ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Humor Blogs -> Lowering the Bar

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Law Humor

: Lowering the Bar

Bear Convicted

By Kevin Underhill

ADVERTISEMENTS

Bear Reuters News reported last week that a court in Bitola, Macedonia, has convicted a bear of theft and property damage in a case brought by a beekeeper.

Rumors of violent protests against the ruling in Jellystone Park could not be immediately confirmed.

Beekeeper Zoran Kiseloski told reporters after the case concluded that he had tried to deter the bear from stealing his honey in the first place.  "I tried to distract the bear with lights and music because I heard bears are afraid of that," said Kiseloski.  The source of his bear-deterrence information was not disclosed, but it appears to have been successful.

This may or may not have been related to the fact that the music involved was "turbo-folk," a style that became popular in Serbia, along with war crimes, during the 1990s.  The best-known turbo-folk artist, Ceca (a.k.a. Svetlana Ra?natovi?), was once married to notorious criminal and paramilitary leader Arkan, until he was assassinated in 2000.  She remains extremely popular in Serbia.

Bears hate her, though.

Kiseloski's plan seems to have worked until his generator died.  But then the bear, which seems to have loitered just out of turbo-folk range, returned and destroyed the beehives, stealing the honey and possibly nearby pic-a-nic baskets.  What to do?  Answer: sue the bear.

According to the report, the case lasted a year.  What took so long is not clear, unless possibly they were trying to find the bear, which had absconded.  What was the point of convicting the bear in absentia?  The court seems to have reasoned that, ordinarily, convicting the bear would make its owner responsible for the damage.  In this case, the bear was a free agent, but the court apparently extended this doctrine to the state by noting that the bear, an endangered species, was under state protection.  Thus, the effect of convicting the bear was to force the state to pay the beekeeper's damages, approximately 140,000 denars (whatever that means).

I suggest that the state try to recover some of these denars by suing the purveyors of turbo-folk for environmental and bear damage.  If the beekeeper won, I don't see why this wouldn't work, too.

Link:  Reuters via Yahoo! News

Full post as published by Lowering the Bar on March 19, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0126 secs (new cache)