A professor at a rival university is suing Washington D.C.'s Catholic University of America, alleging human rights violations by the presence of crosses in every room on campus.

George Washington University Professor John Banzhaf filed a complaint with the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights claiming that the presence of the crosses prevent Muslim students from praying.  In his 60-page complaint, Banzhaf accuses the Catholic institution with acting "probably with malice" against Muslim students and cites "offensive" imagery all over the Catholic school as hindrances to Muslim students who wish to pray.  The complaint further objects that Muslims do not have separate prayer rooms provided by the University and thus must pray at the school's chapels "and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus -- the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception."

According to the Tower, Catholic University's student newspaper, Banzhaf alleges that the University, "does not provide space – as other universities do – for the many daily prayers Muslim students must make, forcing them instead to find temporarily empty classrooms where they are often surrounded by Catholic symbols which are incongruous to their religion.”

The complaint is absurd, writes Thomas Peters on the website CatholicVote.  “Can you imagine a law professor helping Catholic students to sue a Jewish or Muslim school to demand that the schools install crosses, remove their religious symbols, and allow the Catholics to construct a chapel on their property?” wrote Peters. “Can you imagine the argument being that Jewish and Muslims schools using their religious symbols and following their faith traditions would be described in the legal brief as ‘offensive’?!”

“Normally I would have confidence that this lawsuit will be deemed without merit, but the way things are going these days, I just can’t be sure anymore. Simply incredible,” Peters added.

—Source: beliefnet.com

A New York man is suing his photographer for failure to capture two key parts of his wedding ceremony: the last dance and the bouquet toss.  In addition to seeking a refund of the $4,100 cost of the photography services, the groom is demanding an additional $48,000 to fly key individuals to New York to recreate the events for another photographer.  Several problems, however, have come to light with the case:  The wedding took place in 2003, the happy couple has since divorced and the bride allegedly has moved back to her native Latvia.

Todd J. Remis of Manhattan is suing H & H Photographers for failure to document the last 15 minutes of his wedding reception.  In his lawsuit, Remis also complained that the photographs were "unacceptable as to color, lighting, poses, positioning" and that a video of the wedding (which lasted 6 hours) was only two hours long.

Even though the marriage ended in divorce, Remis claims he still wants the photographs.
"I need to have the wedding recreated exactly as it was so that the remaining 15 percent of the wedding that was not shot can be shot," Remis testified.  "It was unfortunate in its circumstances, but we are very much happy with the wedding event and we would like to have it documented for eternity, for us and our families."

Dan Fried, part-owner of H & H Photographers, called the case "an abuse of the legal system" and said the costs of defending the lawsuit had already matched the amount sought by Remis.
Justice Doris Ling-Cohan of State Supreme Court in Manhattan dismissed most of the grounds for the lawsuit, including "infliction of emotional distress," but has allowed the case to proceed on breach of contract grounds.

"This is a case in which it appears that the 'misty watercolor memories' and the 'scattered pictures of the smiles ... left behind' at the wedding were more important than the real thing," the judge wrote.  "Although the marriage did not last, plaintiff's fury over the quality of the photographs and video continued on."

—Source:  The New York Times

NASA is suing the sixth man on the moon, seeking to recover an Apollo 14 camera that the astronaut brought back to Earth with him as a souvenir.

In 1971, Edgar Mitchell landed on the moon.  Upon returning home, Mitchell brought with him a movie camera that had been on the lunar lander.  According to Mitchell, NASA agreed to let astronauts keep some mission mementos.  Mitchell chose the camera which NASA had slated to be destroyed with the lunar lander that was allowed to crash into the moon after completing its mission of ferrying Mitchell and Alan Shepard between the command module and the moon's surface.  NASA had planned to bring back the film, but had no interest in the camera.  NASA now claims it had no record of the camera being given to Mitchell.

In June, NASA filed a lawsuit against Mitchell seeking return of the camera after it learned of Mitchell's plan to sell it.  Recently, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Hurley denied Mitchell's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. and ruled that the case will go to trial in 2012.

Mitchell's attorney argued that too many years had passed for the government to now pursue the claim and that the camera was not stolen but rather was a gift to Mitchell.

Judge Hurley disagreed with both arguments, noting that, "It is well settled that the United States is not bound by state statutes of limitation or subject to the defense of laches in enforcing its rights" and that it was "inappropriate" for the court to consider whether the camera was stolen or the subject of a gift or abandonment.

"Defendant's allegations that NASA intended the camera to be destroyed after the mission or that it routinely awarded used mission equipment to astronauts do not preclude as a matter of law Plaintiff's contrary allegation that Defendant impermissibly converted the camera," Hurley wrote.

The case will go to trial in 2012.

—Source:  Space.com

A passenger is suing Continental Airlines and three other carriers alleging she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and a fear of flying after experiencing a turbulent flight.

Colleen O'Neal, a resident of Lubbock, Texas, charges in her lawsuit filed in Harris County District Court that her plane traversed through tornadoes and thunderstorms shortly after departing College Station bound for Houston.  According to the lawsuit, the normally short flight took more than two hours and the plane "fell repeatedly, and felt as if it had lost power and was falling out of the sky."  O'Neal further claims she believed she was going to die.

Due to her recently acquired fear of flying, O'Neal charges that she has lost economic benefits because she cannot advance from her Texas Department of Public Safety position to a Federal Emergency Management Agency job because it would require air travel.   She is suing for physical and mental anguish, medical bills and the cost of the lawsuit.

O'Neal purchased the ticket from Continental. She is also suing United Airlines (which merged with Continental), Colgan Air (which operated the aircraft) and Pinnacle Airlines (which owns Colgan Air). 

Continental and Pinnacle officials said they had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment.

—Source:  Houston Chronicle