What’s the fastest way to get someone to submit when you’re in a heated MMA competition? Fart in their mouth. Duh.
At least that’s what happened during the NAGA Grappling Championships in Vegas. Competitor number one finds himself in a precarious position and accidentally (intentionally?) let’s one rip…right into competitor number two’s face. Number two immediately releases his grip and vomits on the mat, as one would be prone to do after having methane gas from another being’s body waft straight into their orifices.
So next time you anticipate being in a fight, make sure to eat some beans or broccoli to really build up that bodily gas reserve. It may come in handy.
Perverts of Massachusetts, rejoice! The law is apparently on your side when it comes to taking photos up the skirts of unsuspecting women in public.
Massachusetts highest court ruled yesterday that it’s not illegal to photograph underneath a person’s clothing without their consent, as long as they are not “partially nude.” See, if you for some reason were half naked in public, then photographing you would completely violate your privacy. But since you’re fully clothed, that deranged sicko can’t help if his camera is pointing upwards to your nether region, since it’s technically covered up.
“A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing,” wrote Justice Margot Botsford, who has probably never had a photo of what’s underneath that judicial robe taken of her unknowingly.
The ruling came from a case involving local sketchy guy Michael Robertson, a 32-year-old man who had multiple complaints filed against him from female passengers who had their photo taken by him on the MBTA. A sting operation from local authorities showed that Robertson took an upskirt photo of a female officer and he was consequently arrested and charged with two counts of attempting to secretly photograph a person in a state of partial nudity.
Unfortunately, it seems that the vague language around “partial nudity” doesn’t include a reasonable area for skirts. Or dresses. Or, you know, the general privacy afforded to most people where they know they won’t get their hoo-ha photographed without them knowing it.
“In sum, we interpret the phrase, ‘a person who is … partially nude’ in the same way that the defendant does, namely, to mean a person who is partially clothed but who has one or more of the private parts of body exposed in plain view at the time that the putative defendant secretly photographs her,” stated the court documents.
So, the next time you’re in Massachusetts, ladies and gentlemen, might I advise you to wear pants? And all you peeping toms, now’s your change to head out to Massachusetts. Forget mirrors on the shoes, you can just do whatever you want there!
Oh good. It’s another case of Affluenza!
In what might be one of the most frivolous child vs. parent lawsuits to ever grace a US courtroom, 18-year-old Rachel Canning of Lincoln Park, New Jersey, was met with some stern words from the judge presiding over the case (and I’m sure some eyerolls when the judge went back into chambers).
Canning brought a civil suit against her parents, suing them for living expenses and tuition costs of her private high school and future college tuition, claiming that her parents had kicked her out of their home and that she’s not able to make money herself (normally when this happens, people get jobs, but that apparently just isn’t Rachel’s thing). The lawsuit asked that her parents pay the remaining amount of her private high school tuition (because screw public education!), her living and transportation expenses, and “commit” to paying her college tuition with an already existing fund, as well as her legal fees (let’s just throw some salt in that wound).
Her parents, meanwhile, say that she left their home willingly after she didn’t want to comply by their rules.
Judge Peter Bogaard denied the request for the high school tuition, as well as her living expenses. Judge Bogaard also set another hearing date to determine other factors in the case, which include whether or not Canning left of her own regard. He also asked the attorneys whether it was wise to “establish precedent where parents live in fear of establishing rules of the house?”
Canning alleges that she suffered emotional and physical abuse at the hands of her mother and father, Sean and Elizabeth Canning, saying that her mother called her ”fat” and “porky” and that her father threatened to beat her. The Cannings deny any truth to these accusations, stating that their daughter left after being suspended from school from truancy and disagreeing with their punishment of taking away her car and phone privileges, as well as no longer being allowed to see her boyfriend, who was also suspended. She is currently living with a friend’s family whose parents, John and Amy Inglesino, have fronted the money for the legal suit.
New Jersey’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP), at the behest of the school, conducted an interview with Rachel, her parents, and her two younger sisters, where they ultimately “determined that allegation of emotional abuse was unfounded.”
False accusations in court and a sense of entitlement? I smell an episode of Law and Order in the works…
But to really get an idea of how much of a charmer Rachel Canning is, let’s read this little clip of a voicemail she left her mother:
Hi mom just to let you know you’re a real f*cking winner aren’t you you think you’re so cool and you think you caught me throwing up in the bathroom after eating an egg frittatta, yeah sorry that you have problems now and you need to harp on mine because i didn’t and i actually took a sh*t which i really just wanna sh*t all over your face right now because it looks like that anyway, anyway i f*cking hate you and um I’ve written you off so don’t talk to me, don’t do anything I’m blocking you from just about everything, have a nice life, bye mom