[S06.E08: Aaron Brownstein Must Be Stopped]

The following scene was cut from the final version for time:

Following the school incident, Kristina calls Adam to tell him what happened...

Kristina: Adam, thank God you answered.  I wish you were here.  Where are you anyway???  I know you are not at the school and not at your actual job...

Adam: Never mind that, Kristina, you have to calm down and tell me what happened.

K:  Max had an incident at school.

A: What kind of incident?

K: Well, Aaron Brownstein started a fight with Max.  Max very bravely expressed his feelings for Dylan and Dylan meanly rejected him and hurt Max.   Then Max ran out of the school into traffic and I ran after him and I glared at and told off drivers who didn't stop for me even though they had the right of way.

A: Oh, my God, Kristina, I am so sorry I wasn't there for you.  Doesn't Dylan know that she is required to return Max's feelings because he is so special????  Whose Aaron Brownstein anyway?  What did you do?

K: Dylan's a bitch, Adam.  I told you she was.  I don't know who Aaron is, he must be a student, I never met him before today as he isn't Max.  First, I glared at Dylan and then I was going to suspend Aaron and Dylan, when one of the students, I have no idea what his name is, said I couldn't do that because he had the whole incident filmed with his cellphone.  He said his father was on the school board.  He was blaming Max, can you believe it????

A: Did you tell the kid that only Max is allowed to use a cellphone at the Academy, because he has special needs and he had to erase the video?

K: Of course, Adam.  But he wouldn't erase it.

A: Well, I will call Julia and get her to sue the kid for unlawful videotaping, Aaron for assaulting Max, those drivers for assaulting you and, and Dylan for something too, let Julia figure it out.  You know Julia isn't busy with anything in her own life and she is a Braverman afterall.

K:  That sounds great.  You know, this is all your fault for not being here?  And Dylan and Aaron...

A: And Crosby, it is always Crosby's fault when things go wrong.

K: Of course it is Crosby's fault.  That goes without saying.  And don't forget about Haddie.

A: I always forget about Haddie, but it is her fault, of course.  Nora, too?

K: Everybody forgets about Haddie.  Yes, Nora, she interrupted Max when he interrupted her earlier in the day, can you believe that?  You would think she would know better by now that Max comes first.  But let's be clear, none of this is Max's fault.

A: Of course not, Kristina.  Everybody needs to understand that he is special and he was very brave and wonderful to do what he did.  We have a lot to be proud of...

K: Yes, we certainly do.  I should write a book in my spare time about raising a child with Asbergers.  It will only take a month to write.  It will be a bestseller, everyone will want a copy because I am a Braverman.

A: Of course they would, Kristina, you are a wonderful writer.  You can get Amber to be your editor.  She is qualified, even though she doesn't have a college degree, as she is a great writer and a Braverman, too.  You can call it "Parenthood" and then we can option the rights to turn it into a movie and maybe even a TV show.  You have a lot to teach the world.  I will come right home now from wherever I am, to be with you and Max to make sure he is alright.

K: Good.  In the meantime, I will buy Max another dog he wont be interested in, that we don't need or take care of, as a reward.

A: We have a dog?  Anyway, sounds good.  I love you, Kristina.  You are a wonderful mother, school administrator and wife.  You are selfless....

K: I love you, too, Adam.  You always know the right thing to say.

A: I do, don't I?  I really am always right about everything.  I am a Braverman.  'Bye.

[All Episodes Talk: All Rise]

 

Where were those people from?  They both had the weirdest speech I have ever heard, not so much an accent but a guttural sound like they were choking as the words came out.

The Pittsburgh area.

 

Why I wonder were the 19 yr old's parents sitting with the defendant? Were they actually considering testifying for him?

I don't think they were her parents.  I thought they were the friends of her parents through whom she got the job, but I might be wrong.

[The People's Court - General Discussion]

I think he won because he was crazy and didn't have the capacity to contract.  It is not a positive thing.  Plaintiff, though, thinks MM sided with him; she did not.

 

So much there:

 

He was bragging that his children took the SAT at 11, but they only did average for the year, not like they scored 1600 (I don't want to make light of the accomplishment but doesn't sound like it is as impressive as he thinks).

 

He was so impressed by some artist putting him on his website in his costume, like it mattered.  The artist called him the Baron of Normandy and he thinks he earned the title.

 

Jews were not treated well in England at that time.  I sincerely doubt that his ancestors were actually the "royal bankers" in such a way as to be an honor that he believes it is.  More like they were forced to provide the King's ransom with no possibility of repayment. 

 

The Cunard upgrade story was great, too.

 

The defendant came off nasty and the book might be legit but it is still a pointless scam and she seemed overly defensive about that.  Also, the plaintiff never actually claimed the book was a scam, just that they didn't put in what he wanted-the Esquire title.  He fudged the difference between Squire and Esquire by the way.  Also, they wont print children and spouse info as it doesn't fit their format except when you pay more.  They invited this guy and he is a nut, so their invitations are not all that discriminating.

[S02.E04: Shall We Play a Game?]

Naked Rob was played by Noah Munck, Gibby from ICarly.  He liked to take his shirt off on that show, too.  Wonder if that was how he got this part.

[Last Man Standing - General Discussion]

I hate Boyd!  I hate episodes revolving around Boyd, like this one.  Just a terrible child actor who overacts and is not particularly cute or likeable.  Do not see why a whole show had to be rearranged, including firing a funny actress, to age Boyd, who is uninteresting and dislikable.  Seems like half the episodes revolve around arguments about raising Boyd.  I just don't care.  Is anybody tuning in for the Boyd Show?

 

The sinkhole scare was ridiculous special effects wise and as a plot device.  I had to rewind to watch Boyd "react" before the danger of the sinkhole was even present.  This led to a ridiculous fear plot and Ryan spouting about fracking.  Is all this supposed to be funny?  It is not.

 

I hate Ryan.  He is just a total downer.  I hate the second Kristin.  Alexandra Krosney was more likeable, attractive and, most of all, funnier then Amanda Fuller.  I don't think Fuller even acts in a comedic way as she is never funny.  Just a total miscast.

 

Bring back the first season when the characters were likable and seemed to like each other, there was less political talk and better chemistry and funny banter especially between the daughters, who actually seemed to be realistic siblings having fun with each other rather than being mean and without this version of Ryan.  Also Nancy Travis' character had a purpose and was not inconsistent and portrayed as a borderline alcoholic for laughs.  They totally ruined the show after season 1 by changing it.  I blame Boyd as most of the problems I have revolve around him.

 

This episode in particular was just unfunny and awful.

[Hot Bench - General Discussion]

 

I'm not liking the premise of 3 judges.

I don't like three judges either.  A panel of judges is for appeals, not a trial court in the US.    Feels more like American Idol then a court show.  I also don't like the deliberations and that they vote, but we don't know, though we can usually guess, where each judge stood.  From what I have seen so far, they just seem to decide who they like better and that person is deemed the winner.

 

They waste too much time trying to be courteous to their colleagues.  All those "May I ask a question, Judge?" wastes precious time.  But it really is the whole format that kills the show.  The judges just come out asking questions and it ping pongs between the three judges, all going in different directions, so much that the audience doesn't even get a clear understanding of the case.  Judge Judy usually presents the story of the case herself and has one of the litigants agree she got it right or has one of the parties tell their story.  Here they just start in with the questioning, without laying any groundwork.  I tend to just feel one of the litigants deserve to win without having a full understanding of the case to base my opinion. 

 

I really don't like the judges.  They are all just trying to show how tough they are by admonishing the litigants. None of the yelling is tempered by likability.

 

Judge Acker seems the most kind, but she just comes out yelling as a way of speaking.  Judge DiMango, she of the annoying New York accent (and I am from Brooklyn, too), just wants to seem tough and tries too hard to be funny. Judge Bakman is crusty.  I don't like any of them.  I also haven't found the first cases or litigants too interesting, either.

 

Last point is a pet peeve.  In the deliberation room, there are casebooks on shelves in the background.  These books are numbered.  If you look closely, there are books missing and they are all out of order.  I know they are just props to make it all look legal-like, but this is supposed to be a law library and casebooks would never be shelved out of order like that.  Just bugs that nobody could be bothered to get it right and put the books they bought just to look all legal, in the right order. 

 

So far, the show leaves a lot to be desired; I am not yet a fan.  I don't see it being renewed for a second season.

[All Episodes Talk: All Rise]

 

I agree that JJ immediately went on the attack, based on her preternatural ability to perceive the truth of any case just from reading the complaints, so she does not have to bother with annoying and trivial details like testimonies. However, I was not commenting on her actions but solely on the performance of the plaintiff.

 

Her constant mumblings, thus speaking out of turns (unacceptable behaviour in ay court, not just JJ's), her obsessive need to immediately correct anything that contradicted her version of events, plus her inability to simply understand (not necessarily agree with) JJ's argument that the other driver had priority because she arrived first, did not make a good impression and made her look obsessive. Put all of that together and it undermines her credibility (similar to the guy who was suing his lawyer). Court cases are not always decided solely on facts or rational arguments (I still am not sure what the facts of the case were and if the defendant really damaged the car).

I agree with both of you, actually. JJ does what she always does; she thinks she knows what's happened and pre-judges her cases. That makes the plaintiff fight hard to be heard. The plaintiff, not understanding that she lost that case before she even showed up, goes into "did too" mode. I think if JJ had let the plaintiff present her case instead of opening up the case by castigating her, the plaintiff would've acted much differently. But that's not the JJ we know. Clearly, that plaintiff hadn't watched a lot of JJ. She comes to court, thinking her case is pretty open-and-shut and and gets blasted on national tv.  How many times have we heard JJ say that someone can't testify to what they weren't there to witness? That doesn't apply to herself! The husband asked JJ how she knows what happened if she wasn't there, and JJ says she sees it in her mind's eye. What a hypocrite! Can you imagine a litigant telling JJ they know what happened because they see it in their mind's eye.

 

I think JJ "caused" the plaintiff's mumblings by attacking her story and didn't allow the story to develop on both sides naturally, so that we, the audience, could understand.  The defendant never even had to testify as to what she did or didn't do.  Did she make the claimed threats, which I believe she did (the language made "sense" to me)?  Never asked the defendant.  Judge Judy told the plaintiff what really happened and when she denied, told her she was lying.  Thus her need to correct and speak out of turn.  Not saying she was right in that behavior or even right in the case, just don't like the way it was handled.  She never got a fair opportunity to be heard; she already lost.  Let's assume she was totally honest and telling the truth, how would it feel to be immediately told your version, which, again, in my scenario is true, is false and immediately told you are lying?

 

In my mind's eye this is what happened: Defendant is waiting and plaintiff is waiting.  Not as sure as JJ who arrived first.  I don't think the defendant is as close to the spot as Judy thinks.  I think the defendant is waiting, but not particularly waiting for this spot, so she has no greater "right" to this particular spot then the perhaps later arriving, but closer to this spot, plaintiff (I think she has a lesser right as she is not as close to the spot in question).  The driver of the car in the spot, waves the plaintiff to follow him, thus indicating the plaintiff is in fact waiting and close.  Could have been the direction he was walking, but he doesn't "give" the spot to the supposedly deserving defendant.  Defendant pulls up from where she was waiting with her motor off (this seems odd to me, I have never seen that).  The plaintiff is correct, a car just sitting and not running, how is she to know that person is waiting for a spot and not picking someone up etc.?  Defendant blocks the car from exiting the spot, thus being the total aggressor here (isn't this odd behavior, if she was in the right and simply waiting for a spot?).  As there is now a stalemate between the exiting car and the defendant, defendant has to move in reverse to allow the car to exit for her to get the spot.  Blocking the exiting car seems to indicate that the defendant is not exactly clearly in the right here.  Then the plaintiff pulls in to the spot as the defendant went back to allow the car to exit.  Plaintiff thinks she was waiting and given the spot by the exiting driver.  The exiting driver sure didn't see the defendant waiting, so she would not have been close to that particular spot.  I don't think she is "waiting" for every spot in the row, that isn't fair or the custom.  That is if we believe the plaintiff was waved to the spot and I do because it is an unnecessary detail, all she has to say is I was waiting and didn't see the defendant and pulled in; the occupier of the spot doesn't own it to in fact give it to her, so that detail is unnecessary but I think illuminating.  I would have liked the defendant's actual story but she was never required to give it; that is my problem here.   

 

Like in the classic Seinfeld episode, "The Restaurant" where George is waiting to use a public telephone and someone picks up the phone after the first user and George says I was waiting and the lady responds if you were waiting, you would have the phone.

 

The plaintiff "stealing" the defendant's spot is the motive for the vandalism.  How else to explain the vandalism, the plaintiff making a report and suing?  Ms. Defendant, do you think the plaintiff stole the spot you had been waiting for? Yes.  And how did that make you feel?  Angry.  Angry enough to vandalize their car?  Alternatively, plaintiff parks in defendant's spot and thinks to herself, I just got her spot, that scratch on my car from before, I can blame it on the defendant and get her to pay for it.  What a patsy she will be.  Let's report this to the police.  That makes no sense.  The whole who is right about the parking spot is the red herring here.  The whole thing is they had a disagreement about the spot, doesn't matter who is right.  The case should start there and then the car was damaged, now prove she did it.  If it is a question of proof that the plaintiff loses on, I am fine with that but she lost because Judge Judy was annoyed she stole the defendant's spot and I don't think that is right nor do I think it is so clear cut the defendant was right about the spot; they both had arguments the way I see it but again that shouldn't matter.  JJ paid lip service that it doesn't mean she is allowed to vandalize the car, but she didn't follow through, IMO.

 

There have been cases of car vandalism where there is no eye witness where Judy says I can't help you.  In others, it is obvious the defendant had motive and did it so the plaintiff wins and the defendant gets lectured about having a temper.  No consistency.  I think this was the case of the defendant getting angry, making the threat claimed and causing the damage which JJ never even analyzed.

[All Episodes Talk: All Rise]

 

As for the parking place stealing lady, imagine having to spend en extended amount of time with her and her repeated "No I didn't", "Not true" or "It wasn't that way", all mumbled in her plaintive voice. She also did a perfect job of making herself appear not credible.

 

I respectfully disagree.  But what if she was telling the truth and to be told immediately that you are wrong and then when she tries to argue the fact, that you are lying and not being allowed to speak?

 

I think her point, which Judge Judy never let her get out and never understood, is that she was the closer car to the parking spot and the defendant was further away with the motor off and who knows what she is intending?  I do not agree with JJ that anyone waiting at the top of the row, with their car off, is automatically first in line for ANY spot that opens up in that row.  But, my main issue is that JJ went out of her way to point out that the plaintiff is in the wrong and then conceded that that still doesn't give the defendant the right to vandalize her car.  So, why is JJ arguing the point?  That the plaintiff was in the wrong and the defendant got screwed actually bolsters the plaintiff's case that the defendant would have reason to vandalize the car.

 

But Judge Judy obviously didn't like the plaintiff based on her being 71 years old and having had many spots stolen from her (a bias which should have nothing to do with this case) and found a discrepancy in the police report that differed from the plaintiff's testimony and pinned dismissing the case on that.  I believe the end result was that the defendant was allowed to vandalize the plaintiff's car, because the plaintiff screwed her out of the parking spot; that was the net of JJ's decision. The plaintiff deserved the damage and JJ wasn't going to reward such improper etiquette.

 

So, the plaintiff got the spot, then happens to have damage to her car and then finds the plaintiff's car to get a license plate number and then bothers to make a police report, all based on what?  She got the spot, she has no ax to grind.  If it doesn't make sense, then it's not true, right?   That doesn't make sense.  The one with a motive to cause trouble to the other party is the person who lost the spot JJ thinks was deservedly hers.  All the defendant had to do is shake her head no and whisper innocently, I didn't damage her car and she won.  I disagree.   I believe that they fought over the spot, it doesn't matter who is in the right, and the defendant (the person with motive, due to losing the spot, in her mind, wrongly) did damage to the plaintiff's car and the plaintiff's husband did see it and they reported it to the police, who put no effort into the whole matter.

 

Would have preferred Judge Judy to bother to listen to people before attacking to find her reason to pin their loss on them: a decision that was already formed in her mind before she came out.  I would have been fine with the plaintiff losing because it is their word against the defendant, with no outside corroboration, but Judge Judy wanted the plaintiff to lose and didn't even hear arguments on both sides before pinning the whole thing on the police report not saying what the plaintiff was testifying. 

 

Just find Judge Judy very intolerant and having already decided the facts in her mind, unwilling to even listen and just looking for something to back up what's already in JJ's mind (her aha, ain't I smarter then you? moment), her already rendered decision.

[All Episodes Talk: All Rise]

 

I don't understand JJ's obsession with "why did you wait" in this case 7 months.  So what.  The statute of limitations for bringing a law suit is 1-3 years (2 here, I believe) so I don't know why she gets her granny panties in a twist about it all the time.  Yes, I understand memories fade and you can lose track of witnesses but that wasn't an issue here.

 

It is about motivation for the suit.  Something changed over time, like a fight or breakup, and now what was most likely a gift, suddenly becomes a "loan" due to the intervening change in circumstance.  The plaintiff wasn't suing over it and time has passed, so what has changed to motivate the suit that they weren't bringing previously?  That is what she is trying to find out by asking that question; did some event change the "gift" to a "loan" as you weren't pursuing the matter previously?  She then works her way back to determine the original deal.  The waiting and the intervening event that motivated the suit, reflect back to the original arrangement.

 

In my opinion, sometimes you wait and wait, as you were a nice person, and then finally give up on the person "doing the right thing" on their own, with court being the last, drastic option. Some people are reluctant to sue a family member, friend or former friend.  I don't think Judy thinks that way though.

 

In the cat case, the intervening event appeared to be the fight over the affair but the plaintiff still didn't request the payment until she saw the defendant living it up financially.  JJ was trying to  correlate the suit to the fight/affair and the timeline actually didn't work, as there was still a gap.  If right after the affair/falling out, the plaintiff suddenly remembers that this was a "loan" and pursues what she hadn't pursued previously, then the plaintiff would have lost based on "waiting too long" even though she had the right to wait under the Statute of Limitations. 

 

Other intervening events Judge Judy looks at are giving the person more money without having been paid back the original amount and continued "relations" as a couple.

[S16.E28: Power Of Veto Competition #9]

Donny and Nicole were scared to lose, thus they folded and probably, as they weren't working together, hoped the other would stay.  Donny and Nicole needed to have made up a system in advance to cough to let the other know what they were doing.  Yes, cheating, same as the detonators planning in advance to rig the game.  Frankie was designated by the Detonators to win, as he was "the numbers guy."  He went out the first round and it didn't matter.  They plan and connive badly, and due to their numbers and the double HOH, their misplays never harm them. 

 

Donny and Nicole were playing not to lose and couldn't make any mistakes, whereas Frankie, Derrick, Christine, Cody could play to win and lie down for each other.  If Cody was knocked out then another Detonator would step in and stop folding.  Not really as simple for those playing for their lives, as those not in the same situation.  To win you need to be bold but being bold can get you knocked out, thus a more cowardly play that ends up in defeat anyway.

 

I hate Frankie and hate that everything works out his way.  Awful, vile, vain, arrogant, fake, talentless, attention whore, self-satisfied, delusional human being.  Right up there with Mike Boogie.  Frankie makes me dislike his sister by proxy.   You so know he is going to make a "career" out of being "Frankie from Big Brother."  He will be the one to get jobs and attention because he will be viewed as fun-loving Ariana Grande's brother by people who didn't watch the show and know what he is really like.

 

I hate the way the Detonators (especially Caleb) villainize the opposition--how dare they try to turn us against each other, how dare they whisper, how dare they try to form alliances.  Smug jerks.