A strange tale of international intrigue and mystery was published yesterday in the New York Times—but the intrigue comes from obscure international child custody laws, and the mystery from a New York man who was totally clueluess about how to apply them to his situation.

The story involves the adopted child of Eric Hyett and Joshua Glazer, who were married in one of the first same-sex marriage ceremonies in Massachusetts.  Their child, Jedidiah Hyett-Glazer, now 2, was born to a surrogate mother, and lived with the men until their split sometime last year.  A joint custody arrangement was ordered, with one man keeping the boy during the week, the other during the weekend.

However, Hyett failed to show up to return the child to Glazer after an extended stay, and later revealed over the phone that he was in Israel with the child and would not return.  Hyett said that he had read the law, and claimed that his action was at worst a first-degree custodial interference, a crime for which he could not be extradited.  He also claimed sanctuary in Israel with the child as per the Hague Convention, a treaty that governs international adoption.

However, Hyett should have consulted a divorce lawyer.  Not only was he wrong in claiming a provision of the Hague Convention—an Israeli family court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction—but he was wrong that his custodial interference would not cause him to lose custody.  Glazer was given custody and Hyett now awaits trial in Manhattan, facing up to four years if convicted.

It’s a strange story, but one that reminds you how important a divorce lawyer can be in making sure you’re on the right side of the law, in tricky matters of child custody and especially when dealing with international matters.

Facing the threat of lawsuits in the wake of the D.C. v. Heller, several suburbs of Chicago and several towns in West Virginia are moving to eliminate, amend or otherwise clarify their own laws on buying and possessing guns within city limits.

The AP reports that Morton Grove and Wilmette, both suburbs of Chicago, Illinois, repealed their bans on handguns as a response to the NRA, who immediately filed lawsuits following the Supreme Court decision. Wilmette was not actually sued, as it had stopped enforcing its ban over a decade ago.

In West Virginia, the Charleston Daily Mail reports, Charleston officials have received pressure from the state’s gun rights group, West Virginia Citizens Defense, to rescind its restrictions on handgun purchases.  Charleston limits purchases of handguns to one per month, and bans guns on city property, as a result of a deadly shooting spree that occurred in 1993.  However, the mayor and city officials expressed no interest in revisiting these laws.

Martinsburg, West Virginia, however, has made the move to clarify its gun laws, expressing that guns are allowed on city streets, just not in municipal buildings.

Sometimes you come across stories that leave you asking this question above. Here are two such examples:

• Wisconsin Law Allows Parents To Pray Rather Than Call A Doctor; and

• Library Aide Fired For Reporting Child Pornography Suspect.

A Fort Collins, CO couple has a drug problem.

Specifically, their marijuana plants that were seized by the Fort Collins police were returned dead earlier this month, according to denverpost.com.

Here’s the background: James and Lisa Masters had more than 36 marijana plants at their home. Police confiscated them in a raid and sent the couple to jail, where they spent a little more than a day. Apparently, the couple’s plans to grow, use and sell marijuana for medical purposes were thwarted by one small problem: they were not on the state’s medical marijuana registry.

The Masters have claimed that they were unable to afford a license to use and sell the pot before the police raid, but since their stint behind bars have secured a license with help from friends. Since their return home, the police have given the plants back. But, of course, they’re no longer living.

The controversy here comes over the issue of whether this is a medical marijuana case or not. If it is, the police should not have harmed the pot plants in any way, and could be found at fault in court. If it’s not considered a medical marijuana case–which is possible, since the couple didn’t join the registry until after their arrest–the police will likely be found to have no liability.

A judge has already dismissed the original charges against the Masters, ruling that the police search of their home and seizure of the pot plants were illegal. The issue of the dead pot, though, remains to be solved.

This is a contest that no one wants to win, and no one really wants to see someone win either.  It is, however, a strong message about drunk driving and it comes at a time when people do need a reminder.

In Maryland, St. Mary’s newspaper has run an ad, and as tacky and tabloid-looking as it seems, the message is sobering.  Or so they hope.

The newspaper is having a custom coffin built and they will give it away free to the first person to kill themselves this holiday season by driving drunk.

The editor of the paper, Ken Rossignol, is a crusader against DUI.  Each week he publishes a list of those who have been arrested for DUI in the community.  He still feels that the message is just not getting through to people, so he came up with the coffin giveaway to raise awareness this holiday season.

Rossignol’s brother was killed in a drunk driving accident in 1975.  He hopes that no one claims the contest coffin.

In Topeka, Kansas, a man who agreed to be a sperm donor for a long time friend who wanted to have a baby is now fighting for parental rights to the twins he fathered.

Daryl Hendrix is a gay man who is in his 40s, and says decided that since he is mature and now financially able to support children, he agreed to provide his friend,  Samantha Harrington, with his sperm so that she could become pregnant.

According to Hendrix, Harrington assured him that they did not need a written agreement and that since she is a lawyer and they had been friends for 10 years, he believed her.  He says that on the second try, Harrington became pregnant and called him to say, “Congratulations Daddy.”

When the babies were born in May, 2005, Hendrix says that he got a nasty surprise when he attempted to go see the children at the hospital.  He was turned away and not allowed to see the newborn boy and girl.  He was then informed that sperm donors have no legal rights without a written agreement.  Harrington also filed legal documents asking that Hendrix have no legal rights to the children.

In October, the court upheld the 1994 Kansas law that denies Hendrix parental rights to the children in the absence of a written agreement.

Hendrix is appealing to the state Supreme Court and says that he will take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

During warehouse raids in Nashville and Lynchburg, Tennessee where Jack Daniels whiskey is made, officials seized 2,400 bottles of the whiskey.  Some of the bottles that were snatched in the raids are over 100 years old, and may not see another year.  It’s set to be poured right down the drain.

Fans of the historic whiskey are protesting the planned disposal of the Jack Daniels whiskey.

No one has been arrested, but officials say that some of the whiskey could have been stolen from the distillery and they suspect that it was being sold by someone without a license.

In Tennessee, the law dictates that whiskey that can not be legally sold must be destroyed.  That means that any bottles seized with labels designed for sale overseas and all of those with broken seals will be poured out.  Some of the bottles may be able to be sold at auction.

The estimated value of all the liquor seized is around $1 million.  Some of the antique bottles are now collector’s items.

One of the bottles is dated from 1914, and the seal on this bottle is unbroken.  That makes its worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000.

A company in New York has created a small digital camera that fits onto a gun and sells for $700. Police think that the cameras could provide vital information and evidence, especially in situations when officers are required to use deadly force. They also believe the camera will be a beneficial training tool.

Officers in Orange County, New York are going to give the digital pistol cams a try on their standard-issue Glock pistols. Dennis Barry, the head of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department says that they don’t see any down side to the cameras on their guns.

The mini pistol cams will be attached to the firearms, just under the barrel of the weapons, starting in January. The cameras are designed to begin recording digital video and audio as soon as the gun is removed from the holster. The pistol cam developers have even designed the units to encrypt the video so that there is no risk of tampering.

The video cameras on police weapons may also improve police relations with the public. If everything is now being recorded, there may no longer ever be the need to “take the officer’s word for it”, as there will be indisputable video proof of what actually took place.

California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is aware that millions of California drivers are saving big money on car insurance, because they aren’t buying any. Poizner is planning a crackdown on uninsured drivers though, and those without car insurance may have their cars immobilized or license plates revoked.

Poizner is considering trying to get an initiative on the 2008 ballot that would give law enforcement a broader sweep of power over uninsured drivers.

The issue is not a new one and has divided lawmakers and voters in California for quite some time. However, Poizner has been expanding a state low cost car insurance program that allows drivers to get basic coverage for as little as $350 per year and that may make all the difference to some.

Although advocates of the low cost insurance plans say that now anyone who can afford a car and gas can also afford basic coverage, others still argue that the costs are still too high for those living at or below poverty level.

Under the current law, uninsured drivers can receive a ticket if they are not in the state database of insured drivers and can not provide proof of insurance. If an uninsured driver is in an accident, they can lose their driver’s license for a year. If the car registration has been suspended because there is no insurance coverage, the driver can face fines of more than $1,000. Police say that under the current law, the cars are rarely seized unless there is not an insured driver available to drive it or the registration has been suspended.

Poizner has not released the details of the initiative he hopes to see on the 2008 ballot, but it would involve cracking down on the uninsured and getting them off the road by whatever means necessary.

A 78 year old man who is the father of Jim Belushi’s former driver is suing the actor over a 2001 Land Rover that is allegedly a lemon and he wants the star to pay him $6,000.

Belushi and Ted Lewandowski met in Providence, Rhode Island while Belushi was there filming the Disney movie “Underdog”. Lewandowski was employed as Belushi’s driver. While driving Belushi, Lewandowski mentioned that he was looking to buy a car for his dad, Jan Lewandowski.

Lewandowski claims that Belushi suggested that he buy his Land Rover and told him that the SUV was posted for sale on Ebay. He also claims that Belushi told him that the vehicle was in perfect mechanical condition.

Lewandowski bought the 2001 Land Rover and sent $11,500 to Belushi’s people in California and then flew out to pick up the vehicle. He says that on the way home the fuel pump went out and had to be replaced and he discovered that the vehicle also needs a new water pump, a radiator and other mechanical work that will cost about $5,000.

Belushi’s atorney says that Lewandowski’s claim is frivolous and false and as a matter of fact, they have already been to small claims court over this same exact issue, and the court found that Belushi did not owe Lewandowski any money. The attorney says that the new lawsuit that Lewandowski has filed amounts to harassment of his client.