DoctorK

OK, I finally got around to watching the whole episode. The "Secret Service" gimmick is ridiculously hokey, just as bad as on the earlier show Gordon put on a silly disguise and everybody pretended that he was really incognito. Other than that, it really is just a relabeled Kitchen Nightmares and follows the same script, hitting all of the scheduled steps at all the correct times: 1. Find all of the horrible problems at the restaurant 2. Come in as a surprise (yeah, right) and point out how horrible the restaurant is 3. Get the family and staff dynamics exposed as completely dysfunctional 4. Gordon plays the role of family therapist 5. Gordon does a massive clean up and provides all new kitchen gear 6. Everybody loves each other, a few tears are shed, and everybody loves the new restaurant 7. Everybody lives happily after As I said above, same script, different names.

Sounds to me like a re-labelled Kitchen Nightmares. I'll check it out, maybe watch as a guilty pleasure, until it gets too repetitive, like Kitchen Nightmares did, every week more of the same just with different names.

These days I usually record the new episodes and then come here to see if they are interesting enough spend the time to watch. Today, I saw "phony ant pictures" I was all gung ho because this sounded like fun. Sadly, thanks to the terminal incompetence of Cox, what they broadcast today (in spite of listing the fake ants case for today's new episode and the motorcycle case as today's rerun), both today's "new episode" and the rerun were the motorcycle episode. Yep, same episode back to back. I was really looking forward to fake ant pictures. This was what I was hoping for:

Defendant says he couldn't move his wheelchair to get close to the car, and any damages were pre-existing, and defendant never touched the car. (quote not working for me today) He obviously could get close enough to the car to get into it, even if nh needed assistance, and the damages to the car all looked like they were at wheelchair height and lower but not higher. If this was CSI and they did forensics on the wheelchair and car damage, I feel sure the defendant would have been shown to be a liar. I also was annoyed with his defense of repeated "I didn't do nothing", the excuse I used when I was eight years old. Glad with the outcome, good thing this is "preponderance of evidence" venue. (now the quote works) I use lithium batteries in a few devices, and they outperform other heavy drawing batteries, but they are expensive and can be very particular about charging and discharging. I think the verdict was good because the defendant did agree to reimburse for the bad batteries and has to live with that (and hearing about this from his wife for the rest of his life). As for the batteries, rather than being defective, I centered on what happened during the extended time that the new batteries were not used and nobody seemed to know if they were plugged in and charging continuously, occasionally, or not at all. All of the chargers I use for Li batteries (also NiMH) are smart chargers that can and usually are left charging when not in use because the charger monitors the voltage and current into the battery and just keep it topped off. Li batteries also tend to hold a pretty good charge even when idle and and not on the charger, but it sounded like the cart and batteries were left unattended for at least three months. I think the most likely case is that the when the plaintiff took the cart out after that amount of time, he did not check the charge and/or top off the charge and the batteries were very low. Then he ran it until the batteries were totally dead which can kill rechargeable batteries. Oh well, all's well that ends well, both litigants got a nice trip and the show pays the award and neither litigant seemed to be hostile or nasty.

This is the core of this case, but I think it is a bit messier than this sounds. I don't think the defendant delivered "the shell of an unfinished tiny house". He admittedly did a lot of damage to the structure while moving it (personally, I shudder at calling this pile of junk a "structure", it is an insult to the word), it looked like a lot if not most of the roof was gone (not just panels but also the framing), the front steps were gone, large areas of walls were just plastic sheeting stapled to 2x4s. I think this stretches the definition of "shell" too far. The judges certainly did some acrobatics to get to their award, but the defendant was such a complete slimeball that I can live with it. Again, YMMV

I am split between two possibilities on this Little Red Crying Hood: First possibility - She is severely mentally or emotionally limited and needs a lot of therapy (with someone to take care of her in the meantime) in order to become a functioning adult. She is completely out of touch with reality and believes that everybody else is responsible for dealing with her problems. Second possibility - She is a spoiled pathetic drama queen who just sails through life assuming that other people will take care of her and she has no responsibility to do anything for herself. I lean towards the latter. As always, YMMV. By the way, I don't ding her for taking the death of her cat very hard. The first time I cried as an adult was when a cat I had grown up with since I was about five years old died (he was about 18 or 19 years old). That cat (Sinbad by name) was part of my daily life for all those years and it was hard to take. But an adult needs to be able to deal with the pain and not fall to pieces. I can't imagine how she will deal when a parent or sibling dies.

This case puzzled me. Which one of the litigants is the flakiest? They seemed to be competing for the title. I laughed out loud when Saylor explained that she couldn't use the permits that Mr. Hippy gave her to go to a show and make some money selling from her pizza cart: "I couldn't go because my dog had fleas". That is original (dumb but original). Neither one of these idiots is smart enough to come in out of the rain. And, Saylor's dancing was ghastly.

Oh my goodness, today's defendant is genuinely deranged. Her behavior in court was rude, yelling and talking over judges. But she is telling the truth, believe her, and she has proof - she wrote things in her diary, what could be better as proof of her accusations? She was so blatantly nuts that I was laughing at her throughout the case. Yes, I am a bad person, I should not laugh at this nasty hateful person be-clowning herself on national TV.

Actually, I think that was Tewolde who said this and obviously hated the defendant. The plaintiff blatantly lied about the cable boxes, and had absolutely no evidence to support her claims for lost items. All three judges went Corriero - poor helpless plaintiff, her situation is so sad. I hated the way that the judges gave the plaintiff money. Well, I am pretty tolerant on this, having myself a classic Irish nose that has been broken at least twice and shows the effects of lots of beer over the years. The plaintiff's ridiculously large hoop earrings distracted me more.

This is one of the greatest HB cases, glad I took time to watch it again. This the case where the slimy plaintiff claimed to be a lawyer but ended up throwing his papers up in the air and stomping out, after constantly mouthing off to each of the judges. I have watched a lot of Court Cam (real judges in real courts) and I loved one case where the judge slammed his fist on the bench and yelled at a really obnoxious defendant "THIS IS NOT TV COURT, THIS IS REAL COURT!", and real judges would have had this jerk in cuffs with contempt of court time in jail.

That was horrible. So she just drives through intersections without bothering to look at the traffic lights? She beyond any reasonable doubt should not be driving, but we all know that she will merrily drive around until she kills somebody. Another litigant that deserves to be hated.

I was honestly shocked by today's case. From the first few minutes I was convinced that the defendant was just trying to get away without paying rent, and her presentation confirmed this to me. I fully expected the judges (especially Corriero) to feel sorry for the defendant and figure out ways to not give the plaintiff any money. Then I was was shocked - The judges saw through the defendant's nonsense, even Corriero!

Absolutely, Corriero was totally off base with his reasoning (which he just pulled out of a part of his anatomy). Tewolde really raked the defendants for their sloppy handling of this situation and the way that when they paid the tickets (miraculously 30 minutes before she was served, yeah right) they never told the plaintiff (after the defendants had stalled and delayed for months) and caused the plaintiff a great deal of inconvenience. I am disappointed with the other two judges for blowing off the hassles the plaintiff had to go through because of the irresponsible actions of the defendants. Please, let Corriero's departure come soon.

My only comment to add on this case is that the plaintiff is an absolutely horrible person.

I just watched the Simmer Down episode. Same people, same problems, same miraculous happy ending, just different names and different dates. The only modestly interesting thing I noticed (I am easily amused) was when they showed the owner two months later, his beard apparently over the two month period grew out white resulting in an unusual two tone look.