DoctorK

This I have to see!

That pissed me off too, the judges acted like this was "just one of those funny little things that just happen". That was reprehensible on the part of the judges, even to trading laughs with the smirking female defendant who immediately picked up on how to play the judges. Both defendants were blatant liars, and the male was a complete out and out, self centered jerk. I was happy that the plaintiff brought in all of the evidence he needed to get his full award, especially after the judges tried to undermine his claims until he presented irrefutable evidence of everything he claimed.

Yeah, that was a real clunker of a line, whoever wrote it should be ashamed.

This would annoy me more if I didn't suspect that the line was totally made up and scripted by the show's writers.

I just watched the season finale and was pleasantly surprised. The show was well written and genuinely moving, more so than most of the season to me. The interpersonal drama between the team members and their families felt genuine, without the soap opera-ish scripting feel I got from earlier on. Hope the new style continues.

Yep, JJ was clearly one sided in this case, the defendant was disturbing the peace, throwing debris over into his yard (JJ says no proof of this - BS, - for preponderance of evidence if they were obviously thrown over the fence from her yard should be enough). She absolutely should have been cited if not arrested for disturbing the peace with her bull horn. Even JJ warned her about getting arrested but JJ obviously had it in for the plaintiff from the beginning, her questions were hostile and provoking, to say nothing of aggressively rude.

Go for it, I will kick in dollar.

OK, in today's first case the defendant (Miss Danielle) was a real mess. Not only did she not bring ANY evidence of the rent she claimed that she paid, I believe she was either drunk or high. She slurred her words, garbled sentences, mumbled and was very noticeably nodding off, in fact most of the time she was on camera, she actually had her eyes closed. Plaintiff might have been a little rough around the edges but he stated his side clearly, listened to the judge, had evidence and his hallterview (wonder if we need a new term with the remote hearings?) he made one of the neatest, coherent and just decent ("I will not let myself hold any hard feeling towards Miss Danielle" as I remember it) interviews I have seen. Nice to see the occasional litigant that really has his act together, most of them seem to complete clods.

Not just you. The defendant was absolutely in the wrong, but the smirking plaintiff is the neighbor from hell - her explanation that the musics wasn't really loud because even though the music was loud outside the house, you couldn't actually hear the lyrics clearly, just the monstrous thumping of the bass; I have no doubt that the plaintiff's windows were rattling from the music. Spoiled brat with complete contempt for her neighbors.

I have a feeling that grandma and her daughter may not have had a good relationship, and grandma's defense of her son-in-law against her daughter's accusations would aggravate the situation. I suspect that grandma's daughter despised her husband (maybe not from the beginning) and poisoned the grand kids against grandma. The grand kids seemed to me to be pretty antagonistic towards grandma. Whatever else was going on, being a conservator with all of the family frictions would be an awful burden to take on at the age of 20.

I agree, it looked very nice and well done to me. However, I believe that camo goes with everything so maybe my taste is subject to question.

Yeah, JJ screwed the pooch on this one, letting the defendant still get away with defrauding the AC contractor by not paying the deductible which is her responsibility. JJ does not live in the same world as most of us and has no clue how much or normal person works.

Isn't that the actual draw of shows like this? For the record, I watched a couple of episodes before dropping it, but still follow the discussion here which is (in my mind) more entertaining than the show, plus I don't feel like I need a shower after reading the posts here.

Same here, but I am not going to miss this show very much. I liked it early on as a decently done shoot-em-up, but it devolved into SEAL Team 90210.

Yep. I am officially a grumpy old man (have the membership card and everything) but that guy was just a cheap chiseling flaming jerk.

I think you are giving her too much credit. I think she just combines ignorance, arrogance and stupidity.

I agree. I would much rather listen to them discuss the cases and their (sometimes differing) perspectives from a judge's point of view. A lot of the questions are on the level of "what is your favorite color?".

Today’s Mercedes lug nut case was a complete mess. None of the judges seem to have ever changed a tire, knew nothing about torque, think that a manual torque wrench is an exotic magical piece of equipment. Starting with the defendant’s side, my experience has been that even when I specify the torque for my lug nuts ( 75 foot-pounds) they usually over-tighten them, mostly because the “techs” use an air wrench which actually has a torque setting but they never use it, just leave it set to the maximum torque. After I get home I always loosen all of the lug nuts and re-torque them with a simple torque wrench. The defendant made a good point (that worked against him in my opinion) that over-torquing the lug nuts (or lug bolts depending on the car) does damage the threads and can cause the bolts or studs to eventually shear off. If you hear the metal squawk when you loosen the nuts, they were over torqued. I think it is most likely that the defendant’s guy in the shop did over tighten them and this is especially bad if they use an impact wrench to tighten them. You may want an impact to loosen over tightened nuts, but it usually just takes a two or three foot breaker bar which every shop has. The plaintiff also was shaky on a lot of items also. I don’t believe that the shop on the trip that said they couldn’t free up the nuts (see above about a breaker bar). She was overly dramatic (hallterview: we were stuck in a place in the mountains where people get murdered), and also looking to double dip for expenses that she had already been reimbursed for. Finally, Corriero remains a complete idiot. After the defendant clearly explained how over tightening the lug nuts/bolts damages the threaded parts of the wheel mounting (which worked against his case in my mind), Corriero blathered about being able to see the thread damage (which is completely out of sight) by looking at the tire. I miss Backman (spelling?); he at least had some real world knowledge.

Yeah, XP is dated but there are still a lot of XP machines around, it was perhaps the most reliable Windows OS over an extended period. It is obsolete and no longer supported by Microsoft, no new updates or security patches. Beyond that, many apps running on it are also no longer supported when running on XP (including some browsers) so they do not get updated security patches and updates which leaves them potentially vulnerable. The flip side of that is that some apps running on XP either will not run on Win 10 or require expensive upgrades to migrate. Since the defendant was using his computers for his business, he really should have moved up to Win 10 years ago just to stay up to date on security issues. For the record, I keep one XP and one Win 10 box running, and Win 10 seems to have dropped some of XP's networking features that were easy to use, making full network integration a pain in the neck to maintain. P.S. I had fun also running a Linux box for years but finally retired it about a decade ago.

Oh my goodness, I usually wait until the show is over before posting, but the defendant in the first case is so baked that he literally cannot put together a complete coherent sentence, just random strings of "like", "you know", "um", etc. This guy tries to argue that he is fine and perfectly OK, and falls flat on his face (figuratively, but he was literally nodding out during the case). Someone needs to use this guy in an anti-drug PSA. Corriero hasn't chimed in yet so we will see if he finds some flimsy basis to sympathize with the defendant. I don't think I have ever seen a litigant on any of the court shows as messed up as this jerk.

Yep, my first Geo Tracker (before they became Chevys) had the same issue, after you put in to 4 wheel drive, to take it out you had to disengage it and back up slowly until you heard it disengage with a distinct "clunk". This was highlighted in large bold print in the owners manual. It also warned that driving it in 4W mode on paved surfaces or at high speed would damage the drive train.

I picked up on this the first time around, my ancient (1995) washer couldn't put out that much water in month.

Nope, they will shoplift it. Not that they will learn anything from it.

Agree, especially since Cody always asked "heard?" and got confirmation from the chefs. When the other chefs were deciding on who to put up, he pointed this out and they all agreed that this is what happened, but someone (Declan I think) said that they heard but he thinks that Cody was not loud enough as a leader should be.

Definitely, he completely threw out the law to try to rule on his feelings of sympathy for the plaintiff (mostly based on her sob story about things that had nothing to do with the car). How he ever passed the bar exam is a mystery to me unless he has just given up to his feelings since he is no longer a real judge.