Eborn Legal Review – edited by Andrew Eborn
Weird Christmas Laws
It is not just Santa Claus that is checking his list – checking it twice – to see if you’ve been naughty or nice there is also a myriad of laws through which you must navigate over the festive period.
Risk a £5,000 fine is you drive as Santa
Under Rule 97 of the highway code you should ensure that clothing and footwear do not prevent you using the controls of your vehicle in the correct manner.
Large boots, a fake beard and a large false pot belly may interfere with driving.
Under Alabama law, it is also illegal to wear a fake beard or moustache that causes laughter in church. The law provides “if someone (without lawful authority) disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons they have committed the crime of disorderly conduct. A person who is convicted of this crime faces up to three months in jail and a fine as high as five hundred dollars.”
Fancy Dress
Don’t wear Armour in Houses of Parliament
A 1313 statute forbidding bearing of armour is still in force forbidding entrance to the House of Parliament wearing a suit of armour. Stick to the Father Christmas suit this year! Edward II who put it into place to stop the violence between two opposing factions in parliament – the pro-royalist Lancastrians and the anti-royalist Earl of Gloucester’s party.
Alabama people may not dress as ministers from any religion. Those breaking the rules risk fines up to $500 or maximum term in prison of 1 year.
In Barbados it is an offence for anyone, including children, to dress in camouflage clothing. Liable to fines
Don’t dress up as a Police Officer in UK
Under section 90 Police Act 1996 Impersonation of a Police Officer
(1)Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(2)Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3)Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
(4)In this section—
(a)“article of police uniform” means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document,
| Level 1 | £200 |
| Level 2 | £500 |
| Level 3 | £1,000 |
| Level 4 | £2,500 |
| Level 5 | Unlimited (for offences committed after 13 March 2015)* |
Christmas banned in England
In 1645 Parliament introduced a new ‘Directory of Public Worship’, designed as a replacement for the Book of Common Prayer. This set out a new form of worship for the Anglican church and provided that Christmas, Easter and other such festivals were no longer to be observed with special services or celebrations.
The outright ban came in June 1647, when Parliament passed an ordinance banning Christmas, Easter and Whitsun festivities, services and celebrations, including festivities in the home, with fines for non-compliance. They also introduced a monthly secular public holiday. The ban led to riots including in Kent in 1647.
By 1652 Parliament had passed laws reinforcing the Christmas ban – with fines for staging or attending Christmas services, and shops ordered to remain open on Christmas day,
As with most Commonwealth/Protectorate legislation, the Christmas ban was removed in 1660 with the Restoration..
Did Cromwell ban Christmas pudding and mince pies?
No. The Christmas bans never included any mention of the banning of Mince Pies. Mince pies were made with real meat and not specifically associated with Christmas
Boston outlawed Christmas in 1659
Puritans who fled persecution from an Anglican majority banned Christmas in 1659 maintaining it was supposed to be a day of fasting and prayer and a time to account for sins.
In 1659 Puritans who had migrated to New England declared through the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony:
“Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing labour, feasting or in any other way {shall be} subject to a five-shilling fine”
The law was repealed in the late 17th century but the celebration of Christmas continued to be heavily discouraged in New England for some time thereafter.
In 1870 Christmas became a national holiday in the United States and has been celebrated ever since.
Christmas lights
Many states and municipalities in the United States have laws regulating how long you can keep your Christmas lights up after Christmas.
San Diego – February 2.
Maine – fines may be levied any time after January 15
These laws apply to lights outside your home that may be a nuisance to neighbours.
Laws against “light trespass”
Your Christmas lights can be guilty of “trespass” under “light trespass” laws, which prohibit such things as “misdirected” or “excessive” artificial light caused by “inappropriate” or “misaligned” lights that produce “unnecessary” glowing.
In parts of New Jersey “light trespass” is unlawful
If you are in Eatontown New Jersey, any violation of the region’s “Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Guide” could lead to a fine or imprisonment. Beaches could include the glare from your house causing a nuisance to your neighbours, or being hazardous to cyclists or motorists. If found guilty you would be subject to a civil penalty up to $1250. The court may also order imprisonment or community service for a period not exceeding 90 days.
No booze in your eggnog in Arkansas
In Arkansas it is illegal to Sell Alcohol on Christmas Day
Celebrating Christmas in public is banned in at least five countries
North Korea is an atheist state. Consequently, Christianity and other religions are banned in the country. Included in the banned list is the right to talk about Christmas, celebrate, or worship.
The North Korean government made it a policy to celebrate Kim Jong Suk, the current dictator’s grandmother known to many in the country as “the sacred mother of the revolution.”
In addition to celebrating Christmas, other religious acts that violate North Korean law include:
Praying
Singing Christmas or religious hymns
Having contact with religious people
Possession of religious items
Other countries that have laws against celebrating Christmas in public include:
Albania
Brunei
Saudi Arabia
Tajikistan
Candy Canes
In 2018 in Nebraska, an elementary school principal banned candy canes in the school. “Historically, the shape of the candy cane is a ‘J’ for Jesus. The red is for the blood of Christ, and the white is a symbol of his resurrection.” Also banned was anything suggestive of the religious holiday of Christmas including reindeer, Elf on the Shelf and anything red and green.
Handling salmon suspiciously
Section 32 Salmon Act 1986 – it is an offence to handle a salmon, trout, eels and freshwater fish “in suspicious circumstances”. Aimed to stop people selling fish on the blackmarket.
A five-hour House of Lords debate in February 1986 decided the wording would protect people from the then-in-place wider law of “possessing salmon which have been illegally taken, killed or landed”.
Public entertainment for profit
In some parts of Australia, it is unlawful to partake in public entertainment for profit on Christmas day.
Don’t Shake Your Door Mat Before 8am
s60 (3) The Metropolitan Police Act of 1839 forbids people from shaking their carpets, rugs or mats in any thoroughfare. Exception door mats allowed after 8am.
S 60 (3) Every person who in any thoroughfare shall beat or shake any carpet, rug, or mat (except door mats before the hour of eight in the morning), or throw or lay any dirt, litter or ashes, or any carrion, fish, offal, or rubbish, or throw or cause any such thing to fall into any sewer, pipe, or drain, or into any well, stream, or watercourse, pond, or reservoir for water
Don’t carry a plank on a pavement or roll a hoop
Section 54 Metropolitan Police Act you are not allowed to carry a plank along a pavement in London, unless you are unloading it from a vehicle.
The ban extends to casks, tubs, hoops, wheels, ladders, poles and placardsand also bans rolling your tub along.
s 54 (8) Every person who shall roll or carry any cask, tub, hoop, or wheel, or any ladder, plank, pole, showboard, or placard, upon any footway, except for the purpose of loading or unloading any cart or carriage, or of crossing the footway
Knock, Knock Ginger
S54 (16) Every person who shall wilfully and wantonly disturb any inhabitant by pulling or ringing any door-bell or knocking at any door without lawful excuse, or who shall wilfully and unlawfully extinguish the light of any lamp
Don’t fly a kite or slide on icy streets
s54 (17) Every person who shall fly any kite or play at any game to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers, or who shall make or use any slide upon ice or snow in any street or other thoroughfare, to the common danger of the passengers.
Penalty level 2 £500
Offence to be drunk in a pub
Section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 states Every person found drunk in any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or on any licensed premises, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. The act was amended in 1988 to extend this prohibition to all public places, including pubs, clubs, and even private homes if alcohol is being sold there
Merry Christmas
The words of the first text message sent on the 3rd December 1992 by Neil Papworth.
Debts
Arkansas passed a law in 1838 making debt that would otherwise be payable on Christmas payable one day earlier ie on Christmas Eve.
Louisana adopted a law in 1837 that made Christmas Day a grace period with regard to bill paying. In other words a debtor who had a debt coming due on Christmas Day would have until December 26 to pay it.
The Christmas Bonus Law
“Aguinaldo” is the annual Christmas bonus that businesses in Mexico are required by law to pay to their employees. Payment must be made by December 20, and companies that fail to do so lay themselves open to significant fines (as much as 315 times the legal daily minimum wage). Costa Rica has a similar law.
Christmas trees
In New York City, there is a law prohibiting the display of natural Christmas trees in retail stores.
In Philadelphia, there is a law prohibiting natural trees in high-rise buildings and any other dwellings that are designed to house more than two families.
Real Christmas Trees are considered a fire hazard.
Christmas tree tax
Since 2011 a 15¢ tax has been assessed on the sale of every Christmas tree in the United States to fund a marketing program to improve the image of Christmas trees It is only levied on wholesalers.
No cross in Knightstown, Indiana
In 2016 in Knightstown, Indiana, it became illegal to have a cross on top of a Christmas tree in a public display. “The cross is not a Christmas symbol,” said a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union. “The cross is the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity and it reminds Christians not of the secular trappings of Christmas, but of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus.”
In 2016 in Knightstown, Indiana, it became illegal to have a cross on top of a Christmas tree in a public display. “The cross is not a Christmas symbol,” said a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union. “The cross is the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity and it reminds Christians not of the secular trappings of Christmas, but of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus.”
Keep the receipt in Michigan
In Michigan, it is illegal to transport a Christmas tree without having proof of the sale of the same.
Western Australia Public entertainments on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday restricted Since 1979 it has been illegal in Western Australia to partake in ‘public entertainment or amusement’ on Christmas Day, Good Friday or Sundays if money is being made from the event.
Sunday Entertainments Act 1979
3. Public entertainments on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday restricted
(1) Subject to this section, a person who, except with statutory authority
(a) knowingly keeps, opens or uses any place or any part thereof for public entertainment or amusement on any Sunday or on Christmas Day or Good Friday in any year and to which persons are admitted by payment of money, or by tickets, programmes, objects or tokens sold for money, or in which, or in respect of which, a charge is made for seats, or a collection of money is made; or
(b) being the owner of any place, or the agent of such owner, knowingly hires, lets or causes or allows to be kept, opened or used that place or any part thereof for the purpose referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection,
is guilty of an offence.
Penalty: On summary conviction, $500.
Kissing under the mistletoe without consent
If you’re single and mingle in the name of Kris Kringle don’t fall foul of the law…
What is the history of kissing under the mistletoe?
Norse god Baldur, god of truth and light, was killed by an arrow made from the mistletoe branch. Baldur was the son of the god Odin and the goddess Frigg, promoter of marriage and fertility. Baldur’s mother Frigg casts a powerful magic to make sure that no plant grown on earth could be used as a weapon against her son. The one plant the spell did not reach was mistletoe, as it does not grow out of the earth, but out of a tree’s branches. Loki, upon learning this, makes a spear out of mistletoe — the spear that would eventually kill Baldur. Icelandic stories tell how the gods amused themselves by throwing objects at Baldur, knowing that he was immune from harm. The blind god Hod deceived by Loki killed Baldur by throwing mistletoe – the only thing that could hurt him. Frigg, Whilst recollections may vary one account says that Baldur’s distraught mother wept tears of white berries which brought Baldur back to life. Frigg declared mistletoe to be a symbol of love and never to be used again as a weapon. Frigg declared she would place a kiss on anyone who passed beneath it.
The kissing tradition has spread throughout out the ages. According to historian Mark Forsyth the tradition began between 1720 and 1784, in England.
Customarily men can steal a kiss from any girl standing beneath the mistletoe and any refusal of a kiss can lead to bad luck and a lack of marriage proposal for the following year.
After every kiss a berry should be removed from the bush. Once all of the berries have been taken the kissing must stop.
Some cultures see a kiss under the mistletoe as a promise to marry so be careful out there boys and girls! A simple bit of festive fun could lead to a much greater commitment.
On 2nd December 2017 Police Service of Northern Ireland tweeted to its 159,000 followers: ‘If you bump into that special someone under the mistletoe tonight, remember that without consent it is rape
The force subsequently removed the Tweet.
Unwanted kissing may be an offence s 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
A victim of common assault only has to feel threatened, there is no requirement of physical contact – includes shaking fists, attempting to spit making threats. Unlike assault, battery occurs when there is unlawful contact between the perpetrator and the victim. Battery is committed when someone intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another person which may or may not result in injury.
The term assault is often used to include a battery, which is committed by the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person.
Causing someone to apprehend force is ‘assault’, whereas actually using force is ‘battery’.
Throwing a snowball could amount to common assault and kissing under the mistletoe without consent could amount to sexual assault.
In January 2011 Dean Smith was convicted of common assault for throwing a snowball at Claire North, a police community support officer.
Dean Smith was shopping with his family in Swadlincote in December when the snowball hit Claire North.
He was given a 14-day curfew and told to pay £85 costs after admitting the charge at Derby Magistrates’ Court.
Under the terms of his curfew, Smith had to wear an electronic tag and stay at home between 7pm and 7am for the next two weeks.
(Attorney General’s Reference (Section 36 of the CJA 1972) (No 1 of 2020) [2020] EWCA 1665), the defendant sat next to the complainant on a busy train in Newcastle grabbed her and kissed her on the lips. He was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003. It was his case that he had heard people mocking the complainant (who he did not know) and he was trying to make her feel better. Whilst he accepted kissing her, the Defendant said that he had not intended for the kiss to be ‘sexual’. The sole issue for the jury was whether was the kiss was ‘sexual’. The trial judge ruled that the jury must be satisfied that the Defendant had intended for the kiss to be ‘sexual’ if they were to convict him. The Defendant was duly acquitted.
The Crown was not able to appeal the acquittal but under section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1972, the Attorney General can refer a point of law to the Court of Appeal for determination following an acquittal. This has no effect on the trial or the verdict but the decision is binding on future similar cases. Under section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003 a person commits an offence if he:
- Intentionally touches another person;
- The touching is sexual;
- The other person does not consent to the touching (and there is no reasonable belief that she does consent).
The mens rea of the offence is the intention to touch (and the lack of reasonable belief about consent) so was the trial judge correct in inserting the additional mental element of intending his touching to be sexual?
What is ‘sexual’ is defined by section 78 of the 2003 Act, namely:
- It is by its nature sexual; or
- It may be sexual depending on the circumstances.
Thus, there is some conduct which is sexual per se (which falls into category 1) and there some conduct which is not sexual per se but may be sexual depending on all the circumstances (category 2). It was agreed by all parties that a ‘kiss on the lips’ may not be sexual and hence it falls into the second category of cases where the jury is invited to look at the individual circumstances of the case.
So does that determination by the jury require it to be satisfied that the defendant intended it to be sexual or is it a matter for a reasonable person to decide? The Court of Appeal held that there was no additional element to the mens rea of the offence but instead: “the jury would need to consider, bearing in mind why the defendant behaved in that way (along with other factors), whether the irresistible inference was that he intended to assault his victim in a manner which the jury, as right-minded persons, would clearly think was [sexual]”.
Sanity Claus – there is no Sanity Clause State of Ohio v Hayes aka Santa Claus.
Reminiscent of the 1994 movie Miracle on 34th Street with Richard Attenborough where a lawyer and a little girl must prove that a man claiming to be Santa Claus is the real thing is the case of is the case of The state of Ohio Vs Warren Hayes aka Santa Claus
Warren Hayes obtained an official ID card, motor vehicle registration, AAA membership card and bank account in the name of Santa Claus listing his address as 1 Noel Drive, North Pole USA.
Warren Hayes aka Santa Claus was involved in a minor car accident and produced his Santa ID to a police officer. He was charged under an Ohio statute prohibiting the use of “fictitious” names.
Ohio Judge Thomas Gysegem said that because he had held this ID from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles for 20 years Santa has been a “real person” since early 1982 and therefore could not be liable.
Kissing under the mistletoe without consent
Warren Municipal Court, Ohio.
The STATE of Ohio v. HAYES a.k.a. Santa Claus.*
No. 2002 TRD 1583.
Decided: July 01, 2002
Traci Timko-Rose and Warren Law Department, Warrren, for plaintiff. Guarnieri & Secrest and Michael D. Rossi, Warren, for defendant.
{¶ 1} The defendant, Warren J. Hayes, hereinafter referred to as Santa Claus,1 stands charged with a first-degree misdemeanor violation of prohibited acts R.C. 4507.30 in that he did on the 20th day of December 2001, display or possess an identification card knowing the same to be fictitious. (See Appendix.)
{¶ 2} On the date in question, Santa was operating a motor vehicle that was involved in a minor fender bender. Following the accident for which Santa paid cash money on the spot to the individual whose car he had hit, Santa displayed his Ohio Identification Card to Warren patrolman Eric Merkel.
{¶ 3} It is well settled that an individual is prohibited from possessing both an Ohio driver’s license and an Ohio Identification Card at the same time. R.C. 4507.50(A) and 4507.52. Warren Hayes is an Ohio licensed driver who does not have an Ohio Identification Card. Santa is not an Ohio licensed driver who does have an Ohio Identification Card. Because Warren Hayes is a licensed Ohio Driver, the state charged Santa with displaying a “fictitious” identification card. State’s Exhibit A is a copy of Santa’s December 20, 2000 application for an Ohio Identification Card. Santa’s Ohio Identification Card expires on December 25, 2003. Exhibit A contains a box wherein the applicant (Santa) checked the box that he did not possess a current driver’s license.
{¶ 4} On April 25, 2002, a hearing was held pursuant to Santa’s motion to dismiss (filed April 12) and the state’s response thereto (filed the day of hearing). No witnesses testified, but Santa produced 8 documents in support of his oral argument that were marked and admitted without objection as “Court’s Exhibits AA-HH,” respectively.
{¶ 5} Due to the nature of the charge and the facts and circumstances at issue, the court finds that the exhibits in question are quite relevant to the issues at hand:
{¶ 6} Exhibit AA is a copy of a “Certificate of Birth” for one Santa Claus born at the North Pole December 25th in the year 383 A.D. to Mr. Claus and Holly Noel with Dr. Snowflake attending;
{¶ 7} Exhibit BB contains copies of Ohio Identification Cards with photos of Santa for the years 1996 and 1997 issued to Santa Claus by the state of Ohio, indicating residence at 1 Noel Drive, North Pole OH 44481, as well as a copy of AAA Temporary Membership card for the year 1995;
{¶ 8} Exhibit CC contains copies of Ohio Identification Cards with photos of Santa for the years 1985-1990 and 1988-1992 issued to Santa Claus by the state of Ohio, indicating residence at 1 Noel Drive, North Pole USA, as well as a copy of certificate of title issued to Santa Claus on December 17, 1987, by the state of Ohio for one 1965 Volkswagen 2-Door Sedan;
{¶ 9} Exhibit DD contains copies of Ohio Identification Cards with photos of Santa for the years 1982-1986 and 1985-1988 issued to Santa Claus by the state of Ohio, indicating residence at 1 Noel Drive, North Pole USA, as well as a copy of a blank check No. 117 on the account of Santa Claus and Mrs. Santa Claus No. 115* * * with the Second National Bank of Warren;
{¶ 10} Exhibit EE is an actual vehicle registration CV* * * issued to Santa Claus for $60.15 on October 31, 1992 by the state of Ohio for the 1965 Volkswagen mentioned in Exhibit CC;
{¶ 11} Exhibit FF is an actual vehicle registration BB* * * issued to Santa Claus for $56.75 on December 11, 1989, by the state of Ohio for the 1965 Volkswagen mentioned in Exhibit CC;
{¶ 12} Exhibit GG is an actual vehicle registration expiration notice for the registration issued in Exhibit FF mailed to Santa Claus by the state of Ohio for the 1965 Volkswagen mentioned in Exhibit CC; and
{¶ 13} Exhibit HH is an actual vehicle registration A* * *-NA issued to Santa Claus for $58.15 on December 20, 2001, by the state of Ohio for the 1965 Volkswagen mentioned in Exhibit CC.
{¶ 14} In essence, this case reveals a situation where an individual is going by more than one name. It has long been established in Ohio that a person may change his or her name either by petitioning the probate court 2 or by the simple expedient of adopting and using a new one. Both procedures are equally valid in the eyes of the law. A person may change his name at any time or even use several different names, so long as he does not do so for a fraudulent purpose. Bobo v. Jewell (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 330, 333, 528 N.E.2d 180; State ex rel. Morrison v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 336, 339, 17 O.O.3d 420, 410 N.E.2d 764: Pierce v. Brushart (1950), 153 Ohio St. 372, 380, 41 O.O. 398, 92 N.E.2d 4; In re Name Change of DeWeese, 148 Ohio App.3d 201, 2002-Ohio-2867, 772 N.E.2d 692.
{¶ 15} There can be no doubt based on the aforesaid exhibits that Santa and the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”) have had a solid and ongoing relationship for 20 years. Santa has applied for and been issued numerous state photo identification cards, certificates of title, and applications for vehicle registration.
{¶ 16} The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Hashmall (1954), 160 Ohio St. 565, 52 O.O. 453, 117 N.E.2d 606, is therefore dispositive. In Hashmall, the Supreme Court interpreted former General Code 6290-16, which forbade the use in an application for a motor vehicle certificate of a “false or fictitious name.” The court held that “the statutory words ‘uses a false or fictitious name’ necessarily refer to the use of a name for a fraudulent purpose.” Id. at 567, 52 O.O. 453, 117 N.E.2d 606.
{¶ 17} In this case, there is no evidence that Santa adopted his name for the purpose of avoiding any just debt or the payment of taxes. To the contrary, Santa routinely paid (and the state of Ohio accepted) taxes and registration fees under the name of Santa for many years. Consequently, Santa’s use of his appellation can in no sense be viewed as fraudulent.
{¶ 18} The court understands the state’s position in this matter. In light of the tragedies of September 11, the citizens of Ohio should be most appreciative of the “tight ship” under which the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles operates. This state’s BMV requires stringent forms of identification before it issues any form of its own official identification. Without such strict efforts on BMV’s part, it would be much easier for would-be terrorists or criminals to obtain much sought-after fraudulent identification that could more easily enable them to act out ghastly plans of skullduggery. As well, this court is continuously made aware of the excellent efforts of the Warren Police Department at enforcing the traffic and criminal laws and ordinances of this state and city.
{¶ 19} In short, the court’s dilemma is whether Santa’s act of displaying this identification card under these circumstances and with this history (noted above) violated the law, to wit, Was this identification card “fictitious”?
{¶ 20} Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines “fictitious.” Its analysis of the word includes a synonym comparison with “fabulous,” “legendary,” “mythical,” and “apocryphal”:
{¶ 21} “Fabulous stresses the marvelous or incredible character of something without distinctly implying impossibility or actual nonexistence; Legendary suggests the elaboration of invented details and distortion of historical facts produced by popular tradition; Mythical implies a purely fanciful explanation of facts or the creation of beings and events out of the imagination; Apocryphal implies an unknown or dubious source or origin for an account circulated as true or genuine. * * * Fictitious implies fabrication and suggests artificiality or contrivance more than deliberate falsification or deception.”3 (Emphasis added.)
{¶ 22} Had Santa been charged with being “fabulous, legendary, mythical or apocryphal,” he might well indeed be guilty facing up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. However, to sustain the burden of going forward, the state must make a showing that Santa knowingly displayed an identification card that was “fictitious.” This the state has not done. The fact that Santa had an ongoing relationship for 20 years with the BMV is not indicative of “artificiality or contrivance,” for, in fact, under the publicly held records of the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Santa has been a “real person” since as early as 1982.
{¶ 23} By way of analogy, the court in Frate v. Al-Sol, Inc. (1999), 131 Ohio App.3d 283, 287, 722 N.E.2d 185, fn. 5, stated:
{¶ 24} “ ‘Fictitious name’ means a name used in business or trade that is fictitious and that the user has not registered or is not entitled to register as a trade name.” (Emphasis original.)
{¶ 25} In the case at bar, Santa has been a registered name with the BMV since 1982. This court finds that Santa’s act of displaying his Ohio Identification Card to the officer can in no way be construed to be a violation of R.C. 4507.30.
{¶ 26} The court grants Santa’s motion.4
{¶ 27} CASE DISMISSED.
{¶ 28} IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case dismissed.
APPENDIX5
FOOTNOTES
1. Jolly old Saint Nicholas, lean your ear this way! You tell every single soul what I’m going to say; Trial day is coming soon; Now you dear old man, Concerning BMV and you-I’ll tell you best I can!
2. Parenthetically, there is one Ohio case where the petitioner sought a probate court order legally changing his name to Santa Claus. The petition was refused on public policy grounds. In re Name Change of Handley (2000), 107 Ohio Misc.2d 24, 736 N.E.2d 125. However, that case is distinguishable because it involved a request for advance judicial approval of a contemplated name change. Requests for judicial approval of a name change using the statutory procedure involve additional considerations that are not involved when a person performs a common-law name change by simply adopting and using a new name. Cf. In re Bicknell (Feb. 12, 2001), Butler App. Nos. CA2000-07-140 and CA2000-07-141, 2001 WL 121147, reversed in In re Bicknell, 96 Ohio St.3d 76, 2002-Ohio-3615, 771 N.E.2d 846.
3. Fortunately, this court is not called upon to reach an ultimate determination of the issue as to the actual existence of Santa Claus. The acts here in question are indeed “fabulous,” as this court finds the Santa to be an “incredible character.” Santa’s course of conduct with the BMV is tantamount to “legendary” in that his acts “produced by popular tradition” are found to have “invented details and distortion of historical facts,” to wit, a birth occurring in 385 A.D. Indeed, Santa may well be “mythical” as this whole rendition originated from a “creation of beings and events out of the imagination.” And finally the “unknown or dubious source” for the origin of this story makes for an “apocryphal” scenario.
4. He sees you when you’re sleeping He knows when you’re awake He knows if you’ve been bad or good So be good for goodness sake!
5. Reporter’s Note: Defendant’s Social Security number and I.D. number have been blacked out on the Ohio Identification Card.
THOMAS P. GYSEGEM, Judge.
.#####################################################################
Getting the rights right is key. Don’t miss out… get in touch!
ANDREW EBORN – RIGHTING WRONGS
GET IN TOUCH
Andrew believes that there are many injustices which do not get the
media attention they deserve, or indeed desperately need the oxygen of
publicity for their cause. This is where Andrew hopes to help. By
focusing on the injustice and assisting to promote, Andrew is keen to
give an initial helping hand in any way he can make possible.
If there are particular issues you would like Andrew Eborn to
investigate please provide information here so he may be able to
assess if he can provide you with help.
www.ebornlegalreview.com/
https://peoplematter.tv/peoplematter-tv-clients/andrew-eborn/
www.rightingwrong.co.uk
Follow @AndrewEborn @OctopusTV
www.octopus.tv
© Andrew Eborn 2022
Eborn Legal Review – edited by Andrew Eborn
Weird Christmas Laws
Risk a £5,000 fine is you drive as Santa
Under Rule 97 of the highway code you should ensure that clothing and footwear do not prevent you using the controls of your vehicle in the correct manner.
Large boots, a fake beard and a large false pot belly may interfere with driving.
Under Alabama law, it is also illegal to wear a fake beard or moustache that causes laughter in church. The law provides “if someone (without lawful authority) disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons they have committed the crime of disorderly conduct. A person who is convicted of this crime faces up to three months in jail and a fine as high as five hundred dollars.”
Fancy Dress
Alabama people may not dress as ministers from any religion. Those breaking the rules risk fines up to $500 or maximum term in prison of 1 year.
In Barbados it is an offence for anyone, including children, to dress in camouflage clothing. Liable to fines
Alabama people may not dress as ministers from any religion. Those breaking the rules risk fines up to $500 or maximum term in prison of 1 year.
Don’t dress up as a Police Officer in UK
Under section 90 Police Act 1996 Impersonation of a Police Officer
(1)Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(2)Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(3)Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
(4)In this section—
(a)“article of police uniform” means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document,
| Level 1 | £200 |
| Level 2 | £500 |
| Level 3 | £1,000 |
| Level 4 | £2,500 |
| Level 5 | Unlimited (for offences committed after 13 March 2015)* |
Christmas banned in England
In 1645 Parliament introduced a new ‘Directory of Public Worship’, designed as a replacement for the Book of Common Prayer. This set out a new form of worship for the Anglican church and provided that Christmas, Easter and other such festivals were no longer to be observed with special services or celebrations.
The outright ban came in June 1647, when Parliament passed an ordinance banning Christmas, Easter and Whitsun festivities, services and celebrations, including festivities in the home, with fines for non-compliance. They also introduced a monthly secular public holiday. The ban led to riots including in Kent in 1647.
By 1652 Parliament had passed laws reinforcing the Christmas ban – with fines for staging or attending Christmas services, and shops ordered to remain open on Christmas day,
As with most Commonwealth/Protectorate legislation, the Christmas ban was removed in 1660 with the Restoration..
Did Cromwell ban Christmas pudding and mince pies?
No. The Christmas bans never included any mention of the banning of Mince Pies. Mince pies were made with real meat and not specifically associated with Christmas
Boston outlawed Christmas in 1659
Puritans who fled persecution from an Anglican majority banned Christmas in 1659 maintaining it was supposed to be a day of fasting and prayer and a time to account for sins.
In 1659 Puritans who had migrated to New England declared through the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony:
“Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas or the like, either by forbearing labour, feasting or in any other way {shall be} subject to a five-shilling fine”
The law was repealed in the late 17th century but the celebration of Christmas continued to be heavily discouraged in New England for some time thereafter.
In 1870 Christmas became a national holiday in the United States and has been celebrated ever since.
Christmas lights
Many states and municipalities in the United States have laws regulating how long you can keep your Christmas lights up after Christmas.
San Diego – February 2.
Maine – fines may be levied any time after January 15
These laws apply to lights outside your home that may be a nuisance to neighbours.
Laws against “light trespass”
Your Christmas lights can be guilty of “trespass” under “light trespass” laws, which prohibit such things as “misdirected” or “excessive” artificial light caused by “inappropriate” or “misaligned” lights that produce “unnecessary” glowing.
In parts of New Jersey “light trespass” is unlawful
If you are in Eatontown New Jersey, any violation of the region’s “Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Guide” could lead to a fine or imprisonment. Beaches could include the glare from your house causing a nuisance to your neighbours, or being hazardous to cyclists or motorists. If found guilty you would be subject to a civil penalty up to $1250. The court may also order imprisonment or community service for a period not exceeding 90 days.
No booze in your eggnog in Arkansas
In Arkansas it is illegal to Sell Alcohol on Christmas Day
Celebrating Christmas in public is banned in at least five countries
North Korea is an atheist state. Consequently, Christianity and other religions are banned in the country. Included in the banned list is the right to talk about Christmas, celebrate, or worship.
The North Korean government made it a policy to celebrate Kim Jong Suk, the current dictator’s grandmother known to many in the country as “the sacred mother of the revolution.”
In addition to celebrating Christmas, other religious acts that violate North Korean law include:
Praying
Singing Christmas or religious hymns
Having contact with religious people
Possession of religious items
Other countries that have laws against celebrating Christmas in public include:
Albania
Brunei
Saudi Arabia
Tajikistan
Candy Canes
In 2018 in Nebraska, an elementary school principal banned candy canes in the school. “Historically, the shape of the candy cane is a ‘J’ for Jesus. The red is for the blood of Christ, and the white is a symbol of his resurrection.” Also banned was anything suggestive of the religious holiday of Christmas including reindeer, Elf on the Shelf and anything red and green.
Public entertainment for profit
In some parts of Australia, it is unlawful to partake in public entertainment for profit on Christmas day.
Merry Christmas
The words of the first text message sent on the 3rd December 1992 by Neil Papworth.
The right to say “Merry Christmas” is protected by law in Texas.
Debts
Arkansas passed a law in 1838 making debt that would otherwise be payable on Christmas payable one day earlier ie on Christmas Eve.
Louisana adopted a law in 1837 that made Christmas Day a grace period with regard to bill paying. In other words a debtor who had a debt coming due on Christmas Day would have until December 26 to pay it.
The Christmas Bonus Law
“Aguinaldo” is the annual Christmas bonus that businesses in Mexico are required by law to pay to their employees. Payment must be made by December 20, and companies that fail to do so lay themselves open to significant fines (as much as 315 times the legal daily minimum wage). Costa Rica has a similar law.
Christmas trees
In New York City, there is a law prohibiting the display of natural Christmas trees in retail stores.
In Philadelphia, there is a law prohibiting natural trees in high-rise buildings and any other dwellings that are designed to house more than two families.
Real Christmas Trees are considered a fire hazard.
Christmas tree tax
Since 2011 a 15¢ tax has been assessed on the sale of every Christmas tree in the United States to fund a marketing program to improve the image of Christmas trees It is only levied on wholesalers.
No cross in Knightstown, Indiana
In 2016 in Knightstown, Indiana, it became illegal to have a cross on top of a Christmas tree in a public display. “The cross is not a Christmas symbol,” said a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union. “The cross is the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity and it reminds Christians not of the secular trappings of Christmas, but of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus.”
Keep the receipt in Michigan
In Michigan, it is illegal to transport a Christmas tree without having proof of the sale of the same.
.#####################################################################
Getting the rights right is key. Don’t miss out… get in touch!
ANDREW EBORN – RIGHTING WRONGS
GET IN TOUCH
Andrew believes that there are many injustices which do not get the
media attention they deserve, or indeed desperately need the oxygen of
publicity for their cause. This is where Andrew hopes to help. By
focusing on the injustice and assisting to promote, Andrew is keen to
give an initial helping hand in any way he can make possible.
If there are particular issues you would like Andrew Eborn to
investigate please provide information here so he may be able to
assess if he can provide you with help.
www.ebornlegalreview.com/
https://peoplematter.tv/peoplematter-tv-clients/andrew-eborn/
www.rightingwrong.co.uk
Follow @AndrewEborn @OctopusTV
www.octopus.tv
© Andrew Eborn 2022
