The court verdict is in, for the judge busted for distributing condoms in Intercourse, Pennsylvania: Cops wanted Judge Stolzfus, distributor of acorns stuffed with condoms he handed to women outside of a court to legally pay for that 'crime'. The judge calls it a “prank”. The court calls what it deems a "preoccupation with acorns mystifying." Either way, case dismissed. The nutty issue's been dropped.
It may not be a sense of humor shared by everyone, but it appears at least some people appreciate the odd novelty of condoms in nut packaging: An online retailer of the acorns-plus-prophylactic, 'Rubbernutts', turns actual acorns into the novelty, and claims they "are funny."
Maybe it's being from Intercourse, Pennsylvania, that makes nuts-with-condoms jokes rub people, and cops, the wrong way. Capitol Police issued the judge a citation, with a description that Stolzfus was basically pushing acorns -- the 58-year-old jurist described as providing acorns to “unsuspecting” women, whom were supposedly offended upon discovering the acorns’ interior contents. It's a very serious -- or seriously stupid -- charge. The Judicial Conduct Board filed a complaint about the acorns passed out on the exterior of the Capitol last fall, in September 2010.
Rubbernutts may view the nuts with condoms as funny and Judge Isaac Stoltzfus may view the nuts with condoms as funny. Cops, on the other hand, apparently do not view the nuts with condoms as funny -- and that created a very un-funny situation for Judge Stolzfus, forced to defend himself over the novelty.
After cops put him through the wringer over, literally, two nuts, the Court of Judicial Discipline dismissed the case against Magisterial District Judge Isaac Stoltzfus -- stating the incident doesn't qualify as a violation. The next part of the ruling is a little unclear, since the judge wasn't exactly passing out Halloween candy with razor blades: According to the Court, "It certainly lacks good judgment and must not be repeated." Those dangerous nuts.
Perhaps the best part of the court's ruling is its seemingly less-than-legally-based additional statement. Perhaps the Court was simply baffled when issuing its statement that the judge's "preoccupation with acorns is mystifying."