DoctorK

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.

I disliked the plaintiff. OK, he is freaked out by the fatal accident and decides that he is too frightened to continue flight training. Then go ahead and bail out (no pun intended) from the program but he is still bound by the refund policies that he signed up for. There was some discussion from the defendant that sounded like the plaintiff was getting spotty on the training course before the crash happened (that went by pretty fast) and the plaintiff may have already decided to drop out earlier. The plaintiff lost me for sure when he said that he didn't "remember" signing the contract. Learning to fly is potentially dangerous (so is learning to drive a car). I don't think the plaintiff would work out as a pilot; how would he handle an emergency when he was piloting? Get on his phone and sue somebody? I agree with our friend crazy that Juarez doesn't understand high cost, potentially dangerous, specialized and highly demanding training processes.

I generally agree with you on this but the number of cases we see of predominantly black women with these kinds of problems are common. I have seen several articles about class action suits against the sellers of many of the chemical products (like straighteners) based on the long term damage these products apparently cause over time, and the worst of the chemicals are marketed to black women (not that other women can not be deeply invested in their hair). I am grateful that I am an old guy and men mostly don't seem to be as invested in their hair as women. For the record, my receding hair line and my bald spot are approaching each other. I am not thrilled about this, but it just isn't that important to me. One of the few advantages of getting old is that it is easier to not give a damn about minor things that might have been important to me when I was younger.

Just to clarify a bit (unless I completely garbled the testimony), Starla spray painted graffitti on the RV that insulted and defamed the defendant and a towing company, at least one of which one of the judges called defamatory. Defendant then painted over Starla's graffitti to cover it so that as the hunk of junk was going to be towed away everybody in the area wouldn't see the insulting (and possibly slanderous) messages, causing embarrassment and perhaps reputation damage. What I just don't get is how all of these people (all of whom are intensely unlikable) have put so much time and energy into the totally useless RV that I doubt that even a scrap yard would take unless the litigants paid the yard to take it. The plaintiff's nebulous plan to convert the RV into a food truck is ridiculous daydreaming. For that matter, the cost of all the spray paint used by all of the litigants was probably more than the value of the RV. This group was so pitiful that I think I absolutely have to watch part two tomorrow. As AngelaHunter might say, these people make me appreciate the friends that I have and my lack of any living relatives.

I was relieved that the judges used some common sense in this case (even Corriero!). I disliked the plaintiff but I hated her boyfriend with his histrionic miming about the terrible efforts he had put out to open the windows without breaking the blinds, what a jerk. I was also annoyed with the plaintiff pooh-poohing the problems with having chickens in the back yard - I have been on poultry farms on occasion and anything more than maybe one or two pet chickens makes a nasty smelly mess. Also, letting the weeds grow as high as the plaintiffs complained about? Why did they let those weeds grow? Did the lease say the the defendant was responsible for lawn maintenance? The plaintiffs were jerks, so obviously that not even Corriero sided with them.

Great write up Crazy. I was impressed that all three judges saw through the defendant's dishonest testimony; I am sure the Eugene coached her in what lies to tell. Defendants were clearly bald faced liars in claiming that they had filed a claim with the plaintiff's insurance company (in addition to lying about almost everything else). I wish the judges had yelled at the defendants over driving their car with no insurance instead of just letting that slide by. P.S. I got a chuckle out of Corriero asking the new driver a right-of-way question and the plaintiff got it wrong.

This asshole was the worst behaving litigant I have ever seen on a court show. From the beginning he came to court dressed as a pimp, not a lawyer. He also acted, based on his abnormally fast talking and his unwillingness to control his temper, as if he was high on cocaine or speed, and had absolutely no self control. I agree with the judge who told the plaintiff that the judge didn't believe that he actually was a practicing attorney. I can't imagine him in a courtroom without him spending more time in jail on contempt charges than in court as a lawyer. I don't watch Hot Bench as regularly as I used to but I am glad I saw this episode.

Yeah, Corriero remains predominantly a complete asshole. The befuddled plaintiff and her dim grand daughter had everything given to them complete with the colorful "sign here" and other stickers showing them exactly what they needed to do but grandma apparently didn't even open the package and did none of the things she was required to do. Corriero bent over so far backward to try to screw the defendant that his head was up one of his orifices. Once in a great while he makes sense but the vast majority of the time he is an embarrassment to the judiciary.

Thanks for digging those up. I looked up what I said back then and don't have much to add. However, this time I did notice the legally blind plaintiff certainly had no problem turning to stare at the defendants. I understand that "legally blind" covers a wide range vision limitations (a friend of mine years back was legally blind according to his state and the state also gave him a driver's license so I understand this). What I didn't remember about this case was how absolutely creepy and slimy the plaintiff was. He didn't help himself in court by bringing his witness who thinks that dressing up as a freakazoid helps his case. I did enjoy when JM jumped on the plaintiff for his unbelievably delusional level of his own authority and power. JM yelled at him about his "hubris" and I can guarantee that the plaintiff doesn't know what that word means. One of the cases where I really feel like I need a shower. As an old geezer myself, I enjoy cases like this. Nothing like two old fools giving us geezers a bad name. By the way, "Get Off My Lawn!".

Oh boy, what a mess. I despised both litigants, but I think the defendant was more despicable than the plaintiff. Also, much trashier. This was a TV Court Show version of a godawful reality show called "Neighborhood Wars" which documents wretched trashy people doing the kind of crap like the litigants in this case. No, I don't (actually can't) watch that show, I have just seen it while channel surfing.

I agree, but I suspect that Nigel is actually stupid (an observation, not an insult) and this is not his fault, some people are smart, some are not and unlike ignorance (which is really curable) and not to say that smart people are necessarily any better as people, employees, etc. I suspect that Nigel has friends and family who help him along with things that challenge him but he went out on his own without really being able to handle the transaction. It sounded to me like the defendant really did work to help out someone with catastrophically bad credit, but he could have been a little more aware that his customer might be in over his head in buying a car. However, that is not the defendant's responsibility and if he had tried to slow the plaintiff down to think about this more, he would be open to major criticism. The saddest part was the hallterview where the plaintiff didn't seem to understand that he had a warranty that could be repair the car problems, leaving him with an operable car (admittedly with a horrible loan interest rate). Sad, I don't think anyone was really the "bad guy" in this case.

Thanks for the heads up on this. I just watched the case and I don't remember seeing this before, it was worth watching. The defendant was pretty obnoxious the first time he was thrown out, but he was brought back in and immediately started to shout out his dislike for JM before she even said anything to him. The ejection was (disappointingly) not hands-on, and it was interesting that the bailiff started to escort him out but JM called for security also. The security guy actually inserted himself between the bailiff and the defendant, but only put his hand lightly on the defendant's back and escorted him out, and seemed to be trying to cool things off. Not as juicy as I hoped for.

I usually go along with Juarez but in this case she was full of crap. The defendant took the money she knew was not hers and spent it and got all of the benefit of it. The plaintiff lost the money. Even if the defendant was not involved in the fraud (which I absolutely think she was in on the fraud), that still doesn't remove her responsibility to return stolen money. In cases where someone unknowingly buys a stolen item (e.g., a firearm) , the item goes back to the legitimate owner, no compensation to the buyer unless he can sue the person he bought it from. This defendant is much worse, took the money she knew wasn't hers (a blessing from God? Really? Give me a break) and spent it for her own benefit; if she had to return the stolen money she would not have been out a penny by returning the stolen money that she knew wasn't hers. P.S. Correrio is acting like a judge again instead of a bleeding heart wimp. If he is getting testosterone therapy as I have speculated before, it seems to be working. Good for him, lets see if it lasts.

This is was a sad case, but I think JM was a bit into marriage counselor role. The obvious problem here was the son, a pathetic man-child soy-boy who can't or won't act like an adult and expects Daddy clean up his messes. Mom is clearly an enabler (any bets on whether Mommy tied son's tie for him but didn't cinch it up properly?). Dad may have been clumsy in his effort to get sonny to act responsibly, but he has to share some of the blame for his son being the way he is. Naturally, Dad and Mom are divorcing, what a mess. I really hope Sonny gets away from both parents for a few years so he can grow up.

Well done recap from our friend Crazy on today's new case. I will only add my personal reaction to the defendant. She fits every stereotype of a contentious, irresponsible, nasty, dishonest hag. Hag not for appearance but her behavior, and I left out old because I suspect that she has been like that her whole life (also, I am probably fairly close to her age). She openly admitted that even after being ordered to have her dog on a leash if it is in the unfenced front yard, but she "didn't have a leash" so she ignored this. She claims later that she eventually got a leash (and a collar? maybe yes, maybe no). In the hallterview she adamantly insisted that this was the one and only time her dog ever was loose in the front yard without a leash even though she admitted to the contrary several times. She is an absolutely horrible neighbor to live close to. Thank goodness I have never had to deal with a neighbor that bad.

That was funny and not as mind numbingly stupid as one losing litigant who was adamant that he was going to take his case to the Supreme Court. Today's litigant will write to the Governor and get a response that "they will look into this important issue and get back to her". Then they will file her letter in the voluminous folders of "go away and don't bother us with this nonsense" letters.

Well, that was a bit of hyperbole. True, it wasn't a "scratch" as the defendant kept saying, it was a significant cut but not life threatening (I believe only because the defendant was trying but wasn't competent enough to do serious damage). I enjoyed JJ getting pissed off at the defendant who is totally disconnected from reality and is classic batshit crazy. Plaintiff is lucky he got away from her.

Good summary Crazy, and I completely agree with the above. I recorded this earlier and just watched it. I hated the plaintiff. She abused the dog (how can you not notice that the dog lost about half of his weight while you had him?) and clearly has no capability or willingness to take care of dogs, let alone breed them. One thing I noticed when the plaintiff showed the video of the dog being aggressive, she and the dogs were in a small yard with a little scooter and other indications that little kids play there, not a good idea. This woman couldn't keep a pet rock alive and healthy, let alone a living animal. She is a horrible person and I hope somebody forwards this case to her local animal welfare organizations. What a total piece of garbage!

I am glad I finally got a chance to see what I missed the first time around, it was fantastic. I don't remember any of the TV judges throwing anyone out as harshly as JM did to that slimy twerp. One thing I didn't understand at all was in the hallterview, the slimeball said something about having pineapples and bagels and cream cheese in his car. What was that all about?

Good for you! The windshield on my 7 year old car has a lot of little chips and I want to replace it, about $500. When can I expect your check? OK if it is on a closed account, no problem. Don't worry, I'll pay you back when I get my tax refund next year. Thank you so very much.