the hearing of Mohamed Nor’s application.

Do you think the Judge allowed the marriage? Nope. His concern? How can a truck driver making RM 1,500 per month (US $468.75) take on another wife? So Mr. Nor has to answer this question to the court’s satisfaction before the marriage will be approved.

Nor would you want to be, because many folks have died with lower blood-alcohol levels. Would it surprise you if a fraternity was involved? Or pledges? Five hours of drinking? Me either. Pledges to Beta Theta Pi at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania kicked off the pledging season with a bang. The brothers made sure of that. As reported in The Brown and White, the school’s paper:

After dinner, all members of the pledge class were taken into the party room and offered shots of Old Crow whiskey for about one and a half to two hours. They were then taken into the chapter room and given champagne to drink out of the “loving cup,” which is a ritual at the fraternity, according to a police affidavit.

Shots of whiskey for 1.5 – 2 hours? It’s no wonder, then, that one of the pledges had a blood-alcohol level of .505, more than 6 times the level of legal impairment (.08) in Pennsylvania! Incredibly, the kid didn’t die, though he and another pledge (.31) were in the hospital, unresponsive and breathing through ventilators. (Last year a Rider University student with a .426 blood-alcohol level died.)

Actually in the United Kingdom, what Americans call potato chips, they call “crisps.” The burning question before a UK High Court judge was: Are Pringles “crisps” or not? Why is this important? Because if they are crisps, they get taxed at 17.5%! If not, they are exempt from the tax, as is most other food. So what was the decision?

Judge Justice Warren said Pringles’ “unnatural shape”, distinctive tube packaging, and non-potato ingredients meant that the snack could not be classified as a crisp.

The ruling yesterday pointed out that Pringles – who are most famous for their irritatingly catch adverts “once you pop, you can’t stop” – contain corn flour, wheat starch, maltodextrin, emulsifier, rice flour and dextrose, and just 42 per cent potato content.

I am shocked, shocked I say … that anyone would argue Pringles are potato chips. You can read more in The Telegraph article here.