Odd News Show

Man Has Drive to Succeed… at Ironically Losing Court Case

A man in Ann Arbor, Michigan, was driving while he remotely called in to a court hearing regarding his suspended license, earning shock from the judge and a nomination for Most Ironic Act of 2024.

By Gabe Herman · June 4, 2024

The judge had an incredulous smile after a Michigan man with a suspended license Zoomed in to a court hearing while he was driving. NBC News/YouTube

Disclaimer: While this article is based on court-approved facts, it does contain some drive-thru satire, and an unhealthy dose of irony.

During a recent court hearing in Michigan concerning a man driving with a suspended driver’s license, he didn’t help his case much by Zooming in to the hearing from his car while driving. The district judge in Ann Arbor expressed shock and dismay that the man was driving, while the driver earned hearty salutes from fans of irony everywhere.

The man has been found guilty of DWI, Driving While Ironic. He has also been nominated for the coveted Most Ironic Act of 2024 Award, which you’d think would be given at the end of the year but ironically is awarded in June.

Other nominees for the Irony Awards include: A man complaining that it’s hard to talk while eating a candy bar at a Sugar Addicts Anonymous meeting, a conspiracy theorist accusing someone else of having a sheep mentality, and a person who is a proponent of spending billions of dollars on space exploration to “help humanity,” but doesn’t support spending money on drinking water, food, and healthcare that would actually help humanity.

After the man realized his driving over Zoom was getting him in trouble, he explained to the court, “I was hungry and decided to grab a bite at the McDonald’s Drive-Thru. If you have a suggestion for how to use a drive-thru without driving a car, I’m all ears, Your Honor.”

Everybody knows that driving a car is an essential part of using a drive-thru.  Raysonho/Wikimedia Commons

When the judge expressed disbelief at seeing the man driving, the public defender quickly objected and asked if “everyone could just pretend that didn’t happen, and maybe we could have a do-over or something.”

“I don’t think that’s the technical term,” the judge replied. “And I also don’t think there’s precedent for us all to just pretend that something didn’t happen.”

“But Your Honor,” the public defender said, “we can only claim to observe something based on our senses, and we can never know for certain if our sight and vision are observing things accurately or with some kind of error. Therefore, it’s clear that you should disregard what just happened.”

"If I were to grant you that point about the nature of observation, it would mean the erasure of all knowledge that humans have accumulated over millenia. Are you willing to erase all of human history and civilization for the sake of this one case that you're arguing?"
- Judge's response to the public defender's argument

“Yes, Your Honor,” the public defender said. “I really need to win this case, for the sake of my career. I’ve placed some bad bets recently on jai alai tournaments, and things aren’t looking good.”

The judge denied the request for a do-over that would erase all knowledge acquired throughout human history, and revoked the bond of the ironic driver and ordered him to report to the county jail by that evening. The judge also told the public defender to “stop betting on jai alai and any jai alai-adjacent sports. Also, stop reading books about the Empiricist branch of philosophy, and brush up on the law, because ‘a do-over or something’ is not a legal term.”

In an ornery non-sequitur, the judge also ordered another lawyer present in the courtroom to change his socks, saying he doesn’t like it when men “wear overly decorated or colorful socks to compensate for their lack of personality.”