DoctorK

I recorded this episode and just watched it. The show is very formulaic and this one was a perfect example. Totally dysfunctional personnel issues, dysfunctional owner and management, everything is a hopeless mess. People who don't need a talking-to from Ramsey, they need psychiatric help, if they are really as shown in this show. Of course, it wraps up with the unsurprising Gordon Ramsey Miraculous Final Seven Minutes and everything is hunky-dory and everybody loves everybody. I just can't believe that this place was as screwed up as shown and everyone lived happily after due to Gordon's magic. Why do I watch? I think I have drifted into "hate watching".

Actually I would like to have seen this specific tow-away event. I have a feeling that this classic Rolls Royce Silver Shadow might not look very good in real life, maybe more like the abandoned cars the guys on "Road Kill" find in barns or under trees where they have sat for 20 or 30 years. As dumb as the plaintiff was (box of rocks level), even she would take a decent Rolls to a real specialist for repairs, not a guy who didn't even have a garage to work in. Maybe she is rich and dumb and loves having Rolls, Jags, Mercedes etc. even if they don't run, or dumb enough to keep a non working Rolls for status rather than a shiny new Honda for probably the same cost as maintaining an ancient Rolls.

I will note that D,D and D always seem to find places with good cooks and good food, places not in dire need of total change. That show makes me hungry when I watch it.

Neither do I. The defendant was all over the place in her stories but I am still remembering the picture of her car parked way over the parking divider line. But she is totally honest in everything she says because her zodiac sign is "Leo"? The plaintiff was a lot more laid back than I would have been dealing with this self described "good neighbor". Personally, I suspect that the defendant often parks badly (and doesn't seem to have a good memory) because she drives after putting down half a dozen Mimosas with her girl friends at the bar. She also looks and acts like some people I know who have had a serious drinking problem.

I recorded this episode but thanks everybody, I don't need to waste an hour on a complete BS result. In a real kitchen Kyle is either going to get laughed out of the kitchen or eaten alive by the line cooks. It is a harsh environment and Pillsbury Doughboy with his squeaky voice isn't going to cut it, he has no ability to project authority to working crew. Gordon may carry him as a figurehead (of something or the other) but that is all.

Wow, today’s defendant was a real piece of work. I don’t remember any litigant who is such a complete irresponsible, lazy, self-centered, clueless, delusional parasite. She can’t be bothered to complete and use the cosmetology training she scammed her aunt for, but does occasional manicures out of her apartment so everything is OK with her. She is a complete failure as an adult and is perfectly happy about being such a worthless person, scrounging off of her aunt, grandmother and anyone else she can suck money from and feels no guilt about this. Disgusting. For once Corriero understands this kind of person.

I have always liked the blindfold palate tests because they are directly related skills needed to be chefs, and the results are pretty much cut and dried. However I despise the junk part of pouring sticky food products and shooting breakfast cereal on other competitors. It is inherently stupid, not fun or funny, and wastes time. I also watched Gordon cut open one steak that was supposed to be rare but the centers were raw (bluish/purple), same with one of the beef wellingtons that I watched closely (and rewound to watch again) same problem, the whole center (about 1/3 of the meat) was raw. I also watched him send out scallops that were slightly browned around the edge but visibly raw and gelatinous in the middle. Finally, I wasn't watching the red team very closely but from what I saw Anne Marie communicated OK but Amanda literally ignored her when Anne Marie asked her repeatedly about timing for something. Oh well, another week gone by.

I really disliked both litigants but I think I disliked the defendant more than the plaintiff. If the defendant has a legitimate prescription for pain medicine but is willing to sell/swap 130 pills, does she actually need the medication or is it just a way of making money (illegally). I wonder if her doctor knows how cavalierly she sells the medication the doctor is prescribing. Then again, perhaps the doctor gets a cut from the sales? I hope not or we have just encountered three scummy people, not just two.

Wow, today's defendant is definitely in my top ten of despicable litigants. Her dogs off leash jumped over a fence and attacked the plaintiff's pet rabbit. She was completely certain that she wasn't responsible, it was the fault of some contractor who didn't build a fence adequate to keep her unleashed (and apparently vicious) dogs from jumping into the plaintiff's yard and chewing up the plaintiff's rabbit. What an arrogant and entitled ***! She reminds of another defendant who let his dog kill a neighbor's cat and argued that there is no loss, there are always plenty of cats roaming the streets. If there is a hell, both of these defendants will burn in hell for their arrogance and callousness. Just evil.

For the first few minutes of this case I was just laughing at the plaintiff's rank stupidity but as the case went on, it stopped being funny to me as it became clear that the plaintiff was (and is) a total rude nasty jerk (and really stupid) with no redeeming characteristics. The arrogance of saying that he read somewhere in the law that he was right but that it was up to judges to look it up left me stunned. I would hate to have to deal with him, actually I would hate to even be in the same room with him.

That may explain the litigants. The plaintiff was a bit flakey but the defendants were garbage people. The female defendant may not be able to help herself because she is stupid but the male defendant is a complete piece of crap, an admitted porch pirate stealing stuff from people’s front door as a career. Defendants lied about just about everything, e.g., the “we literally had to fish our stuff out of a pond” and he has a video to prove this, well guess what? No damn pond in the video. JJ would have eviscerated Noah the porch pirate, but Corriero thinks that he is just “immature”. No, he is a real worthless asshole. After this case, I think we can assume the defendants will wander on and find more people to leech off of and keep living off of stolen Amazon packages. I did enjoy Tewolde roasting Noah when presenting the verdict but it wasn't as harsh as the defendant deserved.

Oh my! That sounds like I missed a great show because I botched setting my recording set up.

Boy, what a mess in today's case. Since both parties were convinced that the "hedges" (really stretched the definition of hedge) were on their property (with defendant having a back up claim of adverse possession which sounded correct), what they should have done was to either split the cost of the survey (I also doubt the $6K cost) or do it with wrong litigant paying the whole cost. I know, too much to expect. Totally agree, she was a nasty snotty witch who after living next door to the alleged drug house covered with trash for years was getting the benefit of a clean up that removed the mess and raised her property value. I agree, she got immensely more benefit from the clean up than $2500. It was sort of fun watching the judges having much more lively deliberations than usual and Papa stood up for himself better than usual.

Oh my! First thing I noticed was the blue pony tail on the plaintiff and the black painted finger nails on the defendant. From there on, it looked to me like a couple of forty year olds still living like immature college students. The plaintiff at least seemed to be able to manage his life but the defendant came across more like a youngster who lives by couch surfing with friends who actual manage to pay their rent. The defendant really isn't capable in managing his life. I didn't care too much about either litigant, but the black nail polish was a first for me.

To tell the truth, both plaintiff and the defendant sounded drunk or buzzed to me during the case. Also, as one of the judges said during deliberations, neither litigant seemed credible though I distrusted the defendant a bit more than the plaintiff. I admired the repair shop that came up with a $7000 repair bill for a $2500 car (that they had kept driving for a year), the mechanic must be financing a new boat. I really wish the scattered brained plaintiff had taken a picture of the FRONT of the car so we could see how bad the damage really was, instead of just taking ONE picture from the side with the hood raised which showed none of the damage. As far as the defendant goes, driving out at 1 or 2 AM in an uninsured borrowed car going to three separate stores to try to buy some butter for a recipe does not sound like a sober person to me.