top of page

Catholic Daily Quotes

Public·78 members
Carter White
Carter White

The Man Who Sued GodMovie | 2001


The Man Who Sued God is a 2001 Australian film starring Scottish funnyman Billy Connolly, who plays fisherman and retired lawyer Steve Meyers. His wife has left him for the owner of the caravan park she lives in and is thinking of leaving with their daughter. This suits Steve just fine as he gets to spend his days on his boat with his dog, until lightning destroys it. When the Insurance companies refuse to pay on the basis of it being an act of god, Steve contemplates legal action. His local church gives him the idea to sue God instead, holding the Insurance agencies responsible for using God as a legal loophole.




The Man Who Sued GodMovie | 2001



According to the complaint, Ruth met Carter in the autograph line after attending the Backstreet Boys concert at the Tacoma Dome in February 2001. While on the tour bus, Carter gave her what he described as "VIP juice," which Ruth believes was a combination of alcohol and cranberry juice. After she finished the drink, Carter took her to the bathroom on the bus and told her to get on her knees. He then pulled down his pants, exposing his genitals, and demanded that she perform sexual acts on him, the complaint states.


In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued new recommendations on circumcisions as routine procedures for newborn males. After nearly 40 years of analysis, researchers found that the benefits of circumcision were not significant enough to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision.


3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol Pennsylvania was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up, because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. This upset Mr. Dickson, so he sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change.


6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000.00 and dental expenses.


Origins: This "and you wonder what's wrong with the world today?" whinge appeared on the Internet in May 2001. All of the entries in the list are fabrications: a search for news stories about each of these cases failed to turn up anything, as did a search for each law case.


In November 2000, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago.


  • A San Carlos, California, man sued the Escondido Public Library for $1.5 million. His dog, a 50-pound Labrador mix, was attacked November 2000 by the library's 12-pound feline mascot, L.C., (also known as Library Cat). The case was heard in January 2004, with the jury finding for the defendant. In a further case which was resolved in July 2004, the plaintiff in the previous suit was ordered to pay the city $29,362.50, which amounted to 75% of its legal fees associated with that case.



  • In 1994, a student at the University of Idaho unsuccessfully sued that institution over his fall from a third-floor dorm window. He'd been mooning other students when the window gave way. It was contended the University failed to provide a safe environment for students or to properly warn them of the dangers inherent to upper-story windows.



  • In 1993, McDonald's was unsuccessfully sued over a car accident in New Jersey. While driving, a man who had placed a milkshake between his legs, leaned over to reach into his bag of food and squeezed the milkshake container in the process. When the lid popped off and spilled half the drink in his lap, this driver became distracted and ran into another man's car. That man in turn tried to sue McDonald's for causing the accident, saying the restaurant should have cautioned the man who had hit him against eating while driving.



But after years of legal proceedings, the Federal Court issued a summary judgement that sided entirely with the CRA. He also ruled that Oddi would be on the hook for $10,000 in legal costs to the government.


Prior to yesterday's indictment, four other physicians have beencharged and have pleaded guilty in this investigation: Dr. RodneyMannion, a urologist practicing in LaPorte and Michigan City, Indiana,was charged on February 28, 2000 with healthcare fraud. Dr. Mannionpleaded guilty to that charge on April 25, 2000. Dr. Jacob Zamstein,a urologist practicing in Bloomfield, Connecticut, was charged onNovember 3, 2000 with healthcare fraud and pleaded guilty on December27, 2000. Dr. Joseph Spinella, a urologist practicing in Bristol,Connecticut, was charged on December 8, 2000 with healthcare fraud andpleaded guilty on March 29, 2001. Dr. Joel Olstein, a urologistpracticing in Lewiston, Maine, was charged on April 11, 2001 withhealthcare fraud and pleaded guilty on July 18, 2001.


This case arises out of a recent protest at the Statue. According to the Government, on November 5, 2000, a group of protesters hung banners and a Puerto Rican flag from the top of the Statue of Liberty and distributed literature to protest the use of Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, for naval bombing exercises. They also distributed literature in support of their cause inside the Statue. (See March 4, 2001 letter to the Court from AUSA Robin A. Linsenmayer ("Linsenmayer II")). Prior to their demonstration at the Statue, the protesters, including Sued, did not apply for either a "public assembly" or a "printed matter" permit from the Superintendent of Liberty Island. (See Feb. 27, 2001 letter from AUSA Linsenmayer to the Court ("Linsenmayer I")).


*349 One of the protesters, Alberto DeJesus Mercado, is alleged by the Government to have climbed through a window in the Status's crown to hang the banners and flags. The United States Attorney charged Mercado in an information with Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree under the federal Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 13(a), and his case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Dolinger. (See Linsenmayer II). The Mercado case was tried on April 3, 2001; 1 am advised that Judge Dolinger later found the defendant guilty in a decision rendered from the bench on April 30, 2001.


The National Park Service web site indicates that any person or group wishing to "conduct a demonstration, display a banner, ... [or] have a meeting" at the Statue of Liberty must apply for a permit on an approved form "a minimum of 72 hours in advance" unless this period is "waived by the Superintendent or designec." (See March 9, 2001 letter to the Court from AUSA Linsenmayer ("Linsenmayer III") at Ex. D; Public (last visited Apr. 30, 2001)). Persons or groups seeking to distribute printed matter at the Statue similarly are instructed to apply for a permit at least 72 hours before their planned activities, and there is no mention on the web site of this period being waived. (Id.). Only two public assembly and two printed matter permits are issued on a "first come, first served basis" for any given day. Furthermore, the permitees must restrict their activities to a two-hour period in a designated portion of the flagpole area at Liberty Island. (Id.). Even in that area, the permitees may not "interfere with normal public use or pedestrian flow." (Id.).


Although the published procedures afford National Park Service officials at least 72 hours to review each written permit application, in practice the review is considerably less involved. Indeed, both the Concessions Management Specialist and *350 the Administrative Sergeant of the Park Police assigned to Liberty Island routinely approve permit applications submitted on the day of a proposed event unless there is a scheduling conflict. (See Linsenmayer III Exs. E (Affirmation of Tonia Best, dated Mar. 8, 2001 ("Best Affirm.")) 10; F (Affirmation of Sergeant Ian Crane, dated Mar. 8, 2001 ("Crane Affirm.")) 9-11). Both individuals aver that their decisions regarding applications for assembly permits and printed matter permits are content neutral; in fact, the Concessions Management Specialist states that she does "not recall ever having denied an application for a permit for public demonstration or assembly, or to distribute printed matter." (See Best Affirm. 8-9; Crane Affirm. 9). Moreover, although on-the-spot applicants are subject to a $25 permit fee, the Sergeant indicates that this fee is always waived if the applicant merely represents "that he or she does not have the funds." (See Crane Affirm. 11).[1]


In his letter to the Court, Mr. Stolar explains that his client's First Amendment challenge to 36 C.F.R. 2.51 and 2.52 is based upon the Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Frandsen, 212 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir.2000). There, the defendants, and others, were cited for a violation of 2.51 because they engaged in a demonstration at a national park without having previously secured a public assembly permit. The Court of Appeals concluded that the regulation was facially invalid because it required a permit to be issued "without unreasonable delay," see 36 C.F.R. 2.51(c), but did not set a specific time limitation on the exercise of the Superintendent's discretion. Id. at 1240. As Mr. Stolar accurately observes, because the "without unreasonable delay" language also appears in 36 C.F.R. 2.52(c), which relates to printed matter permits, the reasoning of Frandsen, if correct, should be equally applicable to that provision. 041b061a72


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

Members

  • wryan6
  • Edward Turner
    Edward Turner
  • Janet Gee
    Janet Gee
  • JoJo
    JoJo
  • Rat
    Rat
bottom of page