Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

DoctorK

Member
  • Content Count

    1.0k
  • Joined

Community Reputation

4.1k Excellent
  1. Or perhaps a tropical storm near Hawaii that might perhaps maybe turn into a hurricane some time in the future.
  2. That was fun to watch. Unless I am mixing up litigants today, she was the one who grabbed up all of her papers, ignored Byrd telling her to leave them on the table, then went stomping out. I wanted Byrd to tase her and take back the papers, but I know that sadly that will never happen in my lifetime.
  3. An old rerun today, a rental management owner believes that his agent collecting rents fabricated a theft of the money. As always, this is a civil case, i.e., so preponderance of the evidence is all that is needed except that Corriero once again makes up his own rules and explicitly states the standard is "vast preponderance of the evidence"; he has also in the past invoked "beyond a reasonable doubt" during deliberations. I hope he wasn't as fast and loose when real people in real trials in front of him depended on him to follow the law. I do understand and sort of agree that the plaintiff's proof was weak, and I am pissed off that Judge DiMango did not finish up the question of the defendant's drivers license (which allegedly was stolen with the money) issue date - apparently it did not show the replacement date, just the original issue date. DiMango suggested that this may catch the defendant in a lie about the theft occurrence if the license was not replaced after the theft. DiMango said that she was going to check with the DMV where the defendant lived but just made a passing reference to the issue during deliberations but did not give an answer. If the license was not replaced after the theft (which the defendant said it was (after a brief hesitation)), then she was probably lying about the theft and the plaintiff should have won; if it was a replacement then I go along with the verdict because I don't think the defendant was smart enough to get a replacement license to support her story. Oh boy, this is a lot of "who shot John" for an ancient case, JJ would frown at this.
  4. Most of the breaking news is not anything that anybody needs to hear about before the regular news at 5 PM, and even when it is important (rare but sometimes it happens) we get a long intro, then the actual news followed by the news being repeated at length by several different talking heads, adding nothing new. The weather breaks may be important to some people in the viewing area so they don't bother me (much) but recently we had constant break-ins to update us on the hurricane heading for Hawaii in the standard "We are all going to die!" style of weather reporting. Do they really think that people on the east coast (of USA not Hawaii) have such an urgent need to get multiple updates about a problem in Hawaii, so urgent that they can't wait until five o'clock? Or like most of us, go on line (where I do all of my storm tracking which was part of my job for quite a few years). Also, Get Off My Lawn! (Griping done for now)
  5. I agree, if you have to use sick leave due to someone else's action, that means that later in the year you may have to use vacation (see below) or take unpaid leave. Vacation time is even more of an issue. Most of my working life we had PTO as mentioned above, but either with PTO or vacation time, each company had a policy that an employee could not accumulate more than a specified amount of vacation at any time. Some companies did a "use it or lose it" plan but all of my employers would once a year cash out any excess accumulation of PTO. By the time I retired my yearly PTO accumulation was capped at six weeks (240 hours), and most years (managing five or more projects running at the same time) I used little or no PTO. My unused PTO was a significant payout, but these TV judges don't believe that it has any value. I suspect that they have little experience outside of government employment after their first few years as lawyers.
  6. Ah but he really is quite the ladies' man, I hope you caught him smirking and winking at the judge. Too bad that JM apparently missed it. What's not to love in an aging romeo with greasy hair starting to show gray/white, perpetual smirk and quite a tidy (not so) little paunch?
  7. Yep, and if I am remembering correctly, the one long ago, JJ awarded the bouncy house owner only the value of a KMart bouncy house, not the value of the commercial one that was destroyed because the defendant brought in a KMart ad as proof that the thing was only worth that much. Better this time, the plaintiff was actually only asking for the depreciated value, but the defendant was so annoying that JJ gave the plaintiff the new replacement value. That'll teach you to piss off the judge/arbitrator.
  8. Old case, border collies chasing and harassing neighbor's cows. Dog owners admit that their dogs get out a lot but they are so sweet and border collies protect animals so it is impossible that they hurt the plaintiff's cows. They should be forced to read "All Creatures Great and Small" to learn about herding dogs that go bad and kill sheep and cattle by just running them to death for sport, no need to make contact to cause death. What really got me annoyed was when the defendants alleged (correctly but not quite the way they stated) that the plaintiff was a convicted felon and shouldn't have had a gun to shoot one of the dogs, which has nothing to do with the case, but then the two defendants turned to each to smirk and chuckle at this brilliant move. I was surprised that JM ruled the way I thought it should go, I expected her to go all mushy over the sweet little border collies (actually not so sweet, right at the end the defendant admitted that her dogs have been chasing cows all the time).
  9. I believe the defendant, she cited specific odometer readings, and the plaintiff's testimony was shaky, she didn't say she put 3,00 miles on the car, she said that it was probably about 3,000. The plaintiff was a flat out liar and should have been socked much harder.
  10. Help me out folks, according to the the Cox program guide, today's first case (vendor for struggling artists dropped from fair because of allegations of rape and allegedly causing a suicide) is a new show. However, I know that I have seen it before. Not only is it an unusual case but the plaintiff is really distinctive in appearance and in how he presented his case (including a really creepy video he made to send to defendants). I don't remember which court show had it on or when but I really believe this is a repeat or a scary senior moment on my part.
  11. Okay, today's first case, tenant who didn't get out by the end of the month as required. I am confused, seems to me that these court shows have told me over the years and repeatedly that if your stuff is still in the apartment, you are still there, and that if you are there any part of the month, you owe for the month unless you can show that the landlord re-rented before the end of the month. I also did not like the way they pulled a "heads I win, tails you lose" move on the property manager. They suggested that he had no way to know if he would get the unit re-rented immediately (therefore no loss from the over stay) in order to get him to explain that his units re-rented almost immediately. Once they extracted that admission, they then used that to say that he wouldn't really have any loss so nothing for the month with the tenant's stuff still there (not even pro-rated). Plus they were indignant about using the security deposit for the rent that the manager believed was owed; judges have frequently allowed tenants being sued for unpaid rent to be credited with the security deposit in lieu of rent owed. Maybe I am just having a senior moment, or it is a new season and all of the previous seasons were just a dream (referring to Dallas I think, where they started off a new season showing that a major plot element (someone died) was really just one of the character's dream).
  12. I remember this one also, JJ screwed the pooch on this case. Don't forget the hallterview in which the defendant flat out stated that she had outsmarted the plaintiff, she was smarter than him. The plaintiff didn't present his case very well, but JJ constantly browbeat him, and jumped down his throat almost every time he tried to respond to her. No wonder the guy got tongue tied and confused.
  13. I agree with her. I remember this case from before, and once again I am fascinated by the defendant's psuedo military shirt. Does anyone recognize it? Is it some fraternal or veterans organization, or is it just a cutting edge style? I would hate to think that my laughing (at the sergeant's insignia on both sleeves, the general's stars on both sides of the collar and especially the name tape "COMBAT") was disrespectful to an actual veteran.
  14. Actually, she looks like she is 11 or 12. That whole case reeked of a set up. Dim as the plaintiff seemed, I find it hard to believe that someone who is 20 years old, living in her own apartment, saving almost three thousand dollars over four years, neatly dressed (style is another question), well spoken (except for "basically" and "like") and a mother who seems normal except for her behavior in court would behave this stupidly. The way that the plaintiff and her mother smiled, laughed and giggled throughout the case about having $2700 (sitting in a tin box on the dresser) stolen by the also laughing and smirking defendant makes me suspect that this was all a set up to bilk the show. They all got a trip out of it, the show pays the judgement and then splits the rest of the pot between the litigants, and they all go home with a free trip and a good chunk of money. The plaintiff's hallterview also smelled - she listened to everything that JM told her and she promises that she will never behave that stupidly again; my guess is that she and piece of garbage defendant will be in bed together again as soon as they get back home.
  15. The same way she does accident reconstructions without so much as nod to basic physics. Decades of law school don't make anyone an expert on all things.
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size