Millionaire baffled why wife became ‘so aggressive’ after he replaced her with younger model. The kicker: he asked her to stay on as his ‘housekeeper


A businessman worth millions could not understand when he installed another woman into his home and asked his partner of 30 years if she would stay on as a housekeeper why she became ‘so aggressive’, a judge heard.                                                               

The details emerged from a private trial in the Family Division of the High Court, where the man’s partner was awarded a payout of more than £6million.

Mr Justice Bodey said the couple, from London, could not be identified, but his judgment reveals the man, who has interests in a portfolio of property in the capital, was in his 70s, and the partner in her 50s.

They married in the late 1970s and divorced in the 1990s, but the judge said they treated the divorce as ‘just a piece of paper’ and carried on living together.

About five years ago the man met another woman, and Mr Justice Bodey revealed his rather unorthodox plan for new living arrangements.

“The husband installed the other woman – and her 12-year-old daughter – into the marital home.

“The husband told (his partner) he was not intending her to vacate, and would she remain as some sort of housekeeper?”

He said she found the suggestion ‘very demeaning and upsetting’, and consulted solicitors to begin litigation, but the Judge said the man ‘could not come to terms with why (the partner), through her lawyers, had become so aggressive’.

Mr Justice Bodey ruled she was entitled to nearly half of a ‘kitty’ containing more than £13million.

Even if you’re really hungry, don’t just go to lunch, leaving your patient on the table with his heart hanging out


ABC_silvino_perez_split_sr_140115_16x9_992Cristobal “Cris” Arteaga had come to terms with the fact that his stepfather, Silvino Perez, had been in a vegetative state for more than a year following complications from open-heart surgery, when he said an anonymous phone call suddenly shattered his peace.

The man on the other end of the line, Arteaga said, told him that his stepfather’s cardiologist, Dr. Parvaiz Chaudhry, at Fresno Community Regional Medical Center in California, had walked out before completing Perez’s surgery to attend a luncheon, leaving Perez’s chest cavity open on the table.

The caller told Arteaga that the physician’s assistant was left to close Perez’s chest even though he wasn’t qualified to do so, Arteaga said. When complications arose and Perez’s heart stopped, Chaudhry drove back from the luncheon, 20 or 30 minutes away, to save the patient, Arteaga said the caller told him. But the brain damage had already been done.

Artaega said the caller told him that this was why Perez was left in a vegetative state.

“It was awful to hear that,” Arteaga said. “I just want people to know what kind of doctor he is. You go in there and you trust this individual with your life. … The fact that he would do this to an individual – one individual – is too much.”

The man on the other end of the line told Arteaga to look at the previous day’s newspaper, The Fresno Bee, for an article about a state health department report detailing how a cardiologist at Fresno Community Regional Medical Center left a patient open on the operating table the previous April. Though neither the story nor the report named the patient or the patient’s doctor, the caller said it was about Arteaga’s stepfather and Chaudhry. Arteaga said the caller told him he was sure of it, because he was in the operating room that day.

The document on the California Department of Public Health’s website revealed that the investigation began because the department had received an anonymous call placed to the health department a week after Perez’s surgery.

Arteaga’s lawyer, Jeffrey Mitchell, said the dates and medical details listed on the report were too similar to Perez’s case for this to be a coincidence.

Neither the California Department of Public Health nor the hospital would confirm whether the report was about Chaudhry and Perez to, but Arteaga’s lawyer, Jeffrey Mitchell, said the dates and medical details listed on the report matched Perez’s case and therefore couldn’t be a coincidence.

Before his surgery, Perez was an active 72-year-old, Arteaga said. He could climb 30 feet up his trees to prune them himself, and if he didn’t answer his front door, Arteaga knew he could find his stepfather tinkering away at a project in the backyard.

Perez didn’t go to the doctor much, said his stepson, but on March 30, 2012, Arteaga got a call from a health facility that his stepfather was having chest pains and needed to be taken to the emergency room, Arteaga said. A few days later, they both learned that Perez had a heart defect, a calcified heart valve and an aortic aneurism. He was scheduled for surgery at Fresno Community Regional Medical Center on April 2, 2012, but was in good spirits, Arteaga said.

The day of the surgery, Arteaga said he and his mother were led to a private waiting room and told that they would receive updates on the surgery via the waiting-room phone. Arteaga said it rang when Perez’s surgery started, and two hours into the surgery, Chaudhry came into the room to proclaim the surgery a success. He then walked out.

Unknown to Arteaga and his mother in the waiting room, this was likely when the doctor left the hospital before closing the patient’s chest, according to Jeffrey Mitchell, the family’s attorney.

Arteaga and his mother were still in the hospital waiting room on April 2 when the phone rang again to tell them that Perez was facing complications, Arteaga said.

“It was somewhat of a whirlwind,” Arteaga said. “At one point in time, they told us to round up the whole family, because they didn’t think he was going to pull through.

“I didn’t know that the doctor walked out, and that was the reason my dad was in the state that he’s in,” he said.

Bizarre Legal Battle Between Nudists Ends With Clothed Eviction


n-NUDISTS-large570A woman who had defied an Anne Arundel County nudist club’s bid to bar her from its grounds in Davidsonville has complied with a court order to move out of her leased cabin, putting an end to what she called the “nude feud.”

Catherine Holmes lost her legal fight against the Maryland Health Society Inc., and was evicted from a cabin by a stream in the woods that she’d been leasing from the club since 2010.

“I have to move on, I have to get on with my life. … So it’s over,” said Holmes, 54, who said she moved out Saturday as two county police officers looked on. She said she wanted to do it in the nude, “but it was a little bit cold.”

Holmes had been holed up in the cabin for much of the time since the summer, resisting the club’s attempts to bar her from the property. She said she had been locking the place from the inside and crawling in and out through a window in an effort to keep people out.

She said she’s now staying with her parents in Falls Church, Va., but is not sure where she’ll go from there. She’s been unemployed since June, when she worked as a legal assistant in Washington.

Paul S. Blumenthal, an Annapolis lawyer representing the club, said he was surprised the case Holmes brought against the club in Anne Arundel Circuit Court got as far as it did.

“It never had merit,” he said.

In a lawsuit filed in May, Holmes contended that she was being ejected from the club in retaliation for complaining that “sexual activity was being promoted and accepted in public areas,” which she said is prohibited by the club. Located on 98 wooded acres — now with 25 cabins, clubhouse, pool and bathhouse — the club was founded in 1934.

She said she never saw any sexual activity in public areas herself but based her complaint on other members’ accounts. She also said that in the club’s common areas she’d spotted a sexually suggestive sign, seen one member drinking from a phallic “sippy cup” and another wearing a ring on his genitals.

The club argued the dispute was not about sex but about her membership and cabin lease. About a year ago, Holmes sent a letter and emails to the board of directors saying she wanted to discuss an “exit strategy,” as she had decided to sell her 46-year lease, which she had bought from another member for $10,000.

The board later responded that it would accept her request to quit and returned the $400 check she’d sent to renew her membership.

Holmes said this summer she had not meant to give up membership immediately, but wanted to talk about her plans.

After a hearing in June, a circuit judge found Holmes was not then a club member. The court had also denied Holmes’ motions to stop the club from barring her from the property.

Last week, the court approved the club’s motion to deny Holmes’ claims and a move to evict her. She was ordered to pack up and leave Saturday.

Pimp sues Nike for $100 million because there was no warning label in the Jordans he wore when he stomped the shiat out of a john that refused to pay his ho


A 26-year-old Portland pimp has filed a $100 million lawsuit against Nike, claiming the shoe manufacturer is partially responsible for a brutal beating that helped net him a 100-year prison sentence.

14068627-smallSirgiorgiro Clardy claims Nike should have placed a label in his Jordan shoes warning consumers that they could be used as a dangerous weapon. He was wearing a pair when he repeatedly stomped the face of a john who was trying to leave a Portland hotel without paying Clardy’s prostitute in June 2012.

Jurors early in 2013 found him guilty of second-degree assault for using his Jordans — a dangerous weapon — to beat the john’s face to a pulp. The man required stitches and plastic surgery on his nose.The jury also found him guilty of robbing the john and beating the 18-year-old woman he forced to work as his prostitute. She was injured so badly that she bled from her ears.

In his three-page complaint handwritten from the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution in Pendleton, Clardy claims that Nike, Chairman Phil Knight and other executives failed to warn consumers that the shoes could be used as a weapon to cause serious injury or death.

“Under product liability there is a certain standard of care that is required to be up-held by potentially dangerous product …” wrote Clardy, who is representing himself. “Do (sic) to the fact that these defendants named in this Tort claim failed to warn of risk or to provide an adequate warning or instruction it has caused personal injury in the likes of mental suffering.”Clardy wrote that he’s tried to starve himself and kill himself multiple times.

He asks a Multnomah County judge to order Nike to affix warning labels to all their “potentially dangerous Nike and Jordan merchandise.”

In the past, Oregon defendants have been convicted of using a wide array of items or substances as dangerous weapons. The list includes boots, rope, a phone receiver, scalding hot water and HIV-infected blood. The “dangerous weapon” classification can spur longer prison sentences.

Clardy filed his suit this week in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

During his two-week trial and his two-day sentencing hearing, Clardy was known for his unusual courtroom antics. He shouted expletives at the judge, prosecutors and jurors.

A psychologist declared him an anti-social psychopath who was 100 percent likely to commit violent crimes again. And Clardy disagreed so loudly — making such a scene — that he was removed from the courtroom.
In the coming days, the suit will be served to Nike, which will then have an opportunity to respond.

Penis drawing on business card could cost man his unemployment benefits


Penis-drawing-on-business-card-could-cost-Wyoming-man-his-unemployment-benefitsA Wyoming car dealership that fired an employee for allegedly drawing a penis on his business card and giving it to a female customer is asking a judge to reverse the Unemployment Insurance Commission’s decision to award him unemployment benefits.

The commission ruled in October that there was no proof that former Teton Motors employee David Dell deliberately drew the penis and intentionally gave it to a female customer.

Teton Motors is challenging the decision and claims that it is “adversely affected” by having to pay a portion of Dell’s unemployment benefits.

According to Dell’s files from the Department of Workforce Services, this is what happened:

“The same woman came to the dealership interested in buying a car and spoke with Dell. At the end of the meeting, Dell handed her his business card. The card had a drawing of a penis on the back, which Dell claims he did not realize at the time. He tried to follow up with the woman, but she hung up on him… Six months later, the female customer contacted Teton Motors interested in a car she’d seen online. The person assisting her tried to direct her to Dell, but she refused to work with him, citing the penis incident as her reason. Shortly after that, Teton Motors fired Dell.”

The case hinges on the issue of who drew the penis.

Dell’s lawyer, Pamela Parkins, claims that another employee who was fired at the same time as her client drew the offensive picture.

Parkins said that the employee was always “messing with” Dell’s business cards.

Teton Motors is requesting that Dell be ruled ineligible for unemployment benefits and be required to pay back any benefits he received.

Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples


131206-cake-discrimination-732p_photoblog600A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.

The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple “because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.”

The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.

Mullins and Craig wanted to buy a cake in July 2012, but when Phillips found out the cake was to celebrate a gay wedding, he turned the couple away, according to the complaint.

Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, said the judge’s order puts Phillips in an impossible position of going against his Christian faith.

“He can’t violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck,” she said. “If Jack can’t make wedding cakes, he can’t continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.”

The Civil Rights Commission is expected to certify the judge’s order next week. Phillips can appeal the judge’s order, and Martin said they’re considering their next steps.

Mullins said he and Craig are “ecstatic.”

“To a certain extent, though, I don’t think that this is necessarily a surprise,” he said. “We thought it was pretty clear cut that he had discriminated against us.”

Mullins said he hopes the “decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado.”

A similar case is pending in Washington state, where a florist is accused of refusing service for a same-sex wedding. In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled in August that an Albuquerque business was wrong to decline to photograph a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony.

Colorado has a constitutional ban against gay marriage but allows civil unions. The civil union law, which passed earlier this year, does not provide religious protections for businesses.

“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

ACLU attorney Amanda Goad said no one is asking Phillips to change his religious beliefs.

“But treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination, plain and simple,” she said.

Practice makes perfect. But it can also drive your neighbour crazy … Spanish pianist could be jailed after neighbour complains


20130927_piano_stA concert pianist in northern Spain faces the prospect of jail after her rehearsals drove her downstairs neighbour to call the authorities.

After a three-day criminal trial in the city of Girona, the public prosecutor asked the judges on Friday to jail 27-year-old Laia Martin for 16 months for violating noise ordinances.

The prosecutor also asked for an additional four months for causing psychological damage, and for Martin to be banned from professional piano playing for six months.

Martin’s neighbour Sonia Bosom claimed loss of sleep and panic attacks caused by Martin’s eight hours of practice a day from 2003 to 2007, when she was studying at a music college. “My client just wants justice. She has been suffering for many years,” said Bosom’s lawyer, Tomas Torres, requesting a four-year sentence – less than the seven he had asked for at the start of the trial.

Martin’s defence said she had tried to soundproof her practice room and muffle the piano, and that her practising had not been as constant as Bosom alleged.

Martin’s parents could be fined thousands of euros if they are found guilty of being accomplices.

A verdict and sentencing are expected in a few weeks.

Women sue after realizing that putting caffeine in their underwear doesn’t make them skinnier


maidenA class-action lawsuit against Maidenform Brands Inc. claims that the caffeine in its shapewear for women does not get rid of cellulite as it previously claimed.

The company originally promised that its shapewear would tame curves using tiny caffeine capsules imbedded in the fabric. The caffeine was supposed to get rid of fat, somehow.

Two New Yorkers, Christine Caramore and Michelle Martin, filed the suit after wearing the items and not receiving the desired effect. They argue that the product was falsely advertised.

One part of the lawsuit reads: “The Federal Trade Commission calls such claims about as credible as a note from the Tooth Fairy.”

The lawsuit also states that the company preyed on women’s insecurities about their body images.

Both women seek class certification, restitution, and statutory, treble damages and punitive damages for consumer fraud, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.

Maidenform has yet to comment on the suit.

A similar lawsuit was filed in 2012 against Sketchers, when it advertised leg-toning footwear that did nothing of the sort. The company was forced to pay $40 million in settlement money and issue a massive recall for its shoes.

Man Says It’s His Constitutional Right To Take ‘Upskirt’ Photos


A Massachusetts man claims he has the constitutional right to take “upskirt” photos of women in public.

skirt_0Michael Robertson, now 31, was arrested in 2010 after trying to take cellphone photos up women’s dresses on the Boston subway, according to the Boston Herald.

The Andover man is charged with two counts of photographing an unsuspecting nude or partially nude person, the Eagle Tribune reports, and faces more than two years in jail if found guilty.

Monday, Roberton’s lawyer, Michelle Menken, argued before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that Robertson did not commit a crime because his right to snap photos up women’s skirts is protected under the First Amendment.

“If a clothed person reveals a body part whether it was intentional or unintentional, he or she can not expect privacy,” Menken said in court. She went on to say that “peeping Tom” laws protect people from being photographed in bathrooms or dressing rooms, but do not protect clothed individuals in public areas.

She also argued he could not be guilty of photographing a “partially nude” person because the women in the photos were fully clothed, and their genitalia was covered by underwear

“What he saw was in plain sight. He did not place his camera directly up a women’s skirt. He saw what was in front of him,” she argued.

State Attorney Cailin Campbell countered that subway passengers have an “understandable expectation” that they will not be “photographed like that in that kind of setting.”

In 2006, a 34-year-old man in Oklahoma was acquitted in a similar case when. After he stuck a camera under a 16-year-old’s skirt at a SuperTarget store and snapped a picture of her underwear, the court ruled that the teen did not have “a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.”

However, the ruling caused such public outrage that the state eventually passed a law explicitly making it illegal to take photos of a person’s private areas in public without his or her permission.

A legal precedent may be set in a lawsuit over……gay werewolf sex?


It was a tale of love. Betrayal. Arbitration clauses.

Also, werewolf sex.

Cass County author Erin R. Flynn, who writes “gay erotic paranormal romance” under the pen name Joyee Flynn, is suing her Texas-based publisher in a contract dispute.

She has asked a federal judge in Omaha to rule that Siren-BookStrand (“quality erotic romance for the sophisticated reader”) does not own the copyright to a pair of books that Flynn self-published this year: “Trapped and Boiled: UPAC Sagas, Freaks and Rejects No. 1” and “Gideon: Resistant Omegas No. 12.”

The stories feature amorous encounters involving shapeshifters and werewolves, among other plot turns.

In an answering brief, Siren said Flynn’s lawsuit is premature because her contracts require arbitration as the first step to settle a dispute. Siren has filed a separate lawsuit against Flynn in Texas.

Flynn started writing fiction in 2002 and has written 89 books for Siren since 2010, according to the lawsuit. She said she typically writes 15,000 words a day and can finish a book in a week or two.

Flynn submitted a manuscript for “Gideon” on June 1, but an editor at Siren wanted to market the book under a different imprint, so she withdrew it from consideration.

On June 30, Flynn shipped the manuscript for “Trapped and Boiled.” But she objected to changes proposed by her editor, so she withdrew that one, too.

Flynn said she never signed a contract for either book. Instead, she self-published the books on

Siren’s lawyers sent Flynn a notice that she had breached her contract.

Then, after Flynn filed her lawsuit, Siren Publisher Diana DeBalko, who goes by Amanda Hilton, sent a takedown notice to asserting copyright over the books. The titles are no longer available online.

At issue is whether the two books are sequels to existing works that Flynn wrote under contract to Siren — in which case the publisher has the first right of refusal — or original works that stand alone in a series.

Siren says they are sequels. Flynn says that although the action is set in the same fictional world, none of the central characters or themes recur.

“Each book is its own romance,” she said.

She sees her lawsuit as an opportunity to set a legal precedent.

“The series versus sequel thing has never been defined in court,” Flynn said.

Flynn has asked U.S. Judge John Gerrard to award unspecified damages and attorney’s fees.

Flynn estimates that each book would gross $75,000 over a 15-year shelf life. In an affidavit, Siren President David DeBalko suggested the lost sales on the two books amount to less than $20,000.

Adam Pugh, an attorney for Siren, said the lawsuits are a routine contract dispute.

“My client is confident in its position and expects to prevail,” he said.