DoctorK

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.

Totally correct. I haven't been into that kind of stuff for forty years but anyone who watches the Motor Trend channel is very familiar with this situation. Customer (who has a ridiculously inflated idea of his expertise) brings in a vehicle that has been upgraded by someone who doesn't know what they are doing. The car in question had a much stronger engine installed without upgrading the transmission and the rear end. The destroyed rear end with shattered gears shows what happens when incompetent people play at building muscle cars from run of the mill cars. The plaintiff is an ignorant violent asshole with no knowledge of cars (in spite of what he claims) and no self control. Juarez completely screwed up when she said that the steering bolt missing a nut caused the transmission and rear end failure which is ridiculous. Frankly all three judges pontificated based on ignorance. The plaintiff should have gotten nothing and go back to driving around in a 1963 Mercury Comet (my first car, two speed transmission with pollution control consisting of a 1/2 inch pipe from the crank case pointing down).

Yeah, as a kid we had Daisy spring piston BB guns that we shot at each other and got nothing more than a little blood blister. Just for kicks, I did more research in five minutes than Pierce did for a court case, he was too enamored of his own expertise that he didn't update his info from his experience in the 50s and 60s. I found a Crosman pump .177 BB or pellet rifle for about $50 with 700+ feet per second which people hunt squirrels with. I honestly don't know if the defendant was responsible, but plaintiffs clearly didn't make it to a "preponderance of evidence". This made me happy because jerks who park huge ugly vehicles on the street in front of other people's houses because they don't want it in front of their own house deserve what they get. On the other hand, they did see a cat in the security camera video, so who knows? Cats are clever and sneaky, maybe the cat did it.

I remembered this case because one thing irked me about it and I don't think I posted about it first time around. "Bronze" lions? Really? That was clear in the voice over although I don't think any litigant mentioned bronze. Someone scripting the voice over needs new glasses and the editor needs hearing assistance, this was just plain sloppy. The one fast moving picture we got is posted below. No way the lion is bronze, it looks like a concrete casting, which sounds about right for $5000 for a pair. Bronze would be a heck of a lot more expensive. Now I'll go out in the front yard and yell at clouds as we grumpy old folks are expected to do.

This was an oldie but it still pissed me off once again. The plaintiff was an insufferable old entitled fart with a big mouth and no self control. JM was just as bad, flirting with him. His behavior was beyond improper and into blatant sexual harassment (ask any HR person). The plaintiff with his 50,000 pound truck was a perfect jerk but JM should have been ashamed of herself the way she played along with his BS. We don't care about his truck and we don't care about his father being a millionaire fifty years ago.

I was about to comment on this case but you have pretty much covered everything I would have said. Great minds think alike. I also agree with your first post "one of these judges becomes a bleeding heart for the plaintiff", this is a chronic issue with this show and it is almost always Corriero who whenever his bleeding heart and mushy brain decides a litigant (not always the plaintiff) is a poor innocent victim (this always seems to be a woman) he acts not as a judge but as an advocate and completely throws out any consideration of the law.

Same here. For me it is mostly because the stupid and arbitrary groupings the show creates (e.g., age/generations, regions of the US) which I guess are supposed to ramp up the tensions among the chefs. This is just an annoying distraction from actual cooking. Also I agree that the ridiculous scheduling is aggravating - two hours in one night is too much of this show for me, and weeks off with no show reduces my interest in watching the next episode when they get around to it. One thing in the finale that bugged me was when Joe complained about Michael's crusted venison. He said the ratio of meat to crust was way off - too much meat and not enough crust. (If I am mixing characters let me know, I don't watch as closely as I used to). Well it looked to me that there was ample crust and any more would have have been a defect to me. Maybe I am picking on Joe but he is really an annoying snob.

Maybe his brain is scrambled, but I also think that it is possible that he is an arrogant asshole who uses fancy words (which he doesn't know the meaning of) to impress people. Maybe a bit of both. I got the same vibe from them and wonder if the basement was in someone's mother's house. I was shocked that one of them actually has a girl friend.

I recorded this one and started to watch the case. They lost me when I heard about the humongous birthday party for a six year old daughter which was necessary because the daughter was so traumatized because when she was one year old her birthday party wasn't fabulous. A plaintiff with blue lipstick and dark glasses didn't help my impression of the plaintiffs. Because I ff'd, did anyone ask her why she was wearing dark glasses? If there is a medical reason, OK, otherwise it is posturing and not allowing the judge or judges to watch the body language of the eyes. I feel comfortable that I haven't missed much from this case.