DoctorK

I also liked the way that the defendant objected to and got all huffy about the judge saying the checks "bounced". JJ pushed back on that very nicely.

I believe this, I had a Geo Tracker (before they became Chevys) like that and the owners manual in big bold print warned about this. The plaintiff was really a jerk, didn't listen to the judge's explanation, deserved nothing and got it.

Mostly boring case, and the plaintiff was a classic dumb bunny who got just what she deserved - nothing. However, of all of the god-awful eyelashes we have seen, this one was new to me Did she really have rhinestones glued to her eyelashes?

That worthless POS planned this from the beginning. Get on the lease then don't pay any rent but use the Covid crap to squat for months. They planned this scam from the beginning to screw the property owner and get a free place to squat for free. OK, so you are so broke that you can't feed your kids without food stamps then lets pop out another baby so you can suck up benefits that the rest of us pay for. He was a complete grifting piece of crap. This piece of garbage knows that when the "Covid - can't evict" runs out he has no visible assets so the the property owner can never collect for the unpaid rent.

If I followed this case correctly, all of the sons (including the defendant) got one car for free as a gift. The defendant wanted to lease a nicer car (a dubious decision) and asked Mom to help him out with the down payment. I was on Mom's side, defendant was playing the "you're not fair, you gave my brother more than me", an argument that grates on my nerves. If Mom fronted another sibling for a down payment for a leased car (after the free one from Mom) I missed it. Was the other son's lease down payment not a loan?

Yeah, it looked to me that the brace was not put on correctly (lopsided) and he was moving his head around in the brace, specifically moving his chin up and down along the inside of the chin support like he had an itch. I have no expertise on this, but was on a jury once where the plaintiff (who was allegedly injured due to the actions of a cab driver) was wheelchair bound and had to be wheeled around by her very young daughter throughout the trial. After lunch several of us jurors were standing in the hallway, waiting until the last minute to go into the jury room and we saw the plaintiff running up and down the hallway pushing her daughter in the wheelchair, both of them whooping and hollering. Turns out the insurance company folded and settled (for one million dollars as I recall, big money back then) during the lunch break. That left me a bit on the cynical side.

Okay, today we had a video game creator who bought a house (for the first time) who believed that the seller concealed a plumbing problem. Having had a few problems on my first (and only) home purchase, I was expecting to feel a lot of sympathy for him. Then he opened his mouth and came across as a complete fool who repeatedly talked over the judge and clearly wasn't listening to her. I was surprised that JJ spent as much time as she did trying to explain to him why he was wrong. I am still scratching my head over his statement that the plumbing backed up when his washing machine put 212 gallons of water down the drain. Really, exactly 212 gallons? My full sized washing machine with the high water level set uses about 15 gallons for wash cycle, same for rinse cycle, so I am flabbergasted at the 212 gallon figure. I sort of wish JJ had listened to the plumber who may have been able to explain what actually happened. The plaintiff was such an annoying and indignant dweeb that I really couldn't feel very sorry for him.

A lot of litigants on court shows make wonder if the hotels the shows Put them in do not provide complimentary shampoo.

And you put your feet down through the floorboards to stop?

He was one of the worst pet owners I have seen. He is a bogus breeder (UKC? papers, WTF). Leaves new puppies out in the cold with no shelter, after two of the litter die, doesn't take the rest to a vet? Animal cruelty folks should be all over his ass. And that arrogant, ignorant piece of crap folds his arms and maintalns that he takes great care of the puppies? Complete piece of garbage breeder.

Yep. yep again.

They thought it was a little sketchy but based upon your sterling character on this blog, they let it go.

Sadly, this is not the first time I have seen this "logic" claimed by litigants on a court show.

That nasty woman repeatedly said she never got them, until the defendant showed documentation, suddenly, it turned into "I don't remember getting them". She was a blatant liar, and I wonder how many of her vendors were told the same "all of my other vendors refunded everything" story, and how many actually refunded all of her money.

I noticed that, all three said the defendent "reversed" his truck into plaintiff's car. Sounded rehearsed to me, other than cops and accident reconstructers, who says that, don't most people just "backed into"?

Same here. I am roughly in her age bracket but I really can't cut her slack, if you can't do the job, it is time to retire. It happened to me, I hated to be in an office or cubicle but loved being out in the field, but at some point you have to realize that you just can't do it anymore. For me, that was at 60 years old.

True about the 3 minute shortfall (in what we saw) but the defendant was so completely wrong that it didn't really matter.

Everybody has their preferences, sort of like the eternal debate about WKRP, Loni or Bailey? I was always on the Bailey side.

Today's new case - dog tail injury. I was uncomfortable with the result. The groomer struck me as more credible, it was too bad that she didn't bring one of the groomers who filled in the cards from earlier visits, but to a non lawyer, those cards probably looked (incorrectly) like they would be "business records" and admissible. What really struck me was the plaintiff's picture that she said was as soon as she got home from the groomer showed the dogs tail with an injury that did not look like a fresh injury to me, it looked like it was something that had been going on for a while. I am no expert on dog injuries, but I have a fair number of injuries to myself and have seen a lot of fresh injuries. Sadly, a lot of owners ignore pet injuries, hoping they will go away and as the injury gets progressively worse, they start worrying about how much a vet will cost. I am not really convinced either way, but this one felt wrong to me.

I didn't get a good look at the installation but what the plaintiff complained about was that the window stuck out an inch into the room. To me it looked like it did stick out but there was no drywall on the framing which would cover 1/2 inch, and an interior window frame on top of the drywall would add another 1/2 inch so I didn't see anything wrong with the installation, but I may have missed some of the details. The plaintiff did not impress me, I think she came across as someone who argues and whines to get the price down, then plays on peoples' sympathy to get work as cheaply as possible. It apparently worked when the church agreed to do a bunch of work for her for free. As always, YMMV.

That is what I felt on the "car girl" case today on PC (I suspect that most of us who watch one show, also watch the other). She did the cute little innocent girl routine from the beginning while the defendant came across as distinctly not much of a gentleman. However by the end, JM completely and clearly explained why everything bad that happened was completely the fault of the plaintiff.

I am not sure if I am glad that I missed this or sorry that that I didn't see a record breaking dive into terrible rotten (and smelly) litigants.

Except of course for the defendant's shirt. My eyes still hurt.

I agree with the final result but if JJ thinks that 20% is a big tip on a bar tab, she doesn't spend a lot of time in bars.

I didn't think of that, good point. This happens on antique firearms, the patent date may be decades before the manufacture date.