DoctorK

Agreed. I think the script is just stupid, not funny. I also don't particularly like her new look, maybe because we have seen her recently on the real JJ show it looks artificial - when I first saw it I assumed that they had a stand in for her. It is her money for the plastic surgery and the world's most expensive make-up and I don't fault her for using it since she likes the result, but I think it is undignified. As always, YMMV.

On today's cases, the first one was boring, plaintiff is stupid and entitled, and she lost. Second case, Mr. Mercedes and his Aluminum Wheels, was slightly interesting. He claimed that the car wash guys using brushes to clean the wheels, ruined (his word) three of his four wheels by using the brushes on the wheels in spite of his asking them not to, but by the time he stopped them, only one wheel was left untouched (I'll come back to that detail later). He provided pictures of the three allegedly damaged wheels but didn't bother to bring a picture of the untouched fourth wheel. We only got to see one or two of the damaged wheel pictures but JM says that she sees the damages, deep scratches, which to her look like curb hitting damage. Well, the only damage I saw on his wheels was corrosion not scratches or scrapes (I have had aluminum wheels on two of my cars), which is inevitable on aluminum wheels eventually when the protective factory coating wears off and you end up buffing it off (as JM said her husband does) or just let it go as JM does and I always did after a couple of years. JM doesn't think that the brushes did the damage even though the defendant brought in a picture of one of the brushes his guys use which looked a bit grubby but rules against the plaintiff because he couldn't prove that he raised the issue at the time of alleged damage. The plaintiff was stupid to not bring a picture of the unbrushed fourth wheel, probably because it looked pretty much like the three "damaged" wheels. In the hallterview he confirmed my opinion of him, he is a jerk. It seems like Mercedes owners on these shows frequently come across the same way as lawyer litigants.

I loved that verdict when I first saw it, and I laughed my butt off hearing it again. Daddy plaintiff needs to do something about his daughter before he ends up as a victim on on of the ID channel's shows like Signs of a Psychopath.

Today: The Dog Bite and the Chiropractor For the record, I think the amount of money awarded to the plaintiff was reasonable. However, I distrusted much of what the plaintiff testified to. I have doubts about how severe her injury was. I have had a really split lip a couple of times during my younger days and lip injuries (like scalp lacerations) generate a lot of bleeding. If her lip was torn as badly as she claimed (not necessarily lying but perhaps dramatized) she would still have major scarring, especially without specialist surgery. I question her overall judgement about going to a chiropractor for major facial trauma and not even going to see him until the next day. I was concerned by the Venmo $500 transaction where she wanted the defendant to take that back and give her $500 in cash so that it wouldn't "mess up" her insurance (so she had some kind of insurance coverage which was never mentioned again). That sounded to me like trying to scam whatever insurer she had by hiding the payment in order to double dip. A minor item was when she approached the bench and took off what she called very clearly "silicon" tape (which sounds very sciencey). If she doesn't know the difference between silicon and silicone (a pet peeve) then I don't know how knowledgeable she is in her testimony. I also noted that (admittedly on TV (but still HDTV)) her scar looked very minor and barely visible. I believe she was sincere but maybe a little bit of a nutcase.

Oh boy, we have seen some major league assholes before but I think this is the worst one I can remember. It is not that he is evil but he is a screwed up personality. He needs a few lessons in being normal, preferably taught with a baseball bat. He confirmed my opinion in his ridiculous histrionic hallterview.

I loved this case (and hated the defendant)! Me too. What was this guy running in that house? In the old days I would have guessed illegal betting but now maybe something in financial shenanigans. I also keep my landline for a specific reason but copper in the house (which was already in place) is usable for telephone only which traps the user into obsolete phone technology. We didn't get enough information to figure out what type of interface they were using (the "brain" - I hate that use of the word) but I suspect that it is all obsolete which makes it increasingly harder to support and maintain. Sooner or later they will probably have to go Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) system but I doubt the defendant would spend for that. Too true but he was also a chiseler and I totally believe that he deliberately kept nickel and diming for more work from the plaintiff without paying for it and jumped on the golden opportunity at the end to cheat the plaintiff out of money that he (the defendant) had already agreed to on the basis that the paper phone lists on the face of the phones weren't all filled in. Don't you have to know who is on which phone to do this? I rewound to make sure I heard him correctly when he said that the plaintiff had damaged his (the defendant's) integrity; too late, Mr. Lawyer, your integrity is already shot. And finally, Corriero remains an ass.

I hated her. She was some combination of dishonest, stupid and ignorant. For her evidence she showed a picture of two blower fans and complained that the motor the defendant returned did not look like them. How stupid can you be? The blower fans go on the ends of the motor shaft and I have no doubt that the motor returned by the defendant was the one he had removed from her faulty A/C unit. I loved the fact that her husband who she said would support all of her lies decide not to appear, good choice. I am sure he caught hello from her on the flight back home, I feel sorry for him, she was a nasty piece of work. As inappropriate that was (and I wished the judge has asked if she would dress like that in a court in Italy), it was actually sort of a nice trim midriff. Lots better than other midriffs we have seen caused by dramatically too tight and small clothes unsuccessfully covering 12th semester bellies hanging out for the world to admire.

Today’s case: while plaintiff was in jail the defendant agreed to take care of storage charges (apparently he had several vehicles) and insurance on his car. In return, she was allowed to use the car but no one else was allowed to drive it. She did let the insurance lapse even though the plaintiff had told her it would need to be renewed within a month or two. She sort of allowed her boyfriend to drive the plaintiff’s car (unclear, sounds like she didn’t actually give the keys to her boyfriend but he did have easy access to the keys), and boyfriend for some unspecified reason drove it deep into the woods somewhere and totaled the (uninsured) car. At first, I thought the defendant was being surly but by the end I think sadly that she is just plain stupid. If that is the case, stupidity is not her fault but the plaintiff knew her well and should not have given her responsibilities that he should have known she wouldn’t be able to handle. From that point of view, I was OK with the verdict - the plaintiff gets compensated (by the show) and the defendant didn’t get beat up during the case. As always, YMMV.

This is a good point although I doubt that the culinary community will change current practice. I have a beard and mustache and both shed. Whenever I had to go into clean rooms (e.g., microchip fabrication facilities) I had to wear a cover for my hair, disposable covers over my shoes, and a beard guard; higher level clean rooms required a full body disposable garment. The logic is on your side but it seems to be an issue that is ignored. On the same topic, I have seen chefs on this show and other GR shows who have tied their pony tails back but still had about a third of their long hair hanging down loose over the food. I just try not to think about this when I eat out.

Agreed, this has nothing to do with culinary performance, it is just fluff for people to be impressed by how complicated, dedicated and pitiful these people are, and to pad out the show. While I understand why Carmen got cut, I think it should have been a toss up between her and Jonathan - her for inexperience (and throwing Dahmere under the bus by lying about him that he never told her his meat item needed more time) while Jonathan has come so close to complete emotional break down (Daddy Gordon was mean to me! Wah wah) plus he missed the wrong fish at the pass. Yeah, this episode was just boring. Part of it is the amount of irrelevant fluff that pads out the show and it often seems like the show is over loaded with commercials. Since I recorded this episode and I have a digital video editor, if I feel ambitious tomorrow I will actually map out the show versus commercials.

Yeah, he was quite a prize, complete with nose and lip rings. However it was clear who wears the pants in the family - he saw nothing wrong with The Hug until his wife browbeat him into calling it inappropriate. I fell sort of sorry for him only because he is married to a nasty, bat shit crazy paranoid witch of a wife. Landlady was awfully clueless about what a landlord can and should do but I hated both of the Ochoas. Husband is a bad tempered chiseler, hustler and liar. Wife is a liar who fakes a tear choked voice to pretend she is crying. They are both a combination of dishonesty and stupidity. Two months notice just isn't enough time for them to find a place to move to (which can be true) but this is not the landlord's problem. It is also not the landlord's job to lie to other landlords about the Ochoas being lousy tenants although landlords frequently lie to other landlords just to be rid of bad tenants. Incidentally (and unkindly) to Mrs. Ochoa - giant glasses and dark roots are not a good look for anyone over sixteen years old.

I finally watched this episode. I was pissed off about several things in the show. Awarding points based on an unspecified number of unknown people looking at one picture of the competing dishes (which none of them smelled or tasted and we don't even know how many of them actually looked at the pictures) is total non sense, just another gimmick so we can all admire GR with his hep and with-it and up to date internet fame and skill. Then I was pissed when Carmen in a talking head segment dumped on Dahmere for not telling her that he needed more time for his fish, he needs to just tell her. Well Carmen, he did exactly that, he clearly and plainly told her the fish needed more time at least twice and she ignored it. I don't know if she was being bitchy or lacks self awareness, either way it sucked. Jonathan just about had a breakdown as he was having Daddy Issues with Gordon being mean to him, that by itself was reason to dump him, he will never be able to run a high end, high stress kitchen. Leigh I didn't care about but Dahmere has consistently shown actual leadership, more so than any of the others and that should have been a major factor. As always, YMMV.

Oh my! I am blushing LOL. I enjoy these threads and chime in when something or someone hits one of my pet peeves, but mainly I am just happy my life and my friends have just about nothing in common with the dysfunctional fools on these shows.

That's what Cox said was coming but instead I got rerun from earlier this week: 1. Dysfunctional father-son exchange of protective orders and evictions. Dad was no great shakes but I can understand it because Pillsbury Doughboy son is a useless irresponsible parasite. 2. All about rack and pinions and front end alignments. Plaintiff is crazy and wants much more than her car is worth based on her unsupported suspicions that the defendant ruined her car. 3. Just Mr.Neck tats deadbeat who can't talk to the judge without using profanities, even after being warned. He is also challenged by trying for complete sentences. Deja Vu all over again (Yogi Berra wisdom); a good day to clean the inside of the car windows of accumulated crud. I am not trying to recap here, just want to make sure that what I think I saw was not a senior moment flashback to long ago.

First case was all about $40 and not worth the time. Second case, I hated the defendant witch (I am being nice here). She knows absolutely nothing about owning and maintaining a swimming pool but she sneers, furrows her brows, frowns and puckers her bee stung lips together to show her contempt for the plaintiff. She is an ignorant snob who brags about how much money she has spent is redoing the house she has just bought and claims that the plaintiff did nothing but take off the pool cover because two days later her stained and algae laden pool wasn’t crystal clear. Adding to her nastiness, she counter sues for slander for “people being told” that she doesn’t pay her bills (talk about a lack of self-awareness!) and proves this by bringing her friend who just has heard that some unidentified people said something like what the defendant claimed. Third case is another as-is car sale dispute. Plaintiff apparently did not take advantage of the law in her state (Massachusetts) where if a used car cannot pass inspection within seven days, the car goes back and the sales price refunded. Instead, she used that time to try some do-it-yourself repairs on the coolant system. The plaintiff is painfully ignorant and unable to act as an adult; sorry, no sympathy from me, just grow up for Pete’s sake. P.S. I'll be happy when the site finishes cleaning up so that every thread won't take me to the first post of the first page of each thread. I am also going to save a copy of this post so that if it disappears I won't have to make up new words of questionable wisdom.

Yeah, it was sort of light weight but the underlying issue, that there is only one captain who is responsible for the ship and its crew and is in charge. The defendant mentioned the safety issue once but JM just ignored it. Having a crew member not following orders and arguing with the captain while maneuvering is a recipe for disaster. The plaintiff is a snippy prima donna who can't follow orders from the captain and endangered the ship, crew and any other vessels in near proximity. The plaintiff treated the situation as if it was just a little spat between school girls. I hope a lot of sailing captains in the area saw this case and won't let her ever crew on their boats; with her attitude she is a disaster waiting to happen.

This whole situation was appalling. The mother (who is a school counselor of all things!) makes excuses for her son even though animal cruelty in young children is a significant indicator of potentially serious mental issues. While being careful to remember that correlation is not the same causation, history of childhood animal cruelty shows up in many if not most violent psychopaths. Rather than get her son some help, she is enabling him by making excuses. I feel sorry for the son and more so for the people who will be around him as he grows up.

This is an oldie but I enjoyed the heck out of it. The defendant is a crazy delusional old bat. She conjured up (very amateurishly) a lot of evidence about the barbaric and savage attack by the plaintiffs as they descended on her with a plastic dog ball tosser. She felt that her life was in danger and cited her state's "stand your ground law" (this can be touchy because every state that has one differs from all of the others and they all have lots of fine print details that I suspect she didn't bother with, just did a quickie google) and pepper sprayed father, son and dog. She absolutely would not believe her biggest evidence pictures did not show black and blue from bruising even though JJ repeatedly pointed this out. Given that there were no pictures from the first police report and later she called the cops to come back over and take pictures, after she had time to add some minor skin reddening as I suspect. I think if the plaintiffs had asked for the full $5K, JJ would have given it to them. What I really enjoyed was the demeanor of the plaintiff father. It was obvious that he was angry when the defendant made all kinds of terrible accusations about his alleged savage behavior but he never lost control. He kept his mouth shut when it wasn't his turn, didn't talk over anybody and just stayed appropriate for court, something that is so rare that it was memorable. I loved JJ eviscerating the old bat; she is the type of neighbor who can make life hell for normal people.

First case – I despised the plaintiff although the defendant was a bit shady himself. He got all dressed up for court but apparently doesn’t own a comb and downed a dozen espressos before court. He was obnoxious and really twitchy. I believe he grossly exaggerated the size of the gas cylinders. I have never seen gas cylinders as tall as he claimed and while the acetylene cylinders were often shorter and wider than the oxy, he was adding drama by claiming huge cylinders. I loved his claim that his car was worth $4000 (I think that was his number) and when JM didn’t buy that, he claimed he knew from KBB but he didn’t bring it with him, JM came back with “we have the book” and you are just wrong. Let’s not forget that the plaintiff claimed that the quarter panel on his car was caved in and destroyed, but he didn’t take any pictures of the damage. JM gave him $400 but I wouldn’t have given him anything because he brought no real evidence that this even happened. Second case – Unleashed small dog attacked large leashed dog case brings us another annoying plaintiff who lets his barky little dog loose in his front yard which is “fenced” but has no gate so it is wide open to the sidewalk and street. He sort of denies that his dog was out of his yard because the dog is trained to stop right at the gate opening (Harvey garbles this with his pathetic fans when he asks them if the other dog on the sidewalk could be trained to stop right at the gate) so the other dog must have come on to his property. Plaintiff is a passive-aggressive jerk. He and his wife claim that the defendant has come near their house and yelled racist insults at the wife, defendant absolutely denies it. The insult is very Viet Nam era and the defendant looks the right age for that, but anybody who has watched Apocalypse Now or Full Metal Jacket has probably heard. I just don’t know about this claim. The plaintiff was pretty fast and loose with facts earlier in the case, but that seems like a very specific insult wouldn’t be something he would make up. Third case – It was too boring to listen to, although I caught the plaintiff’s hallterview and enjoyed how irate she was about the verdict. After writing all this, now I should go back to the first showing and see how I felt way back then.

Same here, I missed all y'all (which is more intense than simply y'all).

That annoyed me almost as much as the defendant annoyed me. The contract was signed by the defendant and unless Juarez could cite some local or state ordinance or law defining late fee limits they had no basis to disallow the contractually defined late fees. I also think the judges were all way too sympathetic towards the defendant. He is a narcissistic fool who is totally incapable or unwilling to act as an adult and take responsibility for his trashing the property with his "art". He just floats through life without a care and "does his thing" with no regard for other people's property because he is an artist and the rules don't apply to him. I have known people like him and they can be OK but I learned to never trust or rely on them any further than I can comfortably spit a rat. eta: Just watched the next (rerun) case and again Juarez dumps contractually defined late fees for a tenant because she thinks they are "excessive". Corriero-itis must be catching.

This was a pretty lousy episode. The NASA/Space Food theme was just dumb and the food fight and pouring food over people is something straight from Nickelodeon for Kids. The blind taste test would have been much better without the crappy lead in. I was a bit surprised at how badly the chefs did on the blind taste test, for Pete's sake how can you miss bacon (although one chef got close with "ham")? They are ramping up the Jason vs. the world conflict but I don't find it interesting or entertaining, and suspect that much of it is generated by the producers. What a waste of time and money (not to forget food also).

My quick recap of today's cases: 1. An ignorant, arrogant and entitled plaintiff gets nothing. 2. Another ignorant and entitled plaintiff gets nothing (even though offered a pair of glasses he still needs after his eye surgery, too dense to take them). 3. An ignorant, arrogant and entitled dog owning (rotty/pit mix of course) defendant loses while claiming that the plaintiff wasn't really bitten in spite of pictures and medical records. Pretty much par for the course many days.

I'm just an old fart but as I saw it, "Goat Yoga" was a super hot item for about 15 minutes years ago. It was certainly a weak and lousy "reward" on this show, much like most if not all of the rewards. I record the show so I can skip commercials and rewards segments and other fluff and dreck. As a result I can watch all of the worthwhile content of an entire episode in about 25 minutes.

On today's junk jewelry case Corriero continues to be an ass. The plaintiff didn't seem credible to me; not that she is dishonest but she seemed to be somewhat befuddled and unclear in her testimony. The defendant was a lousy business person with little or no records but did seem to be reasonable but sloppy. I think they did come up with the correct verdict, no thanks to Corriero.